Written by Elizabeth Dwoskin, a Nakba denier who has expressed far-right Zionist views, the Post article falsely characterizes and misquotes The Electronic Intifada’s reporting, and attempts to smear us by association with Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists.
On The Electronic Intifada livestream on 24 January, I discussed some of the most egregious lies in Dwoskin’s piece and showed how she relied on the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), which she describes benignly as “a nonprofit tracking disinformation.”
You can watch the segment in the video above.
In fact, NCRI is led by individuals closely tied to various Israel lobby groups with a long history of defaming Palestinians and advocates for their rights as “anti-Semites,” including the Anti-Defamation League.
NCRI co-founder Joel Finkelstein was a research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League and NCRI and the ADL have established a formal “partnership.”
A senior executive of NCRI is the former chief executive of the Community Security Trust, an Israel lobby group which plays a similar role in the UK to that of the ADL in North America.
The group pressured the government to stop Salah entering the UK.
Following this pressure, the British government did detain and try to deport Salah in 2011 when he came to Britain for a speaking tour, a decision that a UK court overturned after agreeing that the quotes attributed to Salah were false.
The founders of NCRI, Joel Finkelstein and Adam Sohn, regularly promote the idea that opposing Israel’s racist state ideology Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism.
In her scurrilous piece, Dwoskin failed to disclose any of these pro-Israel connections, and failed to point to any errors in The Electronic Intifada’s reporting, instead misquoting and distorting our work.
Dwoskin contacted The Electronic Intifada seeking comment for her article in early January. I replied at the time and posted the exchange on Twitter and it quickly went viral.Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté, editors of the The Grayzone, which is also smeared by the Post for its reporting on 7 October, responded to an email from Dwoskin by calling her up during a live broadcast and challenging her on her pro-Israel views. The Grayzone has published its own response to Dwoskin’s article.
Censorship by stealth
What could be the motivation for Dwoskin’s hit piece?
In the segment, I suggest that it is an effort to police and deter reporting about 7 October, by smearing anyone who questions Israel’s official narrative as a Jew hater.
It is also a specific attempt to discredit independent publications including The Electronic Intifada that have reached vast audiences since 7 October with accurate, groundbreaking reporting that mainstream US media refuse to do.
The Washington Post’s attack on The Electronic Intifada indicates the frustration Israel and its cheerleaders in the US media feel because they have been unsuccessful in imposing Israel’s version of events.
With First Amendment protections for free speech still strong in the United States, direct censorship of publications is not an option.
So there has emerged a nexus among governments, think tanks funded by governments and arms manufacturers, and big tech companies aiming to control what we can all say online.
The Washington Post article is therefore likely to be used by Israel lobby groups to pressure big tech firms to suppress the reach of journalists who challenge Israel’s lies, under the banner of fighting supposed “disinformation.”
This, however, will not stop us from doing our work and pursuing the truth.