#mistranslation

My dumb ass, not knowing ANY of the lyrics by said artist in the English said “Mon artiste musicale française préférée est La Femme”, which is accurately translated (I think? I mean I wasn’t corrected 🤷‍♂️), and when asked for a song to play in class I said Tatiana. Now, keep in mind. I know NONE of these lyrics in English. I panicked, and it was the first one I could think of.

Imagine the sheer and utter EMBARRASSMENT I felt when my French teacher puts it on, then immediately pauses it and looks at me like this:

Fast forward to after class my teacher steps outside with me and very kindly explains what the song is actually about. Turns out it’s about feeling up a girl’s tits in a New York night club.

Marya: *responds in Spanish*

Ally, OOC "is it that easy?"

“Haaretz deliberately mistranslated its source material to feed an English-speaking audience a lie,” wrote military researcher Andrew Fox of the Henry Jackson Society, slamming the Israeli daily’s June 27 article, “It’s a Killing Field: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid.” He continued: “Then it pieced together half-truths, one-sided quotes, and convenient omissions to create a cartoon villain narrative of Israeli brutality, even when its sources contradicted that story.” 

Misrepresenting Hebrew sources for a foreign audience is a longstanding Haaretz specialty. The more spectacular the lie, the bigger the splash the nominally read Israeli newspaper makes in the international arena.

Recall the highly shocking and equally false 2012 headline, “Survey: Most Israeli Jews support apartheid regime in Israel,” later retracted. Then there was Haaretz‘s 2013 abysmal reporting, including truncated quotes, fueling false international coverage claiming Israel forcibly sterilized Ethiopian women. This fantastical story also crumbled under scrutiny and ended with a whimper in the form of a series of CAMERA-prompted corrections.

Special for English-speakers, Haaretz even routinely mistranslates its own Hebrew coverage. The tradition of introducing into the English edition false information defaming Israel, or erasing reporting on Palestinian or Arab belligerency or other wrongdoing which had appeared in the media outlet’s parallel Hebrew coverage, is so institutionalized and longstanding that CAMERA’s “Haaretz, Lost in Translation” seminal tracker has reached its bar mitzvah year.

Haaretz‘s “Killing Field” story is its coming-of-age “lost in translation” episode. Covering deadly shootings near the four Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid distribution sites, Haaretz advances from tales of apartheid aspirations and sterilizations to Israel’s deliberate killing of hungry, harmless Palestinians lining up for food aid.

In their article, Nir Hasson, Yaniv Kubovich and Bar Peleg rely on numerous anonymous sources to allege that Israeli soldiers have received orders to fire on unarmed civilians who pose no threat to troops.

As of yesterday, the following example of muddled, intentionally misleading reporting and erroneous translation appeared on Haaretz‘s English-language site (screenshot at left June 29):

A senior officer whose name repeatedly comes up in testimonies about the shootings near aid sites is Brigadier General Yehuda Vach, commander of the IDF’s Division 252. Haaretz previously reported how Vach turned the Netzarim corridor into a deadly route, endangered soldiers on the ground, and was suspected of ordering the destruction of a hospital in Gaza without authorization.

The Hebrew version, in contrast, clearly states that the unit of Brig. General Yehuda Vach, about whom Haaretz previously reported as being responsible for the Netzarim corridor becoming a deadly route, does not operate in the area of GHF sites, three of which are located in southern part of the strip, and one of which is in central Gaza.

The Hebrew states (CAMERA’s translation): 

Vach’s division is not the unit which operates in the area. It is responsible for northern Gaza, and therefore Vach’s guidelines apply to looting of the U.N.’s aid truck and not the distribution centers.

Thus, according to the Hebrew edition, Vach doesn’t operate or have authority over the “killing field” in question. His relevance to the story is therefore tangential as opposed to evidential. Why, then, did Haaretz, in both languages, nevertheless misleadingly report that his “name repeatedly comes up in testimonies about the shootings near aid sites”? Why devote multiple paragraphs to the Brigadier General who is not part of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation story, suggesting – despite the facts to the contrary – that the senior figure with a reportedly spotty record is somehow relevant to the GHF incidents? Worse, why does the English edition state the exact opposite as the Hebrew, falsely claiming that Vach, among others, does have responsibility for the GHF areas?

In response to communication from CAMERA, editors implemented a stealth change to the English edition, adding the following bolded text to the article:

Vach’s division is not the only one operating in the area. It’s responsible for northern Gaza, and therefore Vach’s policy is relevant to those who loot UN aid trucks, and not GHF sites. [Emphasis added.]

But mistranslation of the word “yechida” (יחידה) as “only” instead of (military) “unit,” still remains, maintaining an inherent contradiction in the English edition reporting: On the one hand, Vach operates in the area. On the other hand, he doesn’t.

Moreover, the headline of the English edition states as fact a disputed charge: “‘It’s a Killing Field’: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid.” The Hebrew headline, in contrast, qualifies the allegation, properly attributing it to its (anonymous) sources, as opposed to simply stating the disputed accusation as fact: “Combat soldiers testify: IDF is deliberately shooting towards Gazans next to aid centers.” (CAMERA’s translation.)

Haaretz has in the past corrected reporting which had falsely depicted disputed charges stated as fact, with no attribution. Though CAMERA has requested a correction of the headline which states as fact that soldiers were ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans, editors have yet to set the record straight.

In addition, while anonymous sources are usually considered a last resort in journalism, the article is not only riddled with them, but the English edition went one step further, featuring an anonymous quote in the headline (“It’s a Killing Field”).

Furthermore, the Hebrew subheadline makes clear that the officers and soldiers alleged that they received orders to shoot towards (“לעבר”) Gazans (as opposed to “at,” as stated in the English) in order to disperse them (“כדי להרחיקם”). The subheadline in English makes no mention of the intention to disperse the crowds, reinforcing the disputed and shocking notion of a “killing field,” in which soldiers are blindly opening fire with the intention to kill. 

Finally, while the subheadline of the Hebrew edition clearly states that the army has rejected the allegations, the English edition cites only a denial from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yisrael Katz, ignoring the army’s denial, which is the denial which carries more weight. Thus, the Hebrew subheadline rightly notes (CAMERA’s translation):

The IDF spokesman stated following the publication of the article: “There is no IDF directive whatsoever to deliberately shoot civilians.”

Once again, biased news outlets mistranslated one of our ministers and are using it to demonize Israel.

Video:

Headlines:

This is what was actually said:

First journalist: So when you see the convoys pass the fence with kidnapped Israelies, may I ask what is going through your head?

And the Hannibal protocol, is it something that you're even thinking of at that moment?

Second journalist: And just to clarify, Hannibal protocol is the instruction that says to shoot to kill when there's a terrorist vehicle with an Israeli hostage in it

Gallant: I want you to understand that the ability for the minister of defense to give operative orders, in a timetable where everything is happening, is very limited.

Second journalist: was an instruction for Hannibal protocol given?

Gallant: I think that in a tactical manner, in some places it was given and in others it wasn’t, and that's an issue.

I like it when Google lens completely mistranslates the wan