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

Posted on May 11, 2014 by First.One.Through

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 May 9, 2014 by First.One.Through

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.