There was, however, was no humanitarian aid on board the Mavi Marmara. It was a passenger vessel which Israel interdicted while enforcing a legal maritime blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. The violence that ensued came about when the Turkish activists tried to lynch the Israeli soldiers.

This is the second time the Globe made this error in recent weeks. In early April, we secured a Globe amendment to remedy this error.

We are pleased to report that subsequent to receiving our complaint, Globe and Mail editors issued the following correction today, May 22, which states the following:

The National Post, in an editorial published on May 15 entitled “Radio-Canada’s Anti-Israel Bias”, criticized Radio-Canada’s problematic reporting by Middle East journalist Ginette Lamarche and Radio-Canada’s assimilating “political prisoners” to  terrorists. This National Post editorial followed on the heels of Post columnist Barbara Kay’s article entitled “Radio-Canada Shrugs at Repeated Rebukes Over Anti-Israel Bias”. French coverage also included Le Journal de Montréal columnist Lise Ravary’s article “Richard Bain: Political Prisoner?”. The Canadian Jewish News also gave prominent coverage in an article entitled: “Pro-Israel Groups incensed by Radio-Canada’s Mideast reporting”.  All articles can be found appended below.

National Post: Barbara Kay: “Radio-Canada Shrugs at Repeated Rebukes Over Anti-Israel Bias” (May 13, 2013)

Radio-Canada is just not that into Israel. No matter how many complaints are levelled at it for bias in reporting on the Middle East, it doesn’t seem to make an impression that involves meaningful consequences.

On May 8 HonestReporting Canada (HRC), which monitors the media for anti-Israel bias, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) wrote to Radio-Canada, complaining of ombudsman Pierre Tourangeau’s validation of reporter Ginette Lamarche’s multiple references last autumn to “political prisoners” in describing Palestinian criminals held in Israeli jails.

The words “political prisoners,” as we understand them here in the West, suggest that Israel imprisons people for their opinions or political activism.  But unlike anywhere else in the Middle East, freedom of expression and association are protected rights in Israel. Nowhere in the Israeli penal code are opinions or political activities listed as crimes and no one in Israel is ever deprived of their liberty for that reason.

In fact, according to HRC, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails “have committed or planned acts of violence for political purposes.” For example, one of the so-called “political prisoners” Lamarche referred to was the recently diseased (of cancer) Maisara Abu Hamiyeh, who was serving a life term since his attempted bombing of a café in Israel in 2002.

Lamarche was rebuked for commenting on the length of Hamiyeh’s sentence, but failing to report the nature of the crime he had been sentenced for. But in defending Lamarche’s use of the term “political prisoners” in general to describe criminals and terrorists, Radio-Canada pointed out that Israel admits to practising “administrative detention,” which Radio-Canada seems to believe is illegal or immoral and therefore justifies the use of the term.

But, as HRC Quebec director Michelle Whiteman pointed out in the letter, administrative detention is a perfectly legal practice – and common to other western countries – “pursuant to articles 78 and 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.”

Illegal immigrants, for one example, may be detained under this rubric in many countries, and for another here in Canada suspicion of terror can lead to administrative detention. Neither of these categories warrants the description of political prisoner. Whiteman says “Radio-Canada thus absurdly argues that the instrument of humanitarian law which permits the practise of administrative detention is evidence of its violation. This is nonsensical.”

The ombudsman’s willed commingling of actual criminals with garden-variety protesters and activists sets a bad precedent

If HRC accusations are valid, Radio-Canada seems to be taking its definitions from politically-driven, anti-Israel organizations that base their definitions on political determinations with no legal standing. And it is understandable that terrorist elements in the Palestinian Authority consider its would-be and actual terrorists political prisoners, because they glorify violence in political causes. But their standards should not be Radio-Canada’s standards.

The ombudsman’s willed commingling of actual criminals with garden-variety protesters and activists sets a bad precedent. Misdirection in reporting and language corruption as a means of mainstreaming anti-Israel sentiment — Israel as an “apartheid” nation being the most notable and successfully peddled myth — are the strategies of anti-Zionists bent on demonizing and delegitimating Israel. Rabid anti-Zionists will welcome the ombudsman’s review with delight.

Will HRC’s and CIJA’s clearly justified grievance have any effect? One can be forgiven for skepticism when one considers that Lamarche has been rebuked ten times in the past two years.

The CBC used to show a great deal of bias against Israel in its reportage, but eventually could not ignore the barrage of criticism its skewed reportage attracted. Eventually Neil Macdonald, Lamarche’s soul brother at the CBC, was withdrawn from the Middle East.

Even cats only have nine lives. Radio-Canada should take Lamarche off the Middle East file and do some honest soul-searching about its journalistic integrity where Israel is concerned. But so far Radio-Canada has not even bothered to respond to this complaint.

Le Journal de Montreal: Lise Ravary: “Richard Bain, prisonnier politique?” (May 14, 2013)

Qu’est-ce qui arrive à une journaliste de Radio-Canada blâmée dix fois en deux ans pour non-respect des Normes et pratiques journalistiques de la société d’État ?

La réponse ? Rien du tout. On la laisse tranquillement terminer son mandat de correspondante dans une superbe ville ultra branchée en bord de mer.

Pas de la petite bière, ce qu’on lui reproche. L’ombudsman de Radio-Canada, un journaliste de renom, parle d’apparence de partialité, d’inexactitudes et d’un cas démontré de fausse citation. Il invite même la direction de l’information de Radio-Canada à avoir une discussion de fond avec la journaliste sur ses ‘jugements et constats’. Ouch.

Je ne sais pas si la rencontre a eu lieu mais la correspondante en question vient de plonger la société d’État à nouveau dans l’embarras.

Qu’est-ce qu’un prisonnier politique ?

En 2011, cette journaliste a utilisé le terme ‘prisonnier politique’ pour décrire un individu à la tête d’un groupe terroriste reconnu, incarcéré après avoir été trouvé coupable  d’avoir commandité l’assassinat d’un ministre au sein d’un gouvernement démocratique. Nouveau blâme de l’ombudsman. Mais qu’à cela ne tienne, en 2012 et 2013, elle récidive. À quatre reprises. C’est dans ce contexte qu’elle a récolté son dixième blâme.

Dans tous les cas, il s’agissait de prisonniers qui avaient été jugés de crimes reconnus par la communauté internationale et dans les règles de droit les plus strictes. Avec possibilité d’appel devant une cour suprême. Pas de prisonniers ‘oubliés’, comme ceux qui croupissent à Guantanamo Bay.

Personne ne s’entend sur une définition universelle de ‘prisonnier politique’ mais les organismes sérieux, dont le Conseil de l’Europe, excluent d’office les individus trouvés coupables de crimes terroristes. C’était le cas aussi à Radio-Canada, jusqu’à maintenant.

Une recherche dans les archives de la société d’État démontre que l’expression ‘prisonnier politique’ n’a jamais été utilisée dans le contexte d’actes terroristes au cours des cinq dernières années, sauf par cette journaliste.

Mais en rendant sa dernière décision, l’ombudsman, qui, jusqu’à ce jour a fait preuve de courage et de diligence dans ce dossier, a écrit une chose fort étrange : ‘J’estime donc qu’on peut raisonnablement (mes italiques) employer le vocable ‘prisonnier politique’ pour décrire des détenus qui ont commis ou planifié des actes violents à des fins politiques.’

Si on se réfère à cette absurde estimation, Richard Bain serait un prisonnier politique. Paul Rose était un prisonnier politique. Le terroriste international Carlos est un prisonnier politique. Jahar Tsarnaev de Boston est un prisonnier politique. Sans oublier les présumés instigateurs du complot pour faire exploser un train de VIA Rail.

Le biais gauchiste et souverainiste de Radio-Canada dans sa couverture de l’actualité québécoise et canadienne n’est plus à démontrer. Fort heureusement, il existe plusieurs autres sources d’information pour équilibrer le discours. Mais quand il s’agit d’expliquer en français, et dans une perspective canadienne, ce qui se passe ailleurs dans le monde, les sources se raréfient. Seule Radio-Canada a les moyens, et le mandat, de maintenir un coûteux réseau de correspondants à l’étranger.

