Observer slammed for ‘sympathetic interview’ with Palestine Action founder

The Jewish Chronicle states in its own voice, with nothing to back it, that Palestine Action attacked Jewish communal organisations. It describes a court exchange as Ammori's lawyers having refused to condemn an attack, when its own quotes show counsel answering whether the group had condemned it and citing sub judice. It gives the space only to critics of the Observer and leaves out that a lower court had found the ban unlawful, so an MP's description of the appeal as a nonsense challenge goes unanswered.

1. Smears a named person

   Serious

   “which has attacked Jewish communal organisations”

   Why this matters

   In its own voice the JC states that Palestine Action has attacked Jewish communal organisations, placing it first in a list of the group's acts.

   The impression it gives

   A reader believes it is established that Palestine Action targets Jewish community bodies, which makes it an antisemitic group.

   The context

   The article gives no example, date or source for any attack on a Jewish communal organisation. The acts it does detail are the Brize Norton break-in and the Elbit site incident. The JC's own earlier report describes the group's actions as damage to defence facilities.

   How we know

   • The Jewish Chronicle wrote earlier“causing millions of pounds of damage to British defence facilities”Reversing Palestine Action ban ‘would threaten British national security’ (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   The co-founder of the group, which broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged military aircraft and whose activists are accused over an assault on a police officer at an Elbit site, said she was surprised by the ban.

2. Makes a false claim

   Serious

   “lawyers representing Ammori refused to condemn a sledgehammer attack”

   Why this matters

   The JC writes that Ammori's lawyers refused to condemn the attack, turning a factual answer in court into a moral refusal.

   The impression it gives

   A reader believes counsel were asked to condemn the attack and declined to do so.

   The context

   The JC's own quotes show the judge asked whether Palestine Action had condemned the incident, and counsel answered that it had not and that the matter was sub judice. Our audit of the hearing records this as one exchange about whether the assault had been condemned. Nobody in the article asks the lawyers to condemn anything.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“was that condemned by Palestine Action?”
   • Elsewhere in the article“That is sub judice.”
   • Our analysis“all in one exchange about whether the Bristol assault had been condemned”151 challenges for Ammori’s lawyers, nine for the government: one-sided scrutiny at the Supreme Court

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   Asked by the court whether Palestine Action had condemned the assault on Sgt Kate Evans, Ammori's counsel said it had not and that the matter was sub judice.

3. One side gets the space

   Minor

   “was severely criticised”

   Why this matters

   The JC says the interview was severely criticised and then quotes only a Labour MP and the Jewish Leadership Council's general counsel.

   The impression it gives

   A reader believes criticism of the Observer is broad and that no one, including within the Jewish community, sees the interview differently.

   The context

   No one defending the interview or the Observer is quoted. The Observer's own coverage notes a smaller number of Jewish supporters of the group's activities.

   How we know

   • The Observer reported“a smaller number of supporters for whom its activities are a vital response”Huda Ammori: ‘It was beyond our comprehension that Palestine Action could become a terrorist organisation’ (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

4. Leaves out what changes the picture

   Minor

   What is missing

   The article never says that the Divisional Court had found the proscription unlawful before the Court of Appeal reversed it. Without this, a reader takes the Supreme Court appeal as baseless and accepts the MP's description of it as a nonsense challenge.

   How we know

   • Our analysis“The Divisional Court had found the proscription unlawful; the Court of Appeal reversed that result.”151 challenges for Ammori’s lawyers, nine for the government: one-sided scrutiny at the Supreme Court

   Show where it belongs