Monthly Archives: May 2014

BDS and Christian Persecution

Posted on by
1

It is a curious phenomenon that some Christian groups are considering a BDS of Israel.  Israel is one of the only countries in the Middle East: which has seen an increase in its Christian population; where the number of Christian tourists exceeds every other religion; has complete freedom of religion including protecting Christian holy places.

There are over 100 countries that have a terrible record in their treatment of Christians, yet no Christian groups are considering boycotting them.

New York Times coverage of Anti-Semitism Report

Posted on by
5

NYT May 13, 2014: “26 Percent of World’s Adults Are Anti-Semitic, Survey Finds”

1. The NYT quotes the results of the poll on global anti-Semitism that the largest percentage of anti-Semites comes from the West Bank and Gaza; Iraq; Yemen; Algeria; Libya and Tunisia. It then says that “the Middle East results were not particularly surprising, the Anti-Defamation League said that the overall result — more than one in four adults are anti-Semitic — was a major finding.” – implying that the ADL did not find Middle East anti-Semitism to be surprising. In fact, what the ADL did state was “It is very evident that the Middle East conflict matters with regard to anti-Semitism. It just is not clear whether the Middle East conflict is the cause of or the excuse for anti-Semitism” – a very different statement then the ambiguous NYT posting. The NYT could lead a reader to believe that the cause-and-effect is Arabs hate Jews because of Israel, rather than because Arabs hate Jews, they hate Israel, which may be the underlying cause according to Foxman.

2. The NYT article does not mention the Hamas Charter, which is the most anti-Semitic document of a ruling party in the world today, complete with conspiracy theories and calls to kill Jews, which would clearly call out the cause-and-effect.

3. Also notable for its absence was the finding that 70% of anti-Semitic people never even met a Jew, and that Muslims are the most anti-Semitic religious group, with 49% with anti-Semitic views – points covered in other periodicals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/world/26-percent-of-worlds-adults-are-anti-semitic-survey-finds.html?_r=0

Kerry’s “Apartheid” comment and coverage by the New York Times

Posted on by
Reply
NYT April 28, 2014 Said that Kerry took step to apologize for saying Israel could become apartheid state:
1. NYT article starts that Kerry made “an unusual statement Monday evening expressing his support for Israel“. Hey NYT idiots- he often praises Israel. why do you lead with something that makes it sound completely opposite of his feelings and the position of the United States? Oh- because the NYT has those feelings.
2. NYT language of “politically charged phrase he used in a private appearance” makes it sound like Republicans were blowing something out of proportion for a private aside. Did the NYT use similar language that the NBA blew LA Clippers’ Don Sterling’s private comment out of proportion? No- the Times used dozens of quotes from around the league to show that the language was offensive to all

3. The article continues that “Republicans” were critical of the apartheid reference, reiterating the claim that this is totally political. Why not mention Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer who called Kerry’s comment “nonsensical and ridiculous” and Democrat Senator Mark Begich “I am disappointed with Secretary Kerry’s reported remarks”

4. Language that “Mr. Kerry has repeatedly warned that Israel” makes it sound that the apartheid comment is not news, and that Israel just continues to ignore Kerry and reality

5. The phrase “Israel did not negotiate an agreement” makes it sound like it is all up to Israel and the blame only rests with them as opposed to the fact that the PA partner didn’t take any steps towards compromise and doesn’t even have an elected leader
6. Hamas is referred to as a “Islamic militant group” and not a terrorist organization (considered by the US, EU and other countries)
7. J Street is referred to as a “pro peace Jewish organization” and not a left-wing group (a phrase which the NYT only reserves for “right-wing” groups). They are quoted as a defender of Kerry to make it sound that Jews in favor of peace also are not in favor of calling out Kerry over his apartheid remark
8. In using quotes to show ‘balance’, the NYT did not use quotes from around the country to show disgust with the Kerry remark (other than from Republicans above), but instead only used analyst quotes stating the comment was “unproductive” and “ill timed, ill advised and unwise“- again, leaving the reader to take away that the apartheid comment was appropriate and just being used for political fodder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/world/middleeast/kerry-apologizes-for-remark-that-israel-risks-apartheid.html

Strange difference of opinion on Boko Haram and Hamas in New York Times

Posted on by
5

What do Boko Haram and Hamas have in common? Not the concern of the New York Times.

Compare the NYT editorials of May 6, 2014 on Boko Haram, and of December 28, 2009 on Hamas:
1. Boko Haram is described as a “ruthless Islamist group“, while Hamas is described as “militant Palestinian group“- not ruthless; not driven by religious zeal

2. NYT describes the “horrifying abduction” of Nigerian girls; it simply states that Hamas is responsible for the “barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory” without any negative imagery

3. NYT is disgusted by Nigeria’s “shockingly slow and inept” response to Boko Haram, but NYT says “we fear that Israel’s response“- blaming the victim

4. NYT claims that Boko Haram’s goal “is to destabilize and ultimately overthrow the government.” (which BH does not claim even though the NYT assumes so). Meanwhile, Hamas clearly and publicly declares that its goal is the destruction of lsrael, but NYT fails to mention it

5. NYT correctly describes the violent history of BH with “It is not the first time Boko Haram has attacked“, but fails to mention the history of attacks by Hamas against Israel.

6. NYT wants Nigeria to “contain a virulent insurgency” but prefers to blame BOTH Israel and Hamas for Israel’s situation, ignoring that the terrorist group actively and constantly calls for the complete destruction of the country

Sources:

The New York Times and Richard Falk

Posted on by
3

Ever hear of the name “Richard Falk” in the New York Times? He was the United Nations investigator of human rights in Gaza and the West Bank until last week, when he was replaced by his wife.  The NYT has not covered anything about the man since December 2008 when it penned an article called “U.N. Rights Investigator Expelled by Israel”.

The article goes on to describe how Israel expelled this American professor from Princeton University for what the Israeli government felt was “his hostile position toward Israel”.  It also noted that the Americans and Canadians had “concerns about Mr. Falk’s possible bias”. (Note the word “possible”).

In the last five years, the NYT has not published any further news or comments about this United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur.  Not even this week, when nepotism reined at the U.N., and the council appointed Falk’s wife, Hilal Elver Falk, to replace him.

The US has condemned Falk’s appreciation of 9/11 conspiracy theories and added that Elver’s “biased and inflammatory views [regarding the United States and Israel] run counter to the dispassionate professionalism central to the work of a Special Rapporteur.”  Canada added that Elver’s “public record clearly demonstrates abysmal judgment, as well as associations with fringe groups,”

For five years Falk has made outrageous statements about Israel without a single report by the NYT.  Recently, in December 2013, Falk stated that Israel’s “criminal intention [toward Palestinians] is genocidal.”  The US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki reacted: “We do not support his mandate or his work, which has been one-sided and biased, nor do we believe he should continue to serve as independent UN rapporteur, and we reiterate our calls for him to step down from this role.”  Canada made similar remarks.

In April 2003, after the Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk stated that the attack was justified based on the US’s foreign policy. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon condemned Falk’s comments. No article or report by the NYT.

The NYT would rather not report on these stories and lead you to believe that the UN is an impartial entity upholding peace and brotherhood.  It would rather post headlines that make it sound that Israel is against human rights and free speech.

The NYT’s lack of coverage of the outrageous statements for five years and the recent appointment of his wife to succeed him, while it posts 2-5 articles daily about other UN activities – especially regarding Palestinians – make it complicit in endorsing Falk and Elver and their opinions.