Nous méritons mieux, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit de faire la lumière sur un des conflits les plus complexes et névralgiques de l’histoire contemporaine.

Qui est donc cette journaliste ?

La journaliste dont il est question depuis le début se nomme Ginette Lamarche. Entrée à Radio-Canada en 1976, elle couvre le Moyen-Orient à partir de son bureau de Tel Aviv. Il s’agit donc d’une journaliste d’expérience. Comment alors expliquer qu’elle a été l’objet de si nombreux blâmes de la part de son propre employeur depuis son arrivée en Israël en 2011 ? Pour paraphraser la juge Charbonneau, madame Lamarche est-elle incompétente ou biaisée ?

Si Radio-Canada proposait une couverture ouvertement pro Israël du conflit tragique avec les Palestiniens, cela serait tout aussi exécrable. Mais ça n’arrivera jamais. Les erreurs se font toujours dans le même sens à Radio-Canada. Jamais on ne détectera la moindre molécule d’un biais fédéraliste, ou pro-États-Unis, ou anti-carrés rouges, ou la moindre trace de climato-scepticisme chez le diffuseur national. C’est comme ça.

Mais en validant l’expression ‘prisonnier politique’ pour décrire des terroristes emprisonnés après avoir été jugés de manière rigoureuse et impartiale dans un état de droit, Radio-Canada dépasse les bornes.

On nous avait pourtant laissé entendre que l’arrivée d’un nouveau patron à l’information, Michel Cormier, allait mettre un terme à ces folies. J’ai l’impression que les biais idéologiques radio-canadiens sont coulés dans le béton des fondations de la tour du boulevard René-Lévesque.

Rien de nouveau

Écrire cette chronique m’a ramenée 15 ans en arrière, au matin du 50e anniversaire de la création de l’État d’Israël, quand j’ai entendu un journaliste de Radio-Canada dire en ondes : ‘il y a 50 ans aujourd’hui, les Juifs envahissaient la Palestine.’ Je vais vous épargner la version longue du cours d’histoire, mais les seules armées qui ont envahi la Palestine en 1948 portaient les couleurs de l’Égypte, de la Syrie, de l’Iraq et de la Jordanie. C’est dans tous les livres d’histoire. Même ceux du Hamas et du Hezbollah..

L’année précédente, la Ligue arabe et le haut comité arabe pour la Palestine avaient rejeté en bloc la résolution 181 de l’ONU qui prévoyait la création d’un État arabe, d’un État juif et d’une entité internationale pour Jérusalem sur le territoire appelé Palestine, occupé par les Britanniques depuis 1920. (Avant, le proprio, c’était la Turquie). Les 650 000 Juifs vivant en Palestine avaient, eux, accepté le plan de partition adopté par la majorité des membres des Nations-Unies.

En 1948, les Britanniques ont quitté la Palestine, la création d’Israël a été proclamée, les pays arabes avoisinants ont envahi le nouvel État. Et, contre toute attente, Israël a survécu. Ça se résume à cela, sauf à Radio-Canada.

Quand j’ai téléphoné à la salle des nouvelles pour souligner l’erreur, on m’a répondu que j’avais droit à ma version des faits.

Cela s’est passé en 1998. Manifestement, les choses n’ont pas beaucoup changé depuis. Non seulement, des journalistes se donnent le droit de tripoter les faits dans la foulée de l’idéologie anti-Israël à la mode au Québec, mais en 2013, Radio-Canada se permet aussi de réécrire le droit international avec une définition farfelue et surtout dangereuse de ‘prisonnier politique.’

Canadian Jewish News: Janice Arnold: “Pro-Israel Groups Incensed by Radio-Canada’s Mideast Reporting” (May 13, 2013)

A letter by Morgan Duchesney of Ottawa stated the following: “John Baird claims that Canada is longer a “world referee” and that we “take the side of freedom.” Actually, he and Harper take the side of wealthy Canadian Zionists and evangelical Christian zealots who pour gold into Conservative party coffers.”

In our correspondance with the Star, we relayed that baseless allegations claiming that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper “take the side of wealthy Canadian Zionists… who pour gold into Conservative party coffers.” does not add to constructive debate and to the marketplace of ideas. Instead, this comment reinforced anti-Semitic tropes of all Jews being wealthy and it stigmatized the Jewish people of Canada with this malevolent stereotype. Would the Star publish a letter claiming Harper and Baird takes the sides of wealthy Canadian blacks, gays, Latinos, environmentalists, women’s groups, etc. who “pour gold into Conservative party coffers”? We think not.

Claiming that Canada’s government sides with Canadian Zionists because they are wealthy crossed the line. As such, we asked the Star to remove this reference from the letter that it had posted to its website. 

We are pleased to report and happy to commend the Toronto Star for agreeing to remove this anti-Semitic statement. For contrast purposes, see the following before and after abstracts:

Before: “John Baird claims that Canada is longer a “world referee” and that we “take the side of freedom.” Actually, he and Harper take the side of wealthy Canadian Zionists and evangelical Christian zealots who pour gold into Conservative party coffers.” 

After: “John Baird claims that Canada is longer a “world referee” and that we “take the side of freedom.” Actually, he and Harper take the side of Canadian Zionists and evangelical Christian zealots who support Conservative party coffers.”

Our op-ed can be viewed here or immediately below:

Maybe Israel isn’t behind the Middle East’s despair

By Michelle Whiteman | May 15, 2013 8:54 pm | | 0 Comments 

It is understandably a source of frustration for those who seek a peaceful resolution to the decades-old Israeli-Arab conflict when little evidence of progress is forthcoming. Indeed, talks have been frozen for more than two years with, as Paul Adams says in his recent column, little sign of hope. But the cause of peace is neither advanced through frustration alone nor by assumptions which are unsupported by facts.

On what evidence does Mr. Adams claim that the Israeli government is uninterested in negotiations and that Mahmood Abbas is “deeply committed to a negotiated peace”? On what basis does he assume that BDS was started out of “despair”? On what basis does he claim that Jerusalem and the West Bank resemble “apartheid”?

Although the reader is asked to accept the wisdom of the accusations, Mr. Adams does not himself state his case.

The BDS campaign was born of intolerance of a Jewish presence in the Middle East by the Arab League in 1945, a full three years before the State of Israel was created, and 22 years before Israel came to control the territories in 1967 through a defensive war. While BDS is commonly and disingenuously touted as a measure of “despair”, the truth is much more inconvenient. As the anti-Israel activist Normal Finkelstein recently admitted, the point of the BDS campaign is the dismantling of Israel, not a just resolution between Israelis and Palestinians. Evidently, such a clearly stated objective would win few friends among the morally inclined, and thus the BDS mission’s hateful campaign is neatly couched in words such as “just resolution” and “despair”.

Indeed, like the BDS campaign, the campaign to tar Israel with the “apartheid” libel is another strategy which operates on obfuscation. What of the practice of slavery in Saudi Arabia? The hanging of gays in Iran? The persecution of Christians in Egypt or the honour killings of women in Gaza where the demand for gender equality is met with a bullet?

Real apartheid is not on the BDS radar. But Arabs who, poll after poll, affirm they would rather live in Israel as a minority than anywhere else in the Middle East as part of the majority? Apartheid! Indeed, it is Arabs living in Israel that understand best that Israel is the only non-apartheid country in the Middle East, where everyone is equal under the law. This libel does not offend only Israelis. It is an affront to all those who would campaign against real apartheid were they not misdirected by a campaign of disinformation that excels in rhetoric because it lacks truth and substance.

Indeed, the campaign to delegitimize Israel is characterized by inversion. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly and repeatedly called for negotiations without preconditions but is, according to Adams, “uninterested in negotiations”. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, on the other hand, is according to Adams, “committed to a negotiated peace” yet refuses to sit at the table without fulfillment of the demands which form the very substance of the negotiations. What about his unequivocal assertion that he would “never recognize the Jewish state”, a central requirement for the resolution of the conflict? Or his assertion that, “if there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it”? Mr. Adams does not say.

It is in this context that Mr. Adams interpreted Foreign Minister John Baird’s coffee in east Jerusalem as a trespass on “occupied Palestinian territory”. Except that Jerusalem was divided in 1949 when the Jordanian army invaded and illegally occupied the Eastern part of Jerusalem, liquidated the centuries’-old Jewish community and used Jewish tombstones to pave its roads. Jerusalem has never been a Palestinian capital but it is the ancient capital of the Jewish people who have a historic connection going back more than 3,000 years.

Far from “occupied Pal territory”, the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles signed in 1993 leaves open the status of Jerusalem, which is claimed by both Israelis and the Palestinians and Israel affirms its legal right to Israel and the territories by virtue of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Declaration of 1923, the League of Nations instrument, Article 80 of the UN Charter and the laws of conflict. Those who claim trespass of “occupied Palestinian territory” are putting the cart well before the horse.

The just resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict is impeded by a decades-old intolerance of the Jewish presence in the Middle East. Because rejecting the right to self-determination is unpalatable to a western mindset, this intolerance is disguised through inversions. It is a conflict that is passed off as territorial, but is existential. It masquerades as a concern for “human rights” but ignores true injustice. It heaps selective opprobrium on Israel alone for an impasse in peace talks but overlooks official Palestinian Authority glorification of terrorism and jihad which makes peace anathema.

In meeting an Israeli minister for coffee in East Jerusalem, Baird rejected the Palestinian fiction that Jews have no history or rights in Jerusalem. He showed that being an honest broker means understanding that one cannot abide the systematic denial of the history and rights of the Jewish people. In so doing, our foreign minister upheld the Canadian values of choosing principle over political expediency and tolerance over intolerance.

Michelle Whiteman is the Quebec regional director of Honest Reporting Canada, an organization which monitors media coverage of the Middle East.

“Pigs running hog wild: “This may seem like a ludicrous pitch for a doomsday blockbuster … but the fact is, wild pigs have overrun the planet,” says ModernFarmer.com…They’ve become a fixture on the West Bank, after Israeli settlers, some say, released boars to destroy Palestinian croplands.”

In reality, there is no evidence confirming that Israeli settlers intentionally released (or trained) wild boards to destroy Palestinian croplands. There are only Palestinian allegations which have not been substantiated. In 2009, Israeli authorities claimed they made efforts to cull the wild animals. As Arutz Sheva reported at the time: “The claims of malicious Israeli control of the wild animals have continued this year despite Israel’s efforts to cull the wild boar population in areas under its control. The Nature and Parks Authority has worked to control the boars since May of this year, due to damage caused by boars in the Haifa district. Israel is unable to cull the boar population in Arab villages in Samaria, as those areas are entirely under PA control.” Meanwhile, Palestinian news agency Ma’an notes that: “Jerusalem says that while Israel claims it cannot control the wild boar population in the area, and the purposeful release of pigs cannot be confirmed”.

We are of the positiion (and have communicated this directly to the Globe) that news organizations must take responsibility for the consequences of its decision to publish a person’s statement and claims in the context that was choosen, as was in this case with indirect attribution of Palestinian allegations. When the Globe presents a person’s statements in support of their reporting of facts, editors must ensure that those statements have been diligently checked and that the claims are grounded in facts on matters of public interest.

Is it accurate that Palestinians have made this allegation? Yes, they have made this allegation, just as Egyptians have claimed that the Israeli Mossad planted sharks in the Sinai to sabotage Egyptian tourism, while the Saudi’s have claimed Israel used vultures for spying.  But is there any evidence to substantiate the allegation that “Israeli settlers… released boars to destroy Palestinian croplands.” No. Did the Globe provide context or an Israeli rebuttal (as per above) to this allegation, regrettably no.

As such, we asked the Globe to issue a clarification to explain the Israeli rebuttal to this allegation. Additionally, we asked that this brief be amended online to account for the Israeli defense of these charges.

Responding to our complaint, Globe and Mail Public Editor Sylvia Stead turned down our request saying the Globe didn’t make this statement, it was a statement attributed to modernfarmer.com who in turn had linked to a report by an organization called Peace x Peace. In so doing, the Globe set a very dangerous precedent by cementing its journalist’s ability to pull a quote from any publication which gave platform to unsubstantiated allegations without context, evidence, and rebuttal.

Would the Globe publish a serious allegation from a random blog (credibility unknown) quoting unnamed sources and without providing evidence claiming that “… some say, (insert name of high ranking government official) committed rape and had an extra-marital affair while serving in office”?

The Globe would surely be recipients of a libel lawsuit. Would the Globe ignore the veracity of the matter by trying to pass the buck to the blog arguing that it wasn’t us, it was “a statement from another publication.”?

The Globe should have acknowledged its journalist’s failure to point out that Israel strenuously denies this unfounded allegation saying Israel cannot control the wild boar population in the area as the PA has jurisdiction over the whole area.

Sadly, the Globe opted to go hog wild by indicting Israeli settlers with claims which have not been substantiated.

Two of Mr. King’s handbooks, “The Gifts of Israel” and “Mideast Deception” are already available on the HRC website. The Gifts of Israel — lists the exceptional contributions in medicine, science and technology—being made by the tiny state of Israel. Mideast Deception — Exposes the dishonesty behind the campaign of outright lies being circulated worldwide in an effort to destroy the only democracy in the Middle East. The Makers of the Modern World—soon to be available on the HRC website– chronicles the extraordinary and disproportionately huge role of Jews in the shaping of our 21st century world.

Global News Montreal covered the event and you can read a transcript below or watch Global’s news report by clicking here or on the following image:

Global Anchor: “A Veteran journalist and historian Joe King has come out with a series of handbooks that deal with the Jews and Israel. Today, there was a launch held for the publication. Yale Professor Charles Small who is an authority on anti-Semitism and Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney were two of the speakers at the event. The launch was held in the city council chambers of Cote St. Luc. The trio of booklets makeup a mini reference library.”

Joe King: “Mideast Deception answers a whole collection of lies aimed at destroying the only democracy in the entire Middle East, which is Israel. Makers of the Modern World describes the Jewish contribution to human progress, which is enormous and the third one, the Gifts of Israel, are in the specific contributions that the tiny state of Israel has made to the modern world.”

Pro-Israel groups incensed by Radio-Canada’s Mideast reporting

Janice Arnold, Staff Reporter, Monday, May 13, 2013

MONTREAL — Two pro-Israel groups have sent a strongly worded joint letter to Radio Canada complaining about its Middle East correspondent’s use of the term “political prisoners” to describe terrorists held in Israeli jails.

HonestReporting Canada (HRC), which says it speaks on behalf of 30,000 members, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) wrote on May 8 to the French-language public broadcaster. It follows the ombudsman’s decision which rebuked reporter Ginette Lamarche, but validated her reference to “political prisoners.”

The groups tell Michel Cormier, Radio-Canada’s head of news and information, that it is “imperative” that reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict avoid words that “mislead, lend an ‘appearance of bias’ or give the impression of shaping the news rather than reporting it.”

“Loaded” words like “apartheid” or “political prisoners” play into the hands of those who seek to undermine Israel’s standing in the international community, they say.

“When the media fails to acknowledge its use of highly politicized sources, or indulges in politicized rhetoric, it leaves the realm of journalism and enters the world of political activism, wittingly or unwittingly,” the letter reads.

“In concluding that it is ‘reasonable’ to employ the term ‘political prisoner’ to describe prisoners who have committed or planned acts of violence for political purposes, Radio-Canada has crossed this line.”

They had complained to ombudsman Pierre Tourangeau about four instances since last autumn when Lamarche used the term.

“Nowhere in the Israeli penal code are opinions or political activities listed as crimes, and no one in Israel is deprived of liberty for these reasons,” they pointed out.

In defending Lamarche’s language, Radio-Canada largely relied on the definition of political prisoners used by “politically driven, anti-Israel organizations such as Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East,” they contend, rather than on the customary legal understanding.

“Radio-Canada also cited Israel’s use of administrative detention as evidence of Israel’s detention of ‘political prisoners’. Yet, as we pointed out to Radio-Canada, Israel practises administrative detention –like Britain and the United States, for example – pursuant to articles 78 and 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,” said HRC Quebec director Michelle Whiteman.

“Radio-Canada thus absurdly argues that the instrument of humanitarian law which permits the practice of administrative detention is evidence of its violation. This is nonsensical.”

The ombudsman did rap Lamarche for neglecting to mention the nature of the crime committed by one prisoner, Abou Namiyeh, when reporting on the length of his sentence. It was the 10th rebuke the ombudsman has issued against her concerning her Middle East coverage, most of them following complaints by HRC or CIJA.

“If our publicly funded broadcaster would like to accuse Israel of harbouring political prisoners and ally itself with a political agenda, it should furnish evidence of this. It has not discharged its obligation. The continued use of the term, therefore, casts a long shadow of bias on Radio-Canada,” the letter concludes.

The groups had not received a response to their letter at The CJN’s deadline.

HonestReporting Canada is a proud community sponsor of this event presented by the Speakers Action Group and Shaarei Shomayim. We encourage you to attend this important event.

For full details see below, to purchase tickets click here.

Malcolm X once said: “The media’s the most powerful entity on Earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

The Huffington Post recently ran a piece by its Ottawa Bureau Chief Althia Raj headlined “Harper Government’s Palestine Stance At UN Opposed By Many Canadians: Documents” (emphasis added).

The article contends that 365 Canadians wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper between Nov. 29 and Dec. 31, 2012, after the UN vote granted elevated status to “Palestine.” It says the “the overwhelming majority — 300, 82 per cent — were adamantly opposed to the Conservative government’s position.”

It takes some temerity to conclude that, in a country populated with over 35 million people, the 300 individuals who opposed the Conservative government’s position were representative of “many Canadians” on this issue.

As Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has consistently said, Canada bases its positions on principle, not a popularity contest. Irrespective of the views of these 300 Canadians, individuals who were most likely prompted to complain to Harper by various organized anti-Israel lobbying groups, Canada’s decision to oppose the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral gambit was in the best interests of finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, not protracting it.

The PA’s effort stood in flagrant violation of the Oslo accords. As Liberal MP Irwin Cotler observed in the National Post: “… it violates existing Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreements, most notably the Oslo II agreements of September 28th 1995, which state that ‘neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations’ (Article 31).”

Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (then the PLO) pledged to uphold this approach upon signing the Oslo Accords in 1993, with both sides declaring their support for a peaceful resolution to the conflict only through direct negotiations, as per Resolutions 242 and 338. Any efforts on the part of the Palestinian leadership to obtain statehood without negotiating peace are in violation of the Oslo Accords. It is only via direct talks and a comprehensive peace accord between the two parties that the goal of two states for two peoples can be realized.

The UN, which continues to be depicted in the media as an impartial institution dedicated to conflict resolution, provided the platform for Abbas to flout Oslo and to vilify Israel. Indeed, the General Assembly resolution was deferentially cited by the media, without context. Context would reveal that the UN enjoys a well-documented history of anti-Israel bias often exercised through its General Assembly, which is composed of an automatic majority of Islamic conference and non-aligned countries. The UN is obsessed with Israel. Some 20+ anti-Israel resolutions are passed each year with almost none against most other member states, including the world’s most oppressive regimes. As Abba Eban, former Israeli ambassador to the UN once stated, if the UN wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the Earth was flat, and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.

Judging from the enthusiastic endorsement of the international community and the mainstream media for Abbas’s UN bid, one would never know that Abbas violated the Palestinian Authority’s commitments under the Oslo Accords. Also left out of sight and out of mind was how the PA refuses to renounce incitement and terrorism and how it won’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Israel was condemned for protesting the PA’s violation, and Canada judged for standing with Israel. The condemnation of Israel for Abbas’s violation is but one example of the double standards to which Israel has been subjected.

In assessing why the Canadian government was pilloried for opposing the UN bid, one cannot ignore that the continued media misrepresentations of the settlements as being the main obstacle to peace, the media’s endorsement of the reflexively anti-Israel UN, and the media’s failure to place the UN bid in the context of the Palestinian Authority’s history of rejectionism, are but a handful of the reasons Canada was perceived as an irrational actor. A closer look, however, reveals that Canada exercised moral clarity by standing up to moral hypocrisy and double standards. Canada upheld international law and promoted peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Standing up to moral bankruptcy is not a mark of shame on Canada, but of moral leadership.