The Hidden Bias: How Wikipedia’s Editors Shape an Anti-Israel Agenda: Some Examples Re the G [Buzz]word

 <h3>The Hidden Bias: How Wikipedia’s Editors Shape an Anti-Israel Agenda: Some Examples Re the G [Buzz]word</h3> 

<h4>Response to Biased Representation of Martin Shaw on Wikipedia</h4> 

<p>The entry for Martin Shaw on Wikipedia reflects typical bias and a coordinated effort by Israelophobic editors to misrepresent facts about Israel and its history. Here are a few critical issues:</p> 

<h5>1. Misrepresentation of the 1948 Arab Exodus Analysis</h5> 

<p>The claim that Martin Shaw was the first to analyze the 1948 Arab exodus during Israel’s War of Independence is misleading. <strong>Benny Morris</strong>, whose seminal work on the topic was published in his 1999 book <em>Righteous Victims</em>, was widely recognized as one of the foremost scholars to explore the topic in depth. Shaw’s contribution is significant but does not represent a first or original analysis of this historical event.</p> 

<h5>2. Premature Use of the "Genocide" Label</h5> <p>It’s noteworthy that Martin Shaw employed the term "genocide" as early as October 13, 2023, barely a week after the Hamas-led genocidal attacks on Israel. These attacks, which killed over 1,400 Israeli civilians, were immediately followed by Israel’s call for Palestinian civilians to evacuate for their own safety. Labeling Israel’s defensive actions in this context as "genocidal" is not only deeply misleading, but it also disregards the very real threat posed to Israel and its citizens. Israel’s priority is to protect lives, including Palestinian lives, by minimizing casualties wherever possible.</p> 

<h5>3. Shaw’s Sympathies Toward the Anti-Israel BDS Movement in 2016 / Opposed Israel’s right to self-defense in 2014</h5>

<p>Shaw has demonstrated sympathy for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a group that seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel through economic and political pressure. Furthermore, Shaw has been vocal in comparing Israel to groups like Hezbollah, and he has historically opposed Israel’s right to self-defense, even during the 2014 Gaza conflict. This ideological stance needs to be acknowledged in any objective portrayal of Shaw’s position on Israel and its security concerns. <a href="https://honestreporting.com/washington-post-column-pushes-genocide-libel/" target="_blank">Source: Honest Reporting</a>.</p> <h4>4. Misleading Representation of Genocide Accusations</h4> <p>The Wikipedia page on "Genocide Accusations" regarding Israel begins by referencing the 1948 period and immediately introduces Omer Bartov’s views on Gaza 2023-5 war, creating the false impression that Bartov is commenting on the events of 1948. In reality, Bartov publicly rebuked Shaw’s views on the subject in 2010, distancing himself from the narrative Shaw promotes regarding genocide. This distortion of historical events aims to further skew the perception of Israel’s actions during its founding period.</p> 

<h5>5. Confused and Inaccurate Use of Racial Terminology</h5> 

<p>The "Racism" (term) mixing of that Wikipedia entry also contributes to confusion by separating alleged "anti-Arab" racism from "anti-Palestinian" racism, as though Palestinians are somehow distinct from Arabs. (Are Jews living in Mandatory Palestine of a different "Palestinian race" now?) This approach not only ignores the reality of Arab "Palestinian" identity but also misrepresents the racial dynamics of the region. In fact, the real racial and ethnic tensions during the 1947–1948 period were clearly articulated by Arab leaders. Jamal Husseini, then Arab Higher Committee's spokesperson, explicitly explained stated Arabs' resisting - that the establishment of a Jewish state would disrupt the "homogeneity of the Arab race" in the region. This rhetoric, far from the so-called "racism" attributed to Israel, reflects a deeply entrenched ethnic exclusivity and a rejection of Jewish self-determination. <a href="https://sapirjournal.org/israel-at-75/2023/israel-is-antiracist-anti-colonialist-anti-fascist-and-was-from-the-start/" target="_blank">Source: Sapir Journal</a>.</p> 

<h5>6. The Most Distorted Word: "Consensus"</h5> <p>One of the most distorted words in the entire discussion is "consensus." The selective use of the term gives the impression that there is broad agreement on controversial issues, such as the accusation of genocide, when in reality, many scholars, including those with expertise on the region, reject this characterization entirely.</p> 

<h5>7. The Ridiculous Timing of the Page Creation</h5>

<p>Another striking element is the timing of the Wikipedia page, which relates (first) to the 1948 period but was not created until October 12, 2023. This date coincides with the start of the Gaza "genocide" intensified propaganda machine drive, which erupted following Hamas's attacks. The creation of the page seems highly orchestrated, designed to capitalize on current events rather than reflect a neutral historical perspective. As they say: 'nuff said.</p> 

<h5>8. Bias Already in the First Editor’s Choices</h5>

<p>Furthermore, Buidhe, the first editor and creator of the page, introduces the highly controversial figure of Daud Abdullah, the director of the anti-Israel media group MEMO (Middle East Monitor), as a "reliable" source. MEMO has a history of diminishing the Holocaust. (S p llllome examples: Mosul: Continuing the Iraqi Nakba and Holocaust[sic], by Dr Tallha Abdulrazaq, October 20, 2016; On Holocaust Memorial Day, remember too that the Nakba is an indelible part of Israel’s history, by Yvonne Ridley, January 26, 2020;

Who will stop the Gaza Holocaust[sic]? By Muhammad Jamil, October 23, 2023; From Auschwitz[sic] to Gaza’s ‘Humanitarian City’.

Jamal Kanj, July 21, 2025).

Furthermore, MEMO happily promoted a scene by Grzegorz Braun, the fascistic Polish MEP, who publicly disrupted Holocaust Remembrance event by claiming about Gaza so-called "genocide." That very fascistic Polish MEP Grzegorz Braun who doused Hanukkah candles and called Auschwitz 'fake'. This kind of data undermines the credibility of the entry and reaffirms about the agenda driving these edits.</p>