No Due Diligence: Media Silent on Terror-Supporting Ministers of New PA Cabinet

Media outlets should always report the facts — but also questions about them. Last week, however, the media reported on the formation of a new Palestinian Authority (PA) cabinet, but hadn’t researched the background of its ministers, two of whom have been exposed as avid terror supporters.

Instead, the media painted a flawed picture of the potential reform of the Palestinian Authority by either being uncritical of the new cabinet, or by mentioning challenges it faces that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Background Checks

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) published damning evidence about two new Palestinian ministers on March 31, two days after media had reported on the formation of the new cabinet.

PMW discovered that:

• The new Palestinian Minister for Religious Affairs, Muhammad Mustafa Najem, has said that “Allah turned [the Jews] into apes and pigs,” and called to “afflict the Jews with the worst torment.” He did so in a 2002 sermon aired on official Palestinian Authority television during the Second Intifada, a bloody period during which Palestinians murdered hundreds of Israelis.
• The new Palestinian Minister of Women’s Affairs, Muna Al-Khalili, called one of the deadliest attacks in Israel’s history — the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre in which 37 civilians were killed, including 12 children — a “quality resistance operation.” Her praise was quoted in an official Palestinian Authority daily in 2018.
• Merely three weeks after the deadly Hamas October 7 massacre in southern Israel, Al-Khalili spoke at a conference about emphasizing “the Palestinian people’s right to resist the occupation (i.e., Israel) that has continued for the past 75 years.” She also participated in a demonstration calling for the release of terrorist prisoners.

None of this has been mentioned by mainstream media, which means one of two things:

• Palestinian reporters working for international media outlets have knowingly withheld information they most probably have been aware of; or
• Reporters and editors alike didn’t bother to run in-depth background checks on the new cabinet members.

In any case, it’s bad journalism.

But what’s doubly disturbing is the approach taken by some media reports about the PA.

At worst, these stories have been uncritical of the new cabinet that is meant to lead to a “reformed” PA. At best, they were selectively skeptical about the issues it faces — from corruption to non-democracy — ignoring the PA’s decades-old support for terrorism.

CNN, AFP, and Reuters simply echoed the report of Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency, announcing the new cabinet.

CNN didn’t provide any context, except for quoting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ call to reform the PA, and adding one line at the bottom saying, “it has long been seen as corrupt by US politicians and Palestinians themselves.”

AFP went a bit deeper, mentioning the US message about the potential for a “revitalized” PA. It even counted how many female ministers are included in the new cabinet, and mentioned some members’ hometowns: “the new government is made up of 23 ministers, including three women and six Palestinians from Gaza.”

Reuters declared that Abbas had “appointed the new government in a demonstration of willingness to meet international demands for change in the administration.” The agency did provide five paragraphs of background, but focused on the strained internal Palestinian divisions and the financial woes of the PA.

Nowhere did they mention the PA’s policy of “Pay-for-Slay” — where terrorists and their families are given salaries for life for slaying innocent Israeli women, children, and men — or the anti-Israeli incitement in the PA’s schools.

Selective Skepticism

Some outlets have been more skeptical, but selectively.

The AP’s headline and first few paragraphs — which are what most people bother reading — are in the context of the expected reform of the PA. The wire service even details some background on certain members of the new cabinet, but not on Najem or Al-Khalili.

The AP’s skepticism, which kicks in only in the seventh paragraph, only focuses on issues like the PA’s corruption, non-democracy, and inner divisions.

Again, there is no mention of the PA’s support for terrorism, which is the first thing any reasonable reporter should wonder about in light of October 7 and any talk of its future rule in Gaza.

The same issues plague the reports of NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Terror-supporting ministers and terror-supporting policies aren’t mentioned.

Had it been a new Israeli government, media would have scrutinized every minister with a fine-tooth comb. Reporters would have asked critical questions.

Why is it any different when it comes to reporting on the Palestinian Authority?

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.