Newsweek has an unfortunate habit of publishing opinion pieces without even the most basic fact checking. A recent editorial by Michael Lynk, a UN Special Rapporteur, professor and rabid anti-Israel activist, is no exception.
Entitled, “Khan Al-Ahmar and Israel’s Creeping Annexation of the West Bank,” this article is so stuffed with untrue statements that it is closer to a work of fiction than a legitimate opinion-editorial.
The author
NGO Monitor and UNWatch have thoroughly documented Lynk’s support for at least one notorious antisemite, unabashed anti-Israel bias, and a laundry list of other ethical violations.
In fact, in this video from 2017, Lynk unashamedly states that he is unaware that his role at the UN allows him to investigate abuse of Palestinians by the Palestinian government or by Hamas, thus confirming that he is not pro-Palestinian at all, but merely anti-Israel.
The political events surrounding the Arab settlement of Khan Al-Ahmar are the subject of legitimate debate within Israel, and Lynk is certainly entitled to his opinions. But op-eds must be based on accurate facts. And here, Lynk fails.
Work of fiction
Just a few examples of Lynk’s misleading or outright misstatements of fact include the following:
The tragic fate of Khan al-Ahmar is part of Israel’s annexationist trend, which has worrying consequences well into the future.
By way of supporting his dubious point, Lynk addresses the most recent (and only) example of Israeli annexation in the West Bank: the eastern portion of Jerusalem, annexed to Israel in 1967. One annexation in 51 years is hardly a “trend.”
The West Bank economy is governed by a single customs union, which benefits the stronger Israeli economy, while leaving the anemic Palestinian economy to wither.
The West Bank economy is controlled by the oppressive and corrupt Palestinian Authority while the much stronger Israeli economy is not. In fact, Palestinians consider corruption in their own government, and the resulting unemployment, to be more significant issues than the topic they refer to as “Israeli occupation.”
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
Why would a purportedly pro-Palestinian activist ignore such an urgent Palestinian problem, even as Palestinians themselves cry for help?
It seems that Lynk, like so many “pro-Palestinian” activists, isn’t actually pro-Palestinian at all. He is merely anti-Israel, even if pursuing this agenda means neglecting Palestinians in need.
Israel is in full military control of ‘Area C’, which makes up 60 percent of the West Bank…the current Israeli leadership intends to keep this land permanently.
Lynk doesn’t provide a source for this assertion and for an obvious reason: there isn’t one.
The current Israeli government has discussed annexing certain limited areas that are populated by Israeli citizens while simultaneously conceding Arab towns to Palestinian government, but there has been no serious discussion of annexing all of area C, much less any attempt to do so.
Lynk also hides from the reader that Israel controls area C by Palestinian agreement as per the Oslo Accords II.
In the six-party coalition that governs Israel, not one party formally supports a two-state solution.
Simply untrue. For example, parties in the current government such as Kulanu and Yisrael Beiteinu formally support the idea of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even as they express concerns about the safety of implementing such a solution until the Palestinian government makes certain critical changes.
In a feeble attempt to “play lawyer,” Lynk inaccurately writes that:
International law strictly prohibits these settlement and annexationist activities . . .
The 1998 Rome Statute regards civilian settlements in occupied territory as a war crime.
In fact, only a grossly incorrect interpretation could produce such a conclusion from Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions, or any other international law . This is simply fiction.
Time and again, Lynk remains dedicated to his primary agenda: not to help Palestinians, but merely to demonize Israel at all costs, even if it means writing objectively untrue “facts.”
All of which begs a critical question: why does Newsweek publish what is essentially a work of fiction, without even the most basic fact checking?
Please share your considered comments with Newsweek at THIS LINK. Don’t forget to include a link to the original article, which you can find HERE.
Featured image: Vector Graphics from Freepik; Lynk via UN Photo;
