The increasingly skewed, factually shoddy coverage of Israel is a striking indicator of the wider shift in the paper’s tenor and content.
By Andrea Levin, The Algemeiner
Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker is making changes at the venerable publication, pushing more “life-style stories with snappy headlines” in the news section — and she’s reportedly downsized, if not gutted, the standards desk that handles corrections. She’s eliminated an editing team “responsible for prepublication review of sensitive stories.”’
The new direction, as described in a National Review story, resonates alarmingly for many readers of the newspaper who have long counted on its fact-focused, serious coverage, but find something very different today. For many, the increasingly skewed, factually shoddy coverage of Israel is a striking indicator of the wider shift in the paper’s tenor and content.
Reporter Omar Abdel-Baqui could be the poster child for this new Wall Street Journal.
One “sensitive” story of his with far too little fact-checking and editorial oversight was a June 15 account focused on the disappointments of young Gen Z Palestinians. Much of the bias of the piece stems from relentless omission of critical information. The online title, “Gen Z Palestinians See Door Slamming Shut on Coexistence with Israel,” perfectly conveys the deceptions and distortions that follow.
What the article fails to mention is that many Palestinians are themselves the door-slammers. There’s no hint in the story that the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly refused an independent and peaceful state next to the Jewish State of Israel. There’s no suggestion the melancholy Gen Z Palestinian teens who are cast as buffeted by upheaval and uncertainty should blame their own autocratic leaders for ruining their lives. (The print version was similarly titled: “Gen Z Palestinians Have Little Hope for Peace.”)
Striking photographs accompany the story. A 15-year-old girl fully clothed in black, and wearing a keffiyeh, poses floating on her back in the Persian Gulf, gazing skyward — as if in a fashion spread. A displaced Gazan from a wealthy family, the young woman also appears elsewhere in the online version of the story standing fully clothed in the water, expressionless. This could be Teen Vogue.
Abdel-Baqui recounts various harsh political events that have ostensibly shaped the lives of the young woman and fellow Palestinian teens, but he continuously omits facts key to an accurate understanding of how Palestinians themselves are culpable for their circumstances. Thus Abdel-Baqui writes:
“Though their parents recall an era of hope amid the 1990’s Oslo Accords, the latest breakthrough agreement between the two sides, Palestinians under the age of 25 – who comprise most of the population – say the door to coexistence with Israelis always felt barely ajar. It has been slammed shut since Oct. 7.”
The repetitive door metaphor omits how exactly that “era of hope” and “door to coexistence” surrounding Oslo was blocked.
There is no mention of Palestinian terrorists blowing up Israeli buses, cafes, and religious events in the wake of the 1993 Oslo agreements. The terror attacks began only six months after the September 1993 agreement — in 1994 in Afula, Hadera, and then Tel Aviv. The bloodletting intensified in 1995 and 1996, when gruesome mass bombings occurred in Jerusalem, Ramat Gan, Beit Lid, and elsewhere. All the while, Israel continued attempting to implement Oslo measures aimed at getting to an “end of the conflict” predicated on Yasser Arafat’s false pledge to resolve disagreements peacefully.
Obviously, there’s no suggestion in the article that Gen Z parents were wishing their ruthless, corrupt leaders had been different human beings and accepted Israel’s extended hand. So reference to the parents wistfully recalling an era of Oslo peace only to be let down is an egregious deception characteristic of the entire piece.
In relaying the pain and disappointment of other Gen Z Palestinians, Abdel-Baqui refers to the sealing off of the West Bank after October 7 and how it prevented friendly Palestinian interaction with Israelis, and before that, the building of a “barrier across much of the military-occupied West Bank” because of a “Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada.”
The reporter notes that Israeli “skepticism grew during the Second Intifada when Palestinian militants launched suicide bombings across Israel and deepened after Oct. 7, leading many Israelis to conclude they can’t trust Palestinians.”
Once more, there’s not the slightest hint by the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Second Intifada and the security barrier were results of Palestinian rejection of coexistence and peace. The Gen Z’ers and their families are cast as innocents simply looking for an open door if Israel would only offer one. The formulation is a lie insofar as it overlooks critical facts such as those cited above and many related ones.
Abdel-Baqui could have written a genuinely significant story probing the predicament of young Palestinians betrayed by “leaders” like Yahya Sinwar who, far from promoting their safety and happiness, use them as shields for Hamas gunmen, situating rockets, and tunnel openings in their family homes. As is well known, Hamas fighters themselves hide in tunnels while leaving Palestinian women and children exposed to Israeli targeting of the terrorists and their rocket launchers and other military hardware.
What is it like for teenagers to live in that world?
How do Gen Z Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank feel about a regime that rejects peaceful coexistence and leaders who seize Israeli children, young women, and elderly hostages and torment them, some in underground dungeons? What exactly have they been taught about Jews? Did Abdel-Baqui ask any of them how they felt about the mass rape of young Israeli women on October 7? Have young Palestinians been so indoctrinated in Jew-hatred that rape, murder of children, and hostage-taking are acceptable? That would have been a worthwhile question to probe and report.
Perhaps as well, given the widespread belief that Jews are interlopers in the land of Israel, it would have been worthwhile to probe what Gen Z’ers make of the countless archeological sites and artifacts literally everywhere in the region marking the long and ancient Jewish presence there. They’re told Jews have no history in the land and must be expelled. Wouldn’t these questions have been important and informative for readers?
Instead of fresh insight, Abdel Baqui’s story hewed to immutable touch points of an immutable fable of total Palestinian innocence in the face of Israeli malevolence. Predictably, in the fable, Jewish settlers and settlements are invoked as major elements of Palestinian victimization. Again, the facts are incomplete, distorted, and false, both in the broad suggestion that it is overwhelmingly non-violent Palestinians on the receiving of gratuitous settler violence, but also in factual details of history.
Abdel-Baqui recounts the deplorable killing of Bilal Saleh by settlers in November 2023 in a period shortly after October 7, when fear and anger on the part of Israelis at the unprecedented Hamas atrocities and the jubilation of West Bank Palestinians over the massacre had fueled tensions. That crime is inexcusable — and was treated as such by Israel. But there’s no context provided to explain that the area has been radicalized and militarized, with a massive inflow of arms and the growth of Iranian-supported militias threatening to set off a larger conflict. There’s no mention that most of the Palestinian casualties have been gunmen killed in clashes with Israeli military, or Palestinians killed when shooting, hurling IED’s, stabbing, ramming or otherwise assaulting Israelis. In this tense environment, civilians are sometimes tragically caught in the crossfire.
Nor is there reference to the brutality inflicted on innocent Jews in the West Bank and the mortal dangers they face as in the case, for instance, of the Dee family, a mother and two daughters murdered in April 2023 as they drove in the Jordan Valley to a family gathering. They were shot first from a distance, and when the vehicle crashed, the Palestinian terrorist circled back to shoot them again at close range. There’s no reference to the recent kidnap and murder of a young Israeli shepherd. Such information obviously would offer context to Abdel-Baqui’s one-dimensional fable.
Indicative of the shoddy reporting on settlements, a photo caption asserts that “the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has ballooned since the 1990’s.”
The opposite is true. The large majority of existing settlements were founded in the 1970s and 1980s (a total of 116), with just seven added in the 1990s and another five in the last 24 years up to the recent present when there has been “tentative” recognition of a possible four of five additional settlements. Thus, there are about 133 settlements with nine or ten founded “since the 1990’s.” The intent of the Journal’s claim is seemingly to suggest rampant Jewish settlement expansion — regardless of the facts.
When alerted that the rate of growth in the number of Israeli settlements has not “ballooned since the 1990’s” but rather declined dramatically compared to earlier decades, the Journal corrections editor refused to correct or clarify.
CAMERA noted in communication with the Journal that the reporter was likely conflating the supposed addition of new settlements with population increase within existing ones which has, indeed, occurred, and urged editors to correct the record on the error. The Journal was, however, content to misinform readers, injecting in the private correspondence reference to counting “illegal outposts”– which are not “settlements” and were not referenced in the original problematic photo caption — and citing the partisan claims of Peace Now.
The lesson of the exchange was the striking indifference of the Journal to adhering to professional standards mandating accuracy.
More serious is another uncorrected error Journal editors have chosen to promote in their coverage. The news pages have rhetorically awarded the West Bank to the Palestinians — having decided to refer to the West Bank as “Palestinian land” or “Palestinian territory.” Of course, the land is not Palestinian but rather disputed until, per the Oslo Accords to which the Israelis and Palestinians are signatories, there is a negotiated agreement on the disposition of the territory.
Nevertheless, the Journal is standing by an erroneous statement by Yaroslav Trofimov from December 1, 2023, that Israel “has maintained military occupation over Palestinian territories since 1967.” Indeed, the paper has doubled down, and is now regularly publishing this factually false terminology. as Abdel-Baqui did repeatedly on July 19, 2024
Previously on May 17, 2020, the publication had promptly corrected the same error, noting that “a Page One photo incorrectly referred to those parts of the West Bank as Palestinian territory. Under the Oslo accords, sovereignty over the West Bank is disputed, pending a final peace settlement.” Many other outlets, including the The New York Times, have made similar errors and then set the record straight. The Los Angeles Times just recently corrected the same error
Over the past year, however, and with increasing frequency, possibly coinciding with changes under Emma Tucker, the news pages have declined to address substantive errors that are corrected by other news outlets. Moreover, the tilt of the errors has been markedly in one direction– towards denigrating Israel’s position in the conflict with the Palestinians.
Regarding the false characterization of the entire West Bank as Palestinian, Journal editors have been blunt, telling CAMERA point blank:
“We accept the use of Palestinian territories to refer generally to the West Bank and Gaza.”
CAMERA asked in response: “Given the Journal’s delineating of the West Bank as ‘Palestinian territories’, can you cite … the date and terms of the agreement under the Oslo Accords when the PA and Israel reached a Final Status agreement on the challenging disposition of that territory after Israel’s withdrawal from 40% of the West Bank per Oslo II? What are the territorial lines agreed on under that Final Status Agreement that apply to the remaining 60% of Area C that you designate ‘Palestinian territory’”?
The Journal did not address the questions raised but replied: “The articles are accurate; there aren’t any errors to correct.”
The contempt of Journal news editors for readers and for the norms of ethical journalism in deeming it their prerogative to assign disputed West Bank territory to their preferred party appears to be part of the new regime under Emma Tucker.
Accuracy, impartiality, and accountability — the precious components of honorable journalism on which a public relies to learn about the world and to help shape reasoned response to events — are on the wane in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal.