Why Is the Associated Press Supporting and Praising Someone Who Urged the Murder of Jews?

There’s more than one way to whip up hatred.

For example, someone could stand on a street corner in an Israeli city less than two weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre, and urge the crowd of hundreds to repeat the following:

Hisham’s Gaza will not bow, not to a tank and not to artillery … Gaza, Al Aqsa and Sheikh Jarrah … the nation calls for a struggle … there’s no solution and no solution  … only uprooting the occupation … Raise your voice … Death is preferable to humiliation …

Greetings from Um al-Fahm to the freedom fighters (shahidim) … Greetings from Um al-Fahm to proud Gaza  … Hey, people join [them], join [them] … Our nation is sacrificing its blood  … Hey, join us, our people. [Original in Arabic. Translation from Hebrew to English by CAMERA.]

Someone could also conceal the contents of these words, and falsely portray them as anti-war sentiment, then depict the innocent speaker as unfairly persecuted by a repressive regime, as was done in this news article: “Israel cracks down on Palestinian citizens who speak out against the war in Gaza.”

In the first case — not a hypothetical — Ahmed Khalefa led chants at a demonstration that took place without a police permit in the northern Israeli town of Umm al-Fahm on Oct. 19, 2023, well before Israel’s ground operation in the Gaza Strip even began.

At the gathering — which was broadcast live on Facebook — the Israeli Arab lawyer expressed solidarity with the Hamas terrorists who carried out the atrocities in southern Israel, and urged his fellow citizens to join them.

In the second case — also not a hypothetical — a leading news organization, the Associated Press (which claims a daily global audience of 4 billion), covered up Khalefa’s incitement, recast him as an anti-war protester, and fostered antipathy against a supposedly repressive Israel.

In the telling of Sam McNeil’s Nov. 24, 2024 article, Israel has imposed a “yearlong crackdown against Palestinian citizens who speak out against the war in Gaza.”

McNeil presented Khalefa as the poster child representing “more than 400 Palestinian citizens of Israel who, since the start of the war in Gaza, have been investigated by police for ‘incitement to terrorism’ or ‘incitement to violence,’ according to Adalah, a legal rights group for minorities.”

“Ahmed Khalefa’s life turned upside down after he was charged with inciting terrorism for chanting in solidarity with Gaza at an anti-war protest in October 2023,” intoned McNeil.

The AP journalist repeatedly referred to Israel’s allegedly heavy-handed laws — “Just being charged with incitement to terrorism or identifying with a terrorist group can land a suspect in detention until they’re sentenced, under the terms of a 2016 law” — but never once specified what exactly it was that Khalefa said which resulted in the charges.

Instead, McNeil relied on Khalefa’s characterization — or, rather, whitewash — of the words that landed him in hot water:

[Khalefa] said Israeli prosecutors took issue with slogans that broadly praised resistance and urged Gaza to be strong, but which didn’t mention violence or any militant groups. For that, he said, the government is trying to disbar him, and he faces up to eight years in prison.

Not only did McNeil withhold from readers Khalefa’s actual words, a peculiar oversight for a news organization that insists it works according to the motto of “advancing the power of facts,” but he notably also never bothered to consult with the Israeli jurists who handled the case.

Moreover, the AP neglected to mention that Khalefa’s case was heard in Israel’s High Court, a significant fact that challenges the flimsy narrative in which Israeli authorities “see us more as enemies than as citizens,” as the defendant told McNeil.

In his decision to release Khalefa to house arrest last February, Israeli Supreme Court Justice Ofer Grosskopf ruled (translation by CAMERA):

In times of peace, as well as in times of war, there are statements that are not protected by the freedom of expression, and there are forbidden exhortations which do not fall under the right to protest. From a theoretical standpoint, the line is very clear. Even during wartime, the expression of stances regarding the war is legitimate: one may call for its end; it’s permitted to express support for its continuation. It’s permitted to support a ceasefire arrangement which will bring back the hostages; one may call to continue fighting until Hamas is eradicated. One may express horror at the consequences of war;

It’s permissible to point out the dangers of stopping it before its goals are achieved. These are all positions which are worthy of being heard, which are permitted to express, even when the mortars are noisy and the guns are thundering. In contrast, expressions of support for the enemy and calls for carrying out war crimes are harmful and dangerous, and their use is unacceptable and forbidden. The freedom of expression does not protect, and the freedom to demonstrate does not legitimize, voicing views supporting atrocities carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7, or cheering our enemies’ position, or calling for their victory in the military campaign in Gaza. They do not enable the voicing of support for genocide, or calls for mass expulsion.

He continued:

These are stances forbidden from public discourse during times of peace, and in times of war they pose a special danger. Indeed, voicing treason and hatred is not a freedom held by anyone; it poses a danger to our ability to coexist during times of peace, and is liable to turn into a viable threat to our very existence in times of war.

The distinction that Justice Grosskopf clearly delineates is completely lost on the AP’s McNeil, who cannot consider anything aside from a double standard. He wrote:

Over the summer, around two dozen anti-war protestors in the port city of Haifa were only allowed to finish three chants before police forcefully scattered the gathering into the night. Yet Jewish Israelis demanding a hostage release deal protest regularly – and the largest drew hundreds of thousands into the streets.

It also seems to have eluded McNeil that Israeli laws banning incitement and glorification of terror organizations resemble those in other Western democracies, including the United Kingdom.

Concerning the specifics of Khalefa’s case, Justice Grosskopf ruled:

Both the magistrate court and the district court determined that the defendant’s statements at the demonstration overstep the boundary between permitted and forbidden. I accept these positions. The statements which the defendant and Jabareen made at the protest, according to their plain meaning, possess expressions of praise for the enemy, and words of backing for their deeds.

The aforementioned Jabareen, as in Muhammad Jabareen, also made an appearance in McNeil’s article, which stated:

“Anyone who tries to speak out about the war will be imprisoned and harassed in his work and education,” said Oumaya Jabareen, whose son was jailed for eight months after an anti-war protest. “People here are all afraid, afraid to say no to this war.”

Far from saying “no to this war,” Jabareen led the crowd in these chants:

Blessings from Um al-Fahm to proud Gaza … resist, resist, resist … do not bargain with your rights … raise, raise, raise the voice … death is preferable to humiliation, Hisham’s Gaza will not bow … not from a tank and not from artillery. Resist, resist, resist … and do not compromise on Gaza. Resist, resist, resist … do not compromise on your lands. There is no other. The shahidim are beloved to God. [Translation from Hebrew to English by CAMERA.]

McNeil also used rhetorical tricks to demonize Israel as an undemocratic oppressor of minorities.

“Israel says its Palestinian citizens enjoy equal rights, including the right to vote, and they are well-represented in many professions,” he wrote, qualifying the easily verifiable reality of strong professional representation and full rights for Israel’s Arab citizens (whom he misleadingly terms “Palestinians”).[Emphasis added.]

In reality, not only can Israeli Arab citizens petition Israel’s High Court, but they may also serve on the bench, as does High Court Justice Khaled Kabub, a Muslim.

On the other hand, McNeil stated as fact the following questionable claim with zero qualification: “However, Palestinians are widely discriminated against in areas like housing and the job market.”

Applying McNeil’s methodology, the conclusion is damning: The Associated Press says it advances the power of facts. However, the wire service widely discriminates against Israel, concealing facts that don’t serve its predetermined anti-Israel narrative.

Tamar Sternthal is the director of CAMERA’s Israel Office.

The post Why Is the Associated Press Supporting and Praising Someone Who Urged the Murder of Jews? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.