Surprise! The New York Times Finds Another Way to Insult and Attack Israel - by Ira Stoll

As groundless as the Israel-apartheid connection is, it is nonetheless a recurring theme at The New York Times.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner .com..
27 July '18..

After two negative front-page articles about Israel’s new nation-state law, The New York Times is escalating its offensive by publishing an op-ed piece claiming that the Israeli parliament endorsed “apartheid methods” by approving the law.

The op-ed appears under the headline “Did Israel Just Stop Trying to Be a Democracy?” The usual rule is that when a headline is phrased as a question, the answer is “no,” but in this case the author seems to answer in the affirmative.

“The effort to guarantee equal rights for non-Jews has at times seemed like trying to square a circle. Last week, Israel gave up on even trying,” the Times op-ed says.

The article concludes, “Israel’s policy of promoting Jewish settlements has created de facto apartheid in the occupied territories of the West Bank. The nation-state law now formally endorses the use of similar apartheid methods within Israel’s recognized borders. What was long suspected has finally been made brutally clear: Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and a liberal democracy.”

The article is by Omri Boehm. The Times describes him as both “an Israeli philosopher” and “associate professor of philosophy at the New School for Social Research.”

One interesting thing about Professor Boehm...

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

NY Times justifies 70 years of lies about Jerusalem - by Elder of Ziyon

...70 years of make-believe has not brought peace, and in fact it has impeded it. But the idea that carefully constructed lies is more important than obvious facts is not at all foreign to those who have been reading the New York Times over the decades.

Elder of Ziyon..
18 December '17..

The NYT editorial on Friday said:

[O]ut of the blue, President Donald Trump announced on Dec. 6 that he was formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, tossing aside 70 years of careful American neutrality and infuriating Palestinians, who also want their capital to be in Jerusalem.

"Out of the blue"? Trump announced his position over a year ago.

"Careful American neutrality?" Is that what ignoring the reality of Israel's capital is being called nowadays?

And note that avoiding infuriating Palestinians is considered a valid diplomatic objective while worrying about infuriating Israelis is not even a consideration. The reason is that Arabs tend to get violent when they don't get their way and Jews don't. So the obvious solution is to lean towards the position of the irrational crazies who might kill you for saying words that upset them.

That's diplomatic wisdom, in the opinion of the New York Times, and much of the world. Facts be damned.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Surprise? NY Times: Western Wall Should Be Used As ‘Leverage’ - by Simon Plosker

...If the New York Times believes that Israeli control over the Western Wall is up for debate or is afraid of upsetting the Muslim world over Jewish holy sites, then its editorial board really has no moral compass.

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting..
17 December '17..

The New York Times is perfectly entitled to muse over whether US President Donald Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a good idea.

The NYTimes editorial on the subject goes further however.

Since when was the Western Wall “another piece of leverage” to be conceded?

Newsflash New York Times: The Western Wall won’t “eventually be declared part of Israel.” It’s already part of Israel and is the holiest site that Jews can pray. It doesn’t only abut “some of Islam’s most sacred sites.” Whether the NY Times likes it or not, the Western Wall happens to abut the Temple Mount, Judaism’s most sacred site.

It’s not only the White House that expects the Western Wall to be part of Israel. Is there really anyone apart from the worst extremists who believes that the Western Wall won’t remain under Israeli control whether there is an agreement or not?

This isn’t “taking Israel’s side on an explosive issue” – it’s reiterating one of the few consensus issues that exists in any so-called peace process.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Israel, NY Times Editor Matt Seaton and Alternative Facts - by Gilead Ini

...Facts and assertions on the Opinion pages are no longer dependable. If the newspaper won't tell the truth about Israel in its Op-Eds, they should at least be truthful about their editing policy: When it comes to Jewish state, anything goes.

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
16 August '17..

A few years ago, an Egyptian lawyer and part-time conspiracy theorist sued his former president, Hosni Mubarak, for failing to "reclaim" the bustling Israeli city of Eilat for Egypt.

He is hardly the only Egyptian who wants to divvy up Israel. In a country raised on hatred for Jews and their state, and where a majority believes the mere existence of Israel violates Palestinian rights, it not surprising that many are drawn to the claim that Eilat is rightfully Egyptian. Some Egyptian leaders, more magnanimous in their immoderation, have rebutted these calls: The city is not Egyptian, they say. It is Palestinian.

The Middle East's rejectionists have always had a hard time agreeing on who gets to feast on which parts of Israel's carcass. But those promoting Egypt's ambitions to Eilat can now turn to none other than The New York Times for support. In a recent Op-Ed about Egypt's transfer to Saudi Arabia of two islands in the Gulf of Tiran, writer Ahdaf Soueif attached a peculiar history lesson to her geography lesson when telling readers that "at the top of the gulf is the Israeli port of Eilat, once the Egyptian port of Umm al-Rashrash."

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Surprise? The NY Times Calls a Convicted Terrorist a “Parliamentarian”

...Didn’t Times readers have the right to know any of this? They did, and the by-line the Times allowed Mr. Barghouti is a shameful abdication of responsibility to readers.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
17 April '17..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2017/04/17/the-new-york-times-calls-a-convicted-terrorist-a-parliamentarian/

Today the New York Times ran an op-ed by Marwan Barghouti, and described him as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.”

Period.

In his op-ed, Barghouti states that he was first arrested at age 15, then again at age 18, and he alleges physical abuse by Israeli interrogators.

But nowhere does the Times tell readers what he was convicted of doing. Here is an account of the proceedings from the Washington Post in 2004:

Barghouti was found guilty of ordering attacks that killed a Greek Orthodox monk in the West Bank in 2001, an Israeli at the Jewish settlement of Givat Zeev in 2002 and three people at the Seafood Market restaurant in Tel Aviv in 2002. He was also convicted of one count each of attempted murder and membership in a terrorist organization….

Surprise? Terrorism Justifier Welcomed on NY Times Pages - by Ricki Hollander

...Where else but on the pages of the New York Times would such illogical and twisted views find such a welcoming home?

Ricki Hollander..
CAMERA Snapshots..
28 March '17..

On August 18, 2011, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out near Eilat by four groups of Islamic terrