Tag Archives: New York Times

A Review of the The New York Times Anti-Israel Bias

Posted on by
20

The New York Times touts itself as “a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.” The paper went so far as to publish a piece by “the Public Editor” after the 2014 War from Gaza called “The Conflict and the Coverage.” It described the paper’s desire to provide more context and provide LESS SYMMETRY going forward in response to complaints about its coverage of the war. Presumably the idea of being “evenhanded” while providing “less symmetry” meant that the Times would just call it as it sees it.

Since that time, in story after story, the Times has imparted its biased opinions as facts to build upon its conclusion that Israel is a racist colonial occupier of Palestinian land. Here is a breakdown with some select articles.

Regarding Israel

On the land:

Zionism is evil:

  • The very basis of Zionism is a violent displacement of the native Arabs. Steven Erlanger wrote an article on February 7, 2016 that stated explicitly that Zionism was a brutal ideology designed to displace the indigenous people.
  • Any Jew living east of the Green Line is illegal and there is no legal or historical basis for any Jewish claim. This is a common refrain from the Times, but for deep color, read the large cover story from March 12, 2015 by Jodi Rudoren and Jeremy Ashkenaz. It was one of the largest single stories about Israel every published, going from the cover page with large color picture onto a two-page spread. In all of that ink, you’d struggle to find anything about the international laws of 1920 and 1922 that specifically encouraged Jews to move throughout Palestine (including the area now commonly called the “West Bank”) and prohibited any person to be excluded from living anywhere because of their religion.

Israelis are right-wing racists:

  • The Israeli government is headed by right-wing fanatics. Consider the two November 15, 2018 articles by David Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner. Both repeated over and again how the Israeli government is the most right-wing ever. An editorial by Thomas Friedman on May 25, 2016 said that Israel is “controlled by Jewish extremists.”
  • Israeli Jews are racist. David Halbfinger wrote an article on December 1, 2018 that said simply “racism is so commonplace in Israeli society,” making the entire people biased, not just the government.
  • The only Jews that live in Judea and Samaria are Messianic war-mongers. Roger Cohen has dozens of op-eds where he bad-mouths the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But on December 17, 2015, he penned an opinion that labelled all “settlers” as radical fanatics. The mother, the school teacher, the nurse, the lawyer. All caught up by Messianic fever.
  • Israel is not progressive. The December 31, 2017 article by Laura Boushnak and Laura Boshnaq claimed that Lebanon was the only place in the Middle East that was welcoming the LGBT community, completely ignoring Israel.
  • Israelis exaggerate the threat of terrorism. The May 21, 2016 article by Dia Hadid and Majd al Waheidi described how Palestinian Arabs in Gaza were scared about tunnels dug by Hamas since Israel might respond forcefully. Jodi Rudoren’s July 29, 2014 article made a joke of Israelis’ concern about the tunnels – almost an excuse to pound Gaza. An article on March 24, 2016 made the Israeli concern about computer hackers taking over Israeli infrastructure seem like a fabricated excuse to arrest Arabs, but when the US arrested Iranian hackers the next day for threats on US infrastructure, the Times implied that it was entirely warranted.

Israeli leaders deserve no honor:

  • Israeli leaders are not respected. On October 1, 2016, while most papers paid homage to the Israeli leader Shimon Peres as they covered his funeral, the New York Times opted to post a picture of a grimacing Mahmoud Abbas on the front page.

The Palestinian Arabs

The manner in which the Palestinian Arabs are treated is in sharp contrast.

Palestinians are victims:

  • The Palestinian “Nakba” was like the Holocaust of Jews. The disgraceful imagery that Arabs losing a civil war over land in a war they initiated as being comparable to the slaughter of 6 million Jews is vile in every manner, and commonplace in the Times. Consider Roger Cohen’s July 15, 2014 opinion piece where he directly compared the “Nakba” and the Holocaust, or Nicolas Kristof August 25, 2016 opinion piece in which he said that Anne Frank is a Syrian girl today.
  • Palestinians are brutalized by Israel; Jews are not victims. The split in coverage is horrible. Consider the front page on July 7, 2014 which had a large color picture of an American Arab teenager who was beaten up in a riot in Israel, to a story on November 20, 2015 when an American Jewish teenager was killed for simply riding in a car. The article had no picture for Ezra Schwartz, and the article didn’t even describe him as American until the tenth paragraph. Similarly, over two weeks in June/July 2015, the Times would only show pictures of Palestinian victims with captions of their names and that the killers were Israeli soldiers, but no pictures or captions would be posted for any of the Israelis killed.
  • Palestinians are victims, even when killed during terrorist attacks. There were several stories in October 2015 of Palestinian Arabs stabbing Israelis with knifes, attacking them with cleavers and running them over with cars. But in each instance, the Times posted pictures of the Palestinian Arabs wounded or killed, seemingly victims of Israeli actions rather than defensive reactions.

Palestinians are moderate but resort to violence because they are desperate with their situation and angry with how they’re treated by Israel.

  • The Palestinian leadership is moderate. The same November 15, 2018 articles mentioned above that called the Israeli government right-wing 15 times, chose to call the Palestinian Authority “moderate.” A January 14, 2018 article whitewashed Mahmoud Abbas’ antisemitic violent tirade the day before, and claimed that Abbas stood for non-violence.
  • The Palestinian Arabs are desperate and resort to violence. A December 31, 2014 editorial led that the Palestinians are so desperate that they may be willing to accept anything, or go to war. On June 5, 2018, the Times wrote an article which claimed that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated because of his support of Israel which treated the Palestinians badly, rather than Palestinians desire to eradicate Israel. On May 22, 2018, an editorial by Thomas Friedman said that Palestinians were angry about losing homes to Jews who had lost homes in Germany, making the Palestinians the victim and ignoring Jewish history and basic rights to live in Israel.
  • Palestinians only hope for peace, not the destruction of Israel. This is a constant refrain for the Times. An example can be found in the June 2, 2015 article which described the Gazans’ “hope” that governments around the world would rebuild the neighborhoods destroyed in the 2014 war, never outlining that the neighborhood was the opening of the fanatical funnel of tunnels that entered Israel. On February 28, 2016, Steven Erlanger referred to a convicted terrorist as a potential future Noble Peace Prize winner. Perhaps not a surprise, when the day before on February 27, 2016, the Times described a Palestinian terrorist group simply as “leftist.” Is terrorism against Israel a progressive ideal?

Hamas is not an antisemitic terrorist group, but simply an Islamic militant resistance group against occupation:

  • There are no Palestinian Arab terrorists. Even though the United States, the European Union and many other countries label Hamas and various other Palestinian Arab groups “terrorists,” the Times is loathe to do so, even while it freely labels other groups like the P.K.K., ISIS and others as such. Review a range of articles from June and July 2015 which just called Hamas a “militant group.” The story is the same for individual terrorists, such as when a Palestinian Arab killed an American citizen, the Times wrote a headline on March 8, 2016 that would lead a reader to believe that an Israeli killed the American.
  • Never mention the antisemitic Hamas Charter. The battles between Israel and Hamas have been going on since the organization was founded in 1988. The Times writes about Hamas every month, but never describes the group’s foundation document which quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel. Instead the Times pretends that Hamas is not devoted to destroying Israel and killing Jews, such as the November 19, 2012 editorial in which it wrote that Hamas “is so consumed with hatred for Israel that it has repeatedly resorted to violence.”Not DEDICATED to violence, but RESORTED to violence according to the Times.

There is no Muslim anti-Semitism:

  • Palestinian Arabs are not motivated by antisemitism; that’s just a by-product of being persecuted by Israel. The Anti-Defamation League conducted an extensive analysis of antisemitism around the world. It found that the Palestinian Arabs were the most antisemitic, with almost every single person – 93 percent – harboring antisemitic views. The May 13, 2014 article by Rick Gladstone about the study did not highlight the Palestinians’ Jew hatred, but instead noted that “the Middle east results were not surprising,” whitewashing an underlying cause of the entire conflict.
  • Muslims kill Jews in Europe because of class issues, not religion. Consider the March 27, 2018 article about various Muslims attacking and killing Jews. The paper refused to expressly state the Islamic background of the murderers in each case.
  • Jews were not expelled from Muslim and Arab countries according to The Times. The October 20, 2016 by Ruth Margalit wrote that over 850,000 Jews simply immigrated from countries where they had lived for centuries, not making even a passing comment that their lives were made impossible by the antisemitic government edicts.

Palestinians and Muslim countries are not radical, but progressive:

  • Muslim countries are not radical or violent, only Israel is. The New York Times runs a travel business in which it touts the “beguiling” nature of regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morocco, but describes Israel as a volatile region.
  • Palestinian women fair well under their leadership; the only issue for women’s right is from Israel. The March 8, 2018 article about international women’s day showed pictures of women around the world protesting their situation – except in Gaza where girls and women were happy. On October 12, 2012, Jodi Rudoren wrote an article about honor killings in Palestinian territories, blaming the situation on Israel, not the misogynistic Palestinian society.

The bias in coverage of Israel and Palestinians is seen in almost every article.

This prevalent bias leads to INVERSIONS of cause-and-effect in the stories the paper writes about the conflict.

Consider the story about Jews buying apartments in eastern Jerusalem from Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Authority considers the act high treason and punishable by death. As such, Israelis must be very careful in handling such matters to prevent the slaughter of Palestinian by the PA. But the Times INVERTED that narrative in an October 16, 2014 article by Isabel Kershner. Kershner made the Jews out to be sneaky profiteers doing shadowy illegal transactions, not trying to consummate a legal transaction while protecting the counter-party.

Overall, the framework for the conflict has been recast:

  • It is no longer an “Arab-Israel” Conflict, but a “Palestinian-Israeli” Conflict
  • There aren’t 50+ Arab and Muslim countries hostile to Israel, including 30 countries that refuse to acknowledge the basic existence of Israel, but dozens of United Nations resolutions (sponsored by those some countries) that condemn Israeli actions
  • It is no longer 1.8 billion Muslims against 6 million Jews in Israel, but 5 million Palestinian “refugees” against the government and army of Israel
  • Jews no longer have history, heritage, international and human rights to live throughout the land of Israel, but were granted a sliver of land as a reaction to the Holocaust

The alt-left has called for a new paradigm for viewing society, and The New York Times has embraced that credo: the weaker party is always right and can never be cast as racist, antisemitic or as the aggressor. The underdog’s situation is the fault of an external oppressor, and any action such downtrodden group takes to improve their status is simply “punching up” to establish equality. Their goals are noble and to be encouraged.

The Arab world took note and inserted the Palestinian “refugees” into this miasma of intersectionality, effectively convincing the alt-left to recast the antisemitic terrorists as the victims of colonialist forces. The New York Times is only too willing to help. You see, “evenhanded” to the alt-left progressives means pulling up with one hand and beating up with the other.

Related First.One.Through articles:

In Inversion, New York Times Admits “The Truth is Hard to Find”

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Covering Racism

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

BDS is a Movement by Radical Islamists and Far-Left Progressives to Block Your Freedoms

Posted on by
9

In countries that embrace both capitalism and democracy, there is an appreciation of the ability to buy any legal product from any vendor within the country and from an allied country. That freedom is under assault by radical Islamists and far-left progressives.

Full Personal Freedom to Buy/
Limits on Selling Preferences

The ability to purchase legal goods from a company in good standing from an ally is natural. It is up to the individual – say an American citizen – to choose to buy an item to his liking – perhaps Droste Chocolate from the Netherlands or an Audi automobile from Germany. People are not compelled to purchase the item either because of a preference regarding the item (maybe they don’t like the taste of Droste Chocolate) or because they have an issue with the government (not buying anything German because of the Holocaust.) The legal structure of the society enables each person to make a buying decision on their own.

However, such rights are not so absolute when it comes to SELLING something. As examples, a person cannot decide to only sell their home to a white person any more than a store owner can prevent a gay person from buying a soda. Anti-discrimination laws specifically disallow such actions. A business or individual can decide not to sell something, but once a decision is made to sell a product, everyone must have equal access to acquire the item.

BDS

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel portrays itself as a human rights effort to pressure Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority. It is not. It is an anti-Semitic movement designed to eradicate Zionism launched by Radical Islamists that has begun to co-opt far left-wing Progressives (RIAPs, Radical Islamists and Progressives).

The RIAPs often compare Israel to the apartheid regime in South Africa in their quest for BDS, which has many flaws:

  1. There are two parties in this conflict. As opposed to the apartheid regime in South Africa which limited freedoms for its own citizens, the Israel-Arab conflict is between distinct parties.
  2. The United Nations and dozens of Arab and Muslim countries back the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority has tremendous support from many countries around the world, including the United Nations itself. The blacks in South Africa were an isolated minority trying to fight for rights against its own government.
  3. Israel has attempted to forge a peace agreement. For several decades, the Israeli government has tried to reach a peace agreement with the Arabs in the region. The dynamic here is not one of desire to reach a settlement, but a gap between the positions of the Israelis and PA.
  4. The Israeli government has a good track record. The Israelis gave up land for peace with Egypt and were able to reach a peace agreement with Jordan. Israel gave control of Gaza and sections of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. For their part, the PA has not even been able to reach any settlements with rival parties.

Which party really needs pressure / help in getting to a peace deal?


Protesters hold signs calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)
in Washington, D.C., August 2, 2014.
(photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

More to the point being addressed here, BDS prevents ordinary people from buying the Israeli products they desire.

As noted above, any individual can make a personal choice to avoid buying products made in Israel or the Israeli territories in Judea and Samaria. But establishing a boycott infringes on the rights of other people who very much want to purchase the products and services from the leading liberal democracy in the Middle East and North Africa.

If progressives really cared about human rights, shouldn’t they have lambasted the Obama Administration for not only handing $150 billion to Iran, a country that hangs gays by cranes in the middle of Tehran and executes minors? Shouldn’t the progressives have been further incensed with Obama for promising to import Iranian rugs, caviar and pistachios (see page 67 of the JCPOA).

How can progressives approve of the importation of goods from a country that executes gays and minors, but seek to boycott a country which has only reached a peaceful settlement with some of its Arab neighbors?

It is because the RIAPs believe that Israel is a completely illegal Zionist Project. Iran and other regressive Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia may be vile, but they are viewed by the extremist groups as legitimate. Meanwhile, they contend that Israel is illegal at its core and should cease to exist.

Consider the platform in Black Lives Matter “Invest – Divest” which declared America’s support for Israel, its “Global War on Terror,” and AFRICOM as simply tools of colonialism under the mask of combating terror. Under the BLM worldview, Israel is an extension of the racist American colonial project, putting Jews in homes where they do not belong, stealing from people of color.

These extremists do not simply have their own disturbing anti-Semitic worldview in which Jews are uniquely denied their history, heritage and basic human rights, but want to force every person to comply with their anti-Semitic agenda. They seek to rob every American of their choice of doing business with Israel.

BDS is the toxic combination of stealing individual freedom and forcing people to participate in antisemitism. Organizations that participate in BDS should be fined in the same manner as those that have policies that discriminate against any group.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Three Camps of Ethnic Cleansing in the BDS Movement

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

BDS and Christian Persecution

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

When Power Talks the Truth

Denying Entry and Citizenship

Ending Apartheid in Jerusalem

The Personalisation of War

Iran’s New Favorite Jewish Scholars

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The New York Times Knows It’s Israeli Right from It’s Palestinian Moderates

Posted on by
7

The New York Times has seemingly more journalists covering Israel than it has covering all of South America. There are some days, that the Times has so many people covering Israel, that it actually gives two reporters the opportunity to write about the exact same story, even from the same perspective.

Consider November 15, 2018, when the Times devoted a full page to describe the resignation of Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The Times posted two articles with the same story and viewpoint, one by David Halbfinger and the other by Isabel Kershner.


New York Times November 15, 2018 page A8

Both articles reflected the Times’ view that Israel’s government is unrepentantly right-wing and hawkish.

Halbfinger’s article was called “A Hawk Storms Offstage. Is This His Finale?”  He described Lieberman and the Likud party as “right-wing,” “unremittingly hawkish” and “hard line” five times. In the three times that Halbfinger referred to the Palestinian group Hamas, he included no adjectives. He did not mention that it is a designated terrorist group by the United States; he did not refer to the Hamas Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel; and he did not even refer to the group as “militant.”

Kershner’s article covered the same ground as Halbfinger and was called “Israeli Defense Minister Quits Over Cease-Fire.” In ten different spots in the article – seemingly to hammer the point home – Kershner defined Lieberman, his party and the government of Israel as “hard-line,” “hawkish,” “right-wing,” “ultra-nationalist,” and “bellicose.” He described the current coalition government as “the most right-wing and religious government Israel has known.”

Kershner mentioned Hamas five times. Only ONCE did he state that it was “militant.” The one time he mentioned the President of Palestinian Authority, he described Mahmoud Abbas as “more moderate.”

In total, in the two articles covering the same news, the Israelis were described as “right-wing” 15 times. Hamas was described as “militant” once and the Palestinian Authority was called “moderate.”

According to the New York Times, which side do you think is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Which party is unreasonable and should be pressured? Which party should get American support? In case you cannot figure it out, the Times will tell you. Twice.

Related First.One.Through articles:

“Peace” According to Palestinian “Moderates”

Finding Mr. Right-Wing

The New York Times Major anti-Netanyahu Propaganda Piece

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

Has the “Left-Wing” Joined the UN in Protecting Iran and the Palestinians from a “Right-Wing” Israel?

The New York Times Whitewashes Motivation of Palestinian Assassin of Robert Kennedy

NY Times Hides Abbas’s Violence and Pence’s Truth

The New York Times Wrote About Computer Hackers Charged by the US and Israel. Differently.

Palestinians are “Desperate” for…

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

NY Times Disgraceful Journeys

Posted on by
8

As media companies have come under financial strain due to the availability of plentiful free and immediate news sources online and the collapse of the print advertising industry, the companies have sought new methods of generating revenue.

As part of such endeavor, The New York Times got into the travel business.

The Times markets its “Journeys” as a way to not only see the world, but to gain an understanding of the “history & context” of the countries with “featured experts.” Not surprisingly, the paper’s infamous pro-Arab and anti-Israel orientation fills the Times’ brochures.

Consider the Times description of its trip to Iran (below). The main headline of “How Much Do You Understand?” seems to beg the reader into an opportunity to learn. The text for Iran is as follow:

“Iran: Tales from Persia

Persia. Iran. For 2,500 years, this powerful country has entranced, mystified and beguiled the world. Discover the ancient secrets and modern complexities of this influential land on a 13-day itinerary, visiting some of the world’s oldest archaeological sites and the family home of the religious leader who engineered Iran’s transition to an Islamic republic. Welcome to the once-forbidden land of Iran.”

The featured expert is “Gary Wintz, a writer and lecturer, has traveled to Iran regularly since the 1980s and is an expert on the cultural and political landscape there. He joins all our departures.”

The trip sounds very exciting. So much intrigue and history.

There is no mention that this country is one of the most repressive in the world. This is a government that hangs gays by cranes in the street – literally. It has fomented civil wars in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. It has publicly called for the destruction of Israel. It leads the entire Middle East in executions  (more than every country in the region COMBINED). It executes minors.

No worries. The NYTimes will tell you that its mysterious and beguiling.

At least this year’s “featured expert” has been to Iran. In 2016, the featured expert was the notorious Op-Ed Israel-basher, Roger Cohen. He probably told the tour participants how terrible it was that Israel opposed Iran getting nuclear weapons.

There is only one other country in the world that executes minors: Saudi Arabia. The Times will gladly take you there too.

“Saudi Arabia and the Emirates: The Past and Future of Oil

Oil transformed the Arabian Peninsula, bringing wealth into a region steeped in tradition and heightening tensions with oil-dependent Western nations. On this 10-day journey accompanied by New York Times journalists, learn more about Saudi Arabia, on the cusp of change. Explore the conservatism that still grips Saudi Arabia (women, you may need to bring a head scarf), then see the modern architectural gem that is Abu Dhabi.

Saudi Arabia, where Islam was born, remains a deeply conservative country where women are only now being allowed to drive and alcohol is not served. It’s also one of the most important allies of the United States, even though they don’t always see eye-to-eye. Journey to Jidda, Al-Ula, Riyadh and Dammam to better understand the relationship between these two nations. Hear perspectives from oil industry and government officials and learn how Saudi Arabia keeps its grip on its past even as it tries to embrace its future. Then travel to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, and see how it has used its oil wealth to create a city of culture.”

The Times pointed out that the country is “deeply conservative” but ignored that it is rated one of the “worst of the worst” repressive countries by Freedom House. It is the only country in the world that has public beheadings. Seriously, even today.

No worries. You’ll get to see a “modern architectural gem” with the Times.

In regards to Egypt, the Times could not be bothered to mention anything “conservative” about the country.

Egypt is the land of “powerful dynasties” and “New York Times experts will help you piece together the life and times of a powerful ancient civilization and share their vision for the country’s future.”

How wonderful! Not an iota of anything controversial. Did the Times mention that Egypt is one of the worst countries to be a Christian according to Open Doors? That the Arab Spring swept out one long-time strongman, and a military coup took out his replacement? Terrorism targeting tourists? Why would it? This is the Times.

Morocco? It’s gorgeous! “A land of of legend and intrigue… delve deep into this colorful nation.” Illegal annexation of Western Sahara? Never heard of it.

For some of the worst murderous regimes in the world, involved with human rights abuses in their own countries as well as active participation in killing many tens and hundreds of thousands of people, the most the NY Times could muster about the Islamic countries was that Saudi Arabia is “deeply conservative” and “don’t always see eye-to-eye” with the United States. Remarkable.

But it gets worse.

You can perhaps try to forgive the Times that is trying to sell a vacation package to make a few more dollars. Why highlight the bad (actually evil) when marketing a trip for several thousands of dollars?

The NY Times also offers a trip of Israel. Surely the Times would highlight the miracle that is the rising star of the Middle East.

The paper which claims to be “a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel,” seems to think that the only democracy in the Middle East, the technological and environmental leader, the most liberal country for thousands of miles in any direction, needs some “balance” in its “Journeys” packages. Not Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Egypt nor other Middle eastern lands. Only Israel.

This is from the Times Journey’s website on the Israel trip:

“In 2018, Israel will observe its 70th anniversary as a nation. But its history goes back more than 5,000 years, and even now, its future promises many difficulties. On this nine-day itinerary, travel with experts from The New York Times, a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel, Palestinians and the Middle East. Enjoy extraordinary opportunities to hear from opinion makers, scholars, grassroots activists and media experts.

Travel behind the media lens to explore the broad spectrum of the Israeli-Palestinian experience on a journey through millennia of history, politics and religion. Explore one of the most fascinating destinations in the world, and seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to participate in the next chapter of history. Learn about the evolution of Israeli and Palestinian identities by understanding the region’s past struggles while considering its current political reality and contemplating its future. With unparalleled access and New York Times guidance, this unforgettable trip will present this volatile region in a new light.”

How is it that a trip of Israel, a country with so many incredible things to cover in both ancient history, religion, economy, arts and technology, could get wrapped into a discussion about Palestinians (three times!)? Why is Israel uniquely described as having “difficulties” and “struggles” in a “volatile region”? More people have died in the wars that Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting over the past three years than the entire 70-year history of Israel.

Saudi Arabia is noted as the place “where Islam was born.” Is it too much for the Times to point out that Israel is the Jewish homeland?

In Iran, people are invited to visit “some of the world’s oldest archaeological sites.” Are there not enough ruins in Israel to highlight?

The Times puts on a unique lens for Israel. Consider the itinerary on the first full day of the trip, called “Jerusalem: Understanding the Borders and Territories.” The schedule includes: “This morning, attend a talk by Avi Issacharoff, an Israeli journalist who specializes in Palestinian affairs. Learn about his work, including the geopolitical TV thriller “Fauda” (Arabic for “Chaos.”) Then, drive north to the Qalandiya checkpoint to enter the West Bank for a guided tour led by Rami Nazzal, a Palestinian and New York Times contributor. Visit a Palestinian refugee camp, the city of Al-Bireh and homes near the Psagot Israeli settlement. After lunch at a local Palestinian restaurant, meet with a senior Palestinian official to discuss the history and current state of Israeli-Palestinian affairs. End the day with a driving tour through Ramallah, which serves as the de facto administrative capital of the Palestinian National Authority.” On the New York Times’ trip to Israel, visitors adopt the Palestinian narrative from the outset.

A visit to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset in Jerusalem? To it’s Supreme Court? No way! The trip to Israel and a tour starting in Jerusalem visits “the de facto administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority.” Heaven-forbid actually spending a trip to Israel in Israel’s capital city.

The New York Times is not remotely fair to Israel even while it tries to make a few bucks on its travel packages. Do you think there’s an iota of even-handedness in its news stories?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority

Is Israel Reforming the Muslim Middle East? Impossible According to The NY Times

The New York Times will Keep on Telling You: Jews are not Native to Israel

First.One.Through video:

Saudi Arabia’s Repressive Regime (music by The Cars)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

Posted on by
13

I loved the Eric Carle / Bill Martin Jr book, “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?” I loved it both as a child and as a parent reading it to children. The text was clear and the pictures were beautiful. It taught us how to see and identify basic things like colors and animals in a straightforward and enjoyable manner.

But the world is seemingly not so simple in a world pounding out millennial “my truths.” Simple pictures of animals are now Rorschach tests subject to varied interpretation. Colors are now blinded through a reverse prism of everything exiting as a blinding white – as in white male privilege.

Consider an important study performed at Stanford University of 260 million standardized test scores taken by third to eighth graders in the United States. The graphic pointed to remarkable and scary outcomes regarding the performance differences between boys and girls in school.

Hundreds of red circles marked the top of the chart showing girl test scores ranging anywhere from half to more than a full test grade level over boys in every part of the country, whether in the poorest or richest segments. The graphic clearly illustrated how girls scored dramatically higher on English tests all around the United States.

Further down on the page, clustered near the parity line between boys and girls, were the blue dots representing the math scores. Here the graph was more balanced, with girls out-performing boys by just a little in some markets, with boys outperforming girls by just a bit in more markets. The blue cloud appeared to have a slope indicating that boys in richer neighborhoods performed slightly better than those in poorer neighborhoods. In no sample did the maximum out-performance of boys in math even reach the smallest out-performance by girls in English. In English, girls outperformed boys by about 3/4 of a full grade, and in math the boys outperformed girls by roughly 1/3rd of a grade.

The graph was alarming in how poorly boys performed relative to girls in English. It begged the question of how to redo the entire English curriculum to address the failure of schools to educate boys. Are more male teachers needed? Are the choice of texts not appropriate for boys? Should there be a change in the classroom setting? In the creative writing syllabus?

But these questions that immediately sprang to anyone’s mind from the picture were missing in the New York Times coverage of study on June 17, 2018.

In an article titled “Math’s Variable: Boys Outperform Girls in Rich, White Suburbs,” the Times inverted the story into a different narrative. The Times wrote “In school districts that are mostly rich, white and suburban, boys are much more likely to outperform girls in math, according to a new study from Stanford researchers, one of the most comprehensive looks at the gender gap in test scores at the school district level.” For 24 paragraphs, the Times would explore the advantages of rich White and Asian households that “invest in more stereotypical activities,” like “daughters in ballet and their sons in engineering.” Because rich people are sooo stereotypical and non-progressive.

Only in the 21st paragraph of the article did the Times devote attention to the obvious and important conclusion of girls DRAMATICALLY outperforming boys in English. It wrote: “Girls continue to outperform boys in reading in school districts across the United States, regardless of income, and in most other rich countries. Parents have been found to talk more to girls from the time they are infants. Teachers say girls concentrate more on reading. Perhaps boys’ reading skills mature later. There could also be a role model effect: Women say they read more than men, while boys are steered more towards sports and video games.”

This article is a travesty of #AlternativeFacts and it undermines helping children that are truly falling behind. Our progressive society that looks to spend as much public money as possible to produce equal outcomes for poor-and-rich; White-and-Blacks and Latinos; boys-and-girls, focuses only on the narrow out-performance of rich white boys. The article noted how a wealthy white township where “the students are about 60% white and 30% Asian-American,” had “Boys and girls both perform well, but boys score almost half a grade level ahead of girls in math…. Boys are much more likely to sign up for math clubs and competitions, he said, to the point that the district started a girls-only math competition this year.” But there was NO mention of what is being done to help millions of boys perform better in English. Just “perhaps boys’ reading skills mature later.” Sorry. Nothing we can do to help boys in English. Move on.

Consider that the Times published this article at the same time as discussing the ultra-liberal New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s plans to upend the city’s strongest math and science high schools to reduce the number of Whites and Asians and increase the number of Blacks and Latinos. Are there any efforts to get more boys or Whites into the best arts high schools, like Fiorella LaGuardia High School for the Performing Arts which is 74% female and 56% minority? Nope.

Our schools are grossly failing our boys in English and there is zero effort on their behalf, either by progressive politicians or left-wing newspapers. Boys are just younger versions of the ‘patriarchy’ that are future enemies for the racial and gender justice warriors. Stay on message: it’s all about rich white male privilege.

Perhaps that observation is part of the grade gap between boys and girls in English and language arts: boys and girls see the world differently, just as conservatives and liberals do. While math and science have strict rules about what is correct, the language arts are more fluid and subject to interpretation. And if women and liberals continue to dominate the teaching profession and direct the narrative of interpretation, the nation’s boys will likely continue to suffer.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

The Right Stuff, Then and Now

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The New York Times Whitewashes Motivation of Palestinian Assassin of Robert Kennedy

Posted on by
20

The New York Times published an article on June 5, 2018 about the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Regarding his murderer, the Times wrote the following:

“Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, said to be motivated by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and his hatred of Mr. Kennedy for his support of Israel, was later convicted of the murder.”

Page A10 of the June 5, 2018 New York Times

According to the NY Times, the root cause for the killing was Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. A country’s mistreatment of individuals. Might against right (presumably). America lost a young promising politician because Israel abuses Arabs.

This is the narrative that the Times uses today to describe the anger of Palestinian Arabs and left wing radicals against the Jewish State.

And it stands in sharp contrast to the unvarnished truth that the Palestinian Arabs have stood against the “invasion” of Jews into the region from the time of the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago until today. Sirhan Sirhan was against the presence of Jews and the existence of Israel; he was not “motivated by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.” It was Jew-hatred and anyone supporting the Jewish State.

To illustrate the point, here are some quotes from the Palestinian Arabs themselves in the 1960’s:

From the 1968 Palestinian National Charter:

“It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.”

“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it .”

“Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. “

“The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.“

“The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,”

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood.”

“Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress.”

“The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations,”

This updated 1968 Charter was changed from the original 1964 charter which had many of the same comments. An interesting modification between the two charters is in Article 7, trying to reconcile what to do with Jews that had lived in Palestine for generations.

  • 1964 charter: “Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.”
  • 1968 charter: “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”

By 1968, the concept of “living peacefully” with Jews was abandoned.

Beyond the Palestinians, the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sought to unite the Arab world, including the Palestinian Arabs. His May 1967 speech before the start of the 1967 War against Israel spelled out his desire to end Israel and combat its supporters including the United States and Great Britain:

“Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel. … It is the aggression which took place in Palestine in 1948 [the establishment of the State of Israel] with the collaboration of Britain and the United States. It is the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine, the usurpation of their rights, and the plunder of their property. It is the disavowal of all the UN resolutions in favour of the Palestinian people. … If the United States and Britain are partial to Israel, we must say that our enemy is not only Israel but also the United States and Britain and treat them as such.”

And after the June 1967 war in which the Arabs not only failed to destroy Israel but lost additional territory, the Arab states passed the Khartoum Resolution on September 1, 1967 stating:

“no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle [against western countries].”

The Arab war against Israel’s supporters – including Robert Kennedy – was about the reestablishment of the Jewish people in their homeland, nothing less.

With such a boldface lie, should we wonder why the Times did not state clearly that Sirhan Sirhan was himself a Palestinian Arab? Is the Times perhaps promoting the idea that many non-Arabs are also upset with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and might take similar actions against politicians supporting Israel?

Let’s be clear, especially since The New York Times is lying directly and explicitly to its readers: Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because he hated the existence of Israel and all of the country’s supporters, not because of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs. And it’s the same story about anti-Zionists today.

Related First.One.Through articles:

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The “Diplomatic Settler”

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Thomas Friedman is a Peddler of Racist Fiction and Adolescent Fantasy

Posted on by
2
Thomas Friedman, the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner for Middle East reporting seems to never be shy at demonstrating his complete ignorance, his willful naivete, and racist views on the region.
Friedman wrote an op-ed on May 22, 2018 that he “appreciate[s] the Gazans’ sense of injustice. Why should they pay with their ancestral homes for Jewish refugees who lost theirs in Germany or Iraq?” I am perhaps slightly glad he laid out that the basis for his sympathies was on a completely flawed view of reality.

Complete Ignorance

The international community made a declaration that the Jewish state should be reestablished in the Jewish holy land decades before the Holocaust. The San Remo Conference in 1920 and the Mandate of Palestine of 1922 made it clear in international law that the Jews had a long history throughout the holy land, not just in the western part of the holy land.
More specifically, to correct Freidman:
1. Jews came back to reestablish themselves in their holy land. They did not come as interlopers into someone else’s homes.
2. The movement of Jews to Palestine was established in international law. This was not a Jewish invasion or act of Britain alone.
3. The international laws were passed decades before World War II and the Holocaust. Israel was not created as a reaction to the Holocaust.
4. Jews did not seek to evict Arabs. It was the Arabs that went to war with the Jews to keep them from moving back into their Jewish holy land. The state of Israel welcomed all Arabs to become citizens of the state and help in its development. The 160,000 that stayed (18% of the population in 1948) have grown to 25% of the population in 2017. The Arabs that left in 1948 went to war to destroy Israel and continue to threaten it generations later.

5. The Jews that left homes in Germany and Iraq were hunted and persecuted by their governments. The Arabs that left homes in Israel were those that opted to launch a civil war to destroy a new country at its rebirth.

6. More Arabs than Jews moved to Palestine under the British between 1924 and 1948. Why deceptively call out Arabs’ “ancestral homes?” Because the New York Times wants to constantly pretend that Jews are not native to Israel, only Arabs are?

Friedman inverted plain facts. He proclaimed his sympathies with the Palestinians on the basis of lies.
Further, his prescription for a solution was packed with both falsehoods and racist ideas.

Willful Naivete

7. Hamas is not just “the Palestinian Islamist organization that rules the Gaza Strip.” It is recognized as a terrorist group by the US, Israel and many countries. And it was voted into a majority of parliament by Palestinians with full knowledge of these facts including having the most anti-Semitic charter in the world.

8. To state that Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority is “secular, more moderate” than Hamas is to compare the fifth and ninth rings of Hell. Abbas is way more radical and extreme than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who Friedman paints as being just like Hamas). Abbas is a Holocaust denier, denies the history of Jews in the holy land, calls for a country to be Jew-free, has laws that call for the death sentence for any Arab selling land to a Jew, pays for people to kill Israeli Jews, and names tournaments and squares after terrorists. How does this man and the PA remotely resemble anything moderate?

Racist Views

Friedman added to his fiction with jaundiced views about Jews and Arabs.

9. Why is Gaza Israel’s responsibility? Israel left the region in 2005 for the local Palestinian Arabs to rule themselves (for the first time in their history). Is the US responsible for Mexico’s welfare? Why isn’t Egypt called upon to handle the derelict region at its border? Does Friedman believe that Jews are uniquely responsible for neighbors?

10. “Two states for two people” as Friedman suggests means either that Jews can become a minority in Palestine the same way that Arabs are a minority in Israel, or it means that each country must be “pure.” Is Friedman suggesting that Israel expel its 2 million Arabs or is he suggesting 1.5 states for Arabs and 0.5 for Jews because Jews should be banned from the eastern part of the holy land, but not the Arabs in Israel? Either way, it sounds pretty racist to either expel non-Jews or ban Jews.

Fantasy

Friedman has not internalized that the Palestinians are no closer to welcoming their Jewish neighbors today than they were 100 years ago. He posits that the most antisemitic people should approach the border “with an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other, saying, “Two states for two peoples: We, the Palestinian people of Gaza, want to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish people — a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed adjustments.” What a moron.
Maybe the US special forces should have shown up at Osama bin Laden’s house with girl scout cookies and asked him nicely to stop killing thousands of people. Maybe he could propose that the Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria should drop cotton candy on his people rather than chemical weapons. Friedman’s recommendations could have been written by a second grader with no comprehension of the world.

But Friedman knows the facts. He deliberately lifted from the deceased former leader of the PLO Yasser Arafat’s (fungus be upon him) 1974 speech at the United Nations: “I come to you bearing an olive branch in one hand and a freedom fighter’s gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.” Friedman chose to ignore the plain and consistent fact that the Palestinians have chosen violence over coexistence with the Jewish State as he put forward a non-solution that fails to address the situation.

Perhaps Friedman’s fourth Pulitzer will be for young adult fiction.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Abbas’s Speech and the Window into Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

Posted on by
32

The acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas gave another one of his long anti-semitic speeches on April 30, 2018. Much of the western world condemned the speech as something brand new and vile that should not only be condemned, but also marked Abbas as unfit to remain as the leader of the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs). The condemnation was so widesread that Abbas issued some sort of apology a few days later.

Abbas is an Antisemite

Let’s be clear about some things that the media is not telling you:

  • Abbas did not just say that Jews were themselves responsible for Nazi Germany killing them in the Holocaust, he said that Jews were responsible for ALL of the massacres that had befallen them throughout history. Abbas said “The Jews who moved to Eastern and Western Europe had been subjected to a massacre by one country or another every 10-15 years since the 11th century until the Holocaust in Germany. Okay? But why was this happening? They say that it was happening because they are Jews…. The anti-Jewish (sentiments) was not because of their religion but because of their function in society, which had to do with usury, banks, and so on.”
  • Abbas whitewashed 1,400 years of Arab antisemitism. After Abbas’ harangue against Jews in Europe and Russia, he said “I challenge you to find a single incident against Jews just because they were Jews in 1,400 years in any Arab country.” He should probably review some basic history from the founding of Islam in the seventh century when the Muslim prophet Mohammed slaughtered Jews in Saudi Arabia, to every country that Muslims invaded in the subsequent centuries, where Jews were often given the choice between conversion or death. Tunisia 1016. Morocco 1033. The list is long.
  • Abbas said that Jews were shipped to Palestine because the host countries wanted to get rid of them. Abbas said that many world leaders including Lord Balfour from the United Kingdom, Adolf Hitler in Germany and the foreign minister of Russia all hated the Jews and wanted to get rid of them so encouraged them to move to Palestine.
  • Abbas said he is disgusted by the Israeli national anthem. The essence of the Israeli national anthem is about the longing of Jews to return to their homeland. Abbas argued that the anthem is a farce. “Their [Jews] narrative about coming to this country [Palestine] because of their longing for Zion or whatever -we’re tired of hearing this.“
  • Abbas reiterated that the Jews have no connection to Palestine. Abbas has long argued that Jews have no history or connection to the land of Israel. He has made the arguments before the United Nations and to Palestinians. He did so again in April 2018: “The truth is that this [Zionism] is a colonial enterprise aimed at planting a foreign body in this region.” He added that the European Jews have no historical connection to Palestine since they are all descendants of Khazars that converted to Judaism in the eighth century.
  • Abbas made a non-apology. Abbas did not really apologize for his anti-Semitic comments a few days later. He apologized that people were offended by his comments. “If people were offended by my statement in front of the P.N.C., especially people of the Jewish faith, I apologize to them. I would like to assure everyone that it was not my intention to do so, and to reiterate my full respect for the Jewish faith, as well as other monotheistic faiths.” In other words, he stands by his comments and believes them to be true. He is just disappointed that people were offended at hearing his version of the truth. No one has called this out.

Let’s be clear: Abbas hates Jews, not Judaism. The persistent truth is that Abbas has always hated Jews as foreign interlopers in Palestine. For example, he has said that a new state of Palestine will be welcoming of all religions (that would include Judaism), but the PA has existing laws that call for the execution of any Arab that sells land to a Jew. Conclusion: it’s the people, not the faith.

Abbas is a peddler of nasty lies, and many of them are not new. The only additions from the April 30 speech to Abbas’s long history of vile comments are that Jews were at fault for their own massacres because of their “function,” and that they came from Khazar, but these are simple extensions of his prior comments.

So why the sudden uproar?

The Media Has Long Concealed Abbas’s and Palestinians’ Jew Hatred

The United Nations and world media have long defended and protected Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians in their quest to give the SAPs independence and sovereignty. They have ignored the antisemitism and terrorism from Palestinian Arabs and placed the blame on Israel, as acknowledging Arabs’ hatred of Jews undermines the very notion of peace and justifies many of Israel’s actions.

Palestinians are inherently good, but have become antisemitic because of Israel. The world and liberal press are hard-pressed to charge the SAPs with any wrong-doing. When confronted with something unsavory about the Palestinians, the press tries to paper it over, such as absolving the Palestinians of their overwhelming (93% of people according to the ADL) hatred of Jews. In covering the ADL findings, the New York Times wrote “the Middle East results were not particularly surprising.” Is that because everyone knows that Arabs hate Jews? If that’s obvious, why the sudden commotion about Abbas laying it out clearly in April 2018?

Palestinians “Resort to Violence.” The New York Times actually wrote in 2012 that the virulently antisemitic terrorist group Hamas “took control of Gaza in 2007 and is backed by Iran, is so consumed with hatred for Israel that it has repeatedly resorted to violence.” The Hamas Charter clearly and repeatedly calls for violent jihad and the destruction of the Jewish State. However, the liberal media crafted an alternative reality to make the people of Gaza victims “resorting to violence” instead of being terrorists.

Palestinians are moderate; Israelis are right-wing. The world was so eager to market Abbas as a “moderate,” that it ignored his history of vile comments, because if the leader of the Palestinian Authority was a moderate, his demands were presumably reasonable, and vice-versa. The failure of any peace discussions must therefore be on the “right-wing” (as the liberal press peddled) Israeli leadership.

Palestinian actions are unhelpful; Israeli actions are harmful. Nickolay Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, said in reaction to Abbas’s April 30 antisemitic rant: “Such statements are unacceptable, deeply disturbing and do not serve the interests of the Palestinian people or peace in the Middle East.” Seriously? “Do not serve the interests of the Palestinians?” When Mladenov talks about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, he does not say they are unhelpful, he says they are “threatening the viability of the two-state solution and eroding the prospects for peace.” Somehow noxious antisemitism is not an impediment to peace, only Jews living in houses in their holy land.

These factors have been at play for decades. So why the sudden turn on Abbas? Why would the NY Times write an editorial on May 3, 2018 “Mr. Abbas’s Vile Words” that “by succumbing to such dark, corrosive instincts he [Abbas] showed that it is time for him to leave office.” Abbas has always been vile. He has always negated Jewish rights and history in Israel and has been effective at getting United Nations and the liberal media bodies to support his narrative.

I suggest that there are two main points at play here. One has to do with the alt-left narrative of Palestinian reform and the other with the left-wing attempts to parse antisemitism from Anti-Zionism.

Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism by the Global Left-Wing
and by the Arab and Muslim World

Palestinians continue to reform, and are thereby worthy of sovereignty. For several years, the western world has sought to portray the Palestinians as progressing from their violent and antisemitic past (plane hijackings, murdering of athletes, intifadas) to a moderate stance of co-existence.

Consider the New York Times on May 5, 2018 claiming that while Abbas wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial (over Abbas’s 13 years of heading the PA, the Times mentioned this disgusting fact only a few times) it pretended that he recanted. “In 2014, on the eve of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, he [Abbas] issued a formal statement calling the Nazi genocide ‘the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era’ and expressing sympathy with the victim’s families.” But Abbas then tied the Holocaust to the plight of the Palestinians, as though there is a remote equivalency between the slaughter of millions of defenseless Jews in the Holocaust to the failure of the Arab armies to destroy the nascent state of Israel. Abbas said “The Palestinian people, who suffer from injustice, oppression and (are) denied freedom and peace, are the first to demand to lift the injustice and racism that befell other peoples subjected to such crimes,” calling Israelis racists like Nazis. That’s not really recanting his book on Holocaust denial when he equates the Jewish State with Nazi Germany.

However, his latest comments provided no room for liberal cover. Abbas’s April 30 gratuitous slander against the Jewish people highlighted a disgusting worldview that can never live at peace and negotiate honestly with the Jewish State. The liberals’ carefully constructed fig leaf of Palestinian moderation was obliterated.

Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism. For the Arab world, it has always been one and the same. The Palestinians elected Hamas to 58% of the Parliament in 2007 with statements in its charter that included:

  • “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” Preamable
  • “In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” (Article 15)
  • “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”” (Article 28)

It is specifically the presence of Jews in Israel and its territories that offends Arabs and Muslims. They don’t believe that Jews have any rights to be in the land and want them gone. As such, they forbid the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools and find nothing objectionable about Abbas’s latest speech. The Arabs are both antisemitic and anti-Zionist. One is part-and-parcel of the other.

Yet the western world that views itself as progressive has been at pains to tease apart anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Liberals have argued that criticism of Israel cannot be conflated with antisemitism. As such, vilifying Jews OUTSIDE of Israel is considered an offensive comment and clearly antisemitic, such as saying that Jews were to blame for the Holocaust. However, slamming Israeli Jews is fair game, such as when the BBC said that Israeli teenagers were partially responsible for their own murder since they should not have been hitchhiking in the West Bank. The world was content in blaming the victim in the case of Jews in Israel and the Israeli territories. For the alt-left, no Israeli can ever be a pure victim nor any Palestinian Arab a true criminal.

Abbas’s speech was treated with a yawn in the Arab and Muslim world, as antisemitism and anti-Zionism have long been a single cause. But it has confounded the western self-declared “progressives” who are doing their utmost to criticize Israel without the moniker of “anti-Semite” staining their liberal bona fides. As such, they are throwing Abbas under the bus rather than considering their own disturbing positions. Off with Abbas’s head.

To paraphrase Mel Brooks, it’s good to be a liberal king.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

Palestinians are “Desperate” for…

The Palestinian State I Oppose

Abbas Knows Racism

In the Shadow of the Holocaust, The New York Times Fails to Flag Muslim Anti-Semitism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

The “Diplomatic Settler”

Posted on by
3

The New York Times has a Jew problem, or more specifically, a huge problem with any Jews living in parts of the “Arab Middle East.”

In a March 8, 2018 article called “No Man’s Land: New U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem May Lie Partly Outside Israel,” the Times came up with a new term that was both meaningless and said much about how the liberal paper thinks of Jews living east of the 1949 Armistice Lines.

In describing the planned relocation of the U.S. embassy to an area in Jerusalem that possibly partially sat in the ‘No Man’s Land’ that existed between 1949 and 1967, the paper wrote:

“The dispute could turn the American ambassador, David M. Friedman, an avid supporter of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, into a new kind of diplomatic settler himself.”

That’s quite a phrase, “diplomatic settler.” It’s also completely nonsensical. U.S. ambassadors are U.S. citizens, not Israeli. How can an American be a settler? Simply by being Jewish?

There was a time that a “settler” meant any Israeli that moved into a new development over the Green Line in Judea & Samaria / the West Bank. The physical new town was known as a “settlement” and the inhabitants were known as “settlers.” The homes defined the people.

Over time, a pro-Palestinian narrative took hold in much of the world which inverted that formula. For them, the people (settlers) define the homes (settlements). Specifically, any Israeli Jew that lives over the invisible Green Line is known as a settler. (This is in sharp contrast to Israeli Muslims – like the thousands of Arabs in eastern Jerusalem that have taken Israeli citizenship – that are never considered “settlers.”) Presumably, the rationale for focusing on people is based on a very broad reading of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that Israel’s policies enabling Jews to live in the land that it took from Jordan in 1967 is effectively a “transfer of population,” possibly runs counter to that international law.

But The New York Times moved the definition of a settler yet again, in a giant anti-Semitic leap.

For anti-Zionists like the New York Times, ANY Jew, regardless of citizenship should be considered a settler if they live east of the Green Line. Hence the U.S. ambassador to Israel would become a “diplomatic settler,” simply because he’s Jewish. If the U.S. Ambassador to Israel were Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion, presumably the diplomatic settler moniker wouldn’t stick.

This new approach could lead to all sorts of interesting titles.

  • “Tourist Settler:”  A foreign Jewish traveler visiting Bethlehem and staying overnight
  • “Businessman Settler:” Any Jewish traveler doing business in Jericho who keeps an apartment in the city
  • “Student Settler.” A foreign Jew studying in the West Bank

What would happen if the United States decided to recognize a State of Palestine along the lines agreed to thus far between the principles, in Gaza and Area A of the West Bank, and established a U.S. embassy in Bethlehem. If that U.S. ambassador to Palestine was Jewish, I guess the Times would also label him a “Diplomatic Settler.” Only a non-Jewish diplomat could avoid having such title, and not be branded a colonialist interloper.

It has long been clear that Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people on the planet and that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority desire a new country free of any Israeli Jews. How refreshing to learn that the alt-left similarly endorses a completely Jew-free land. Even of American Jewish diplomats.

Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times Cannot Even be Even-Handed When Describing “No Man’s Land”

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem

750 Years of Continuous Jewish Jerusalem

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Jerusalem, and a review of the sad state of divided capitals in the world

The anthem of Israel is JERUSALEM

The Battle for Jerusalem

FirstOneThrough music videos:

Judea & Samaria (music by the Foo Fighters)

The 1967 Borders (music by The Kinks)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

NY Times Cannot Even be Even-Handed When Describing “No Man’s Land”

Posted on by
2

On March 8, 2018, Isabel Kershner wrote an article for the New York Times called “No Man’s Land: New U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem May Lie Partly Outside Israel.” The article described that the location of the U.S. embassy would partially lie outside of Israel’s 1949 Armistice Lines with Jordan in an area known at the time as the “No Man’s Land.” It attempted to explain the terminology through a history lesson about the area.

But being the New York Times, the history would be incomplete and distorted.

Consider the opening of the description:

“No Man’s Land encompasses the area between the armistice lines drawn at the end of the 1948-9 war and was claimed by Jordan and Israel. Israel won full control of it in the 1967 war, so the United Nations and much of the world consider it occupied territory.”

As the NY Times does at every occasion, it describes Israel’s administration of Judea and Samaria with a statement that the world does not recognize Israel’s claim and considers the land “occupied territory.” Yet the Times will never print – even here in an article meant to clarify the nature of the land – that Jordan’s claim on the entirety of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria was never considered valid.

The omissions would continue.

Kershner wrote that she would give some clarity to the nature of the land:

“After the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s creation, Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan, which controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The sides demarcated the armistice line on a map in grease pencil. Where they did not agree they drew their own lines staking out maximalist positions – the Israelis in green, as far as possible to the east, the Jordanians in red, to the west.

The disputed enclaves, called the ‘areas between the lines,’ were under neither party’s control and came to be known as No Man’s Land.”

Note the many problems of the first sentence. It states that no party is to blame for the 1948 war. A person would never know that the armies of five Arab countries invaded Israel at its creation by the first half of the sentence. The second half would lead a reader to conclude that the Jordanians naturally had controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is deeply flawed. The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, as today’s Jordan was known back in 1948, invaded and illegally annexed Judea and Samaria and the eastern half of Jerusalem. To state that Jordan simply “controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem,” makes that illegal seizure seem normative and historic. It was neither. It was an invasion in an offensive war to destroy Israel.

The problems in the “historical unpacking” would continue:

“After 1949, both Israel and Jordan claimed the territory, holding that its status would be determined in an eventual agreement. When the 1967 war broke out, the Jordanian and Israeli armies fought over it.”

The 1967 war didn’t simply break out. Jordan attacked Israel first (again), after Israel repeatedly told the Jordanians to not initiate a war. The point is not a subtle one, as the laws regarding the seizure of land in a war are arguably not the same in a defensive war as an offensive war. Especially when the party that initiated the hostilities (Jordan) had zero claim to the land they occupied (all of the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the No Man’s Land!)

The article would also not mention anywhere that Israel formally annexed the entirety of the eastern portion of Jerusalem – including No Man’s Land – in 1980. How could any background on the area omit such a detail?

Further, Jordan gave up any claim to the area in July 1988. How could the article neglect to mention that small tidbit?

In short, the article focused squarely on Israel’s claim to a part of Jerusalem counter to a Jordanian claim that the paper wrote about as a historical reality. In truth, the Jordanians NEVER had an legal claim to any of the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem, and rescinded the false claim to that land 30 years ago.

Jerusalem was divided for roughly 19 years of its 4000 year history, from 1948 to 1967. But the New York Times will continue to try to slice and divide Judaism’s holiest city at every opportunity to minimize the Jewish State’s ties to its capital.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem

Both Israel and Jerusalem are Beyond Recognition for Muslim Nations

750 Years of Continuous Jewish Jerusalem

Arabs in Jerusalem

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Jerusalem, and a review of the sad state of divided capitals in the world

The anthem of Israel is JERUSALEM

The Battle for Jerusalem

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis