From Sourcewatch: "Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Middle_East_Media_Rese...
When it comes down to it, it seems the complaint is that the people Sourcewatch quotes don't like MEMRI's alleged politics, and therefore we should ignore all evidence. IMHO, an ideological echo chamber is bad for the mind.
"The fact is that you gave evidence to Congress claiming that Gallup had found "a large majority of the Arab world" who believed the September 11 attacks "were the work of the United States government itself and/or a Jewish conspiracy". What you said is untrue, and Gallup has confirmed that. I trust you will now apologise to Congress for your false testimony. Finally, in the light of your most recent remarks about me personally, I will make clear now that your nationality and religion do not bother me in the slightest. What does concern me is your political agenda, and the deceitful way you go about promoting it."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/28/israel2
Regarding the 'ideological echo chamber,' I fully concur. MEMRI's board has included such characters as Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton, so the discriminating reader should take that into consideration as well.
When asked who was responsible, they said “America or Israel”[1]
So while MEMRI’s statement is not factually correct (it wasn’t Gallup and they didn’t ask the question of who did 9/11 to everyone), it’s not that far off base.
[1]https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-co...
"not factually correct" is a sickening euphemism for "a lie".
The fact is is that his core statement is true.
I do agree that readers should take into account possible biases of their sources.
Yes, we see how angry they are when the extreme mistreatment of Syrian Sunnis or Chinese Uighur. Ah, wait, they even take part in the former. They do a fine job of making it appear the real issue is religious.
"For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors,"
JCPOA and UNSC 2231 included far more than IAEA inspections, and Iran was NOT abiding by the other issues (ballistic missiles, heavy water, keeping a spare set of nuclear tubes for Arak, etc.).
People mostly repeat IAEA because they are unaware of the other issues, or that the deal had time limits on most inspection issues. Some are aware but prefer to elide it.
"The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal"
Israel isn't threatening to destroy Iran, it's the other way around.
"Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel."
Some Iranian don't[0]. If you want to entrust the safety of the world to that, well...
[0] https://www.memri.org/reports/former-iranian-president-rafsa...