Israel’s security barrier is often erroneously and purposely referred to as a “wall” by those who wish to question Israel’s means of self-defense.
In a blatant publicity stunt, Palestinians have knocked a hole in a walled section of the barrier to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Independent was happy to cover the story.
The Independent also promoted a lie:
Israel’s security barrier is not a “430 mile-long wall.” While the structure contains walled sections in some sensitive areas, some 90% of the barrier is a chain-link fence.
Palestinians and anti-Israel activists like to promote the image of a wall or “apartheid wall” as it portrays a far more sinister structure, much like the Berlin Wall, which was created not as a means to protect innocent lives but to subjugate the people behind it. Even the head of Islamic Jihad has acknowledged that the barrier prevents terror.
The Independent has seemingly bought into the deliberately misleading description of a wall. Lazy journalism or anti-Israel activism?
Either way, a complaint has been sent to The Independent demanding a correction. Watch this space.
UPDATE
The “brick wall” isn’t the only error. Check out this paragraph:
Is journalist Lamiat Sabin claiming that the fence around the Gaza Strip is an extension of the one protecting Israel’s eastern flank (which it clearly isn’t)?
And what exactly is an “occupied settlement”? According to The Independent’s logic, that would refer to everything beyond Gaza in Israel proper. Is Sabin suggesting that all of Israel is “occupied” and therefore illegitimate?
UPDATE 2
The Independent has removed the reference to the “430 mile-long brick wall,” replacing it with the more appropriate terminology of “barrier” in the body of the text. The sub-header at the top of the story, however, now reads: “‘The Palestinian wall will fail’, say activists.”
UPDATE 3
In response to a tweet from HonestReporting, Lamiat Sabin sent us the following referring to the “430 mile-long brick wall”, acknowledging her error, which she very swiftly deleted before we could get a screenshot:
@HonestReporting good spot. Well done. How about the rest of it. It is all true isn’t it?
As you can see from the above updates, the rest of it isn’t true either.
UPDATE 4
The Independent has eventually agreed with us and removed the entire “occupied settlements” paragraph, calling it “a confusion” in the piece in an email to HonestReporting.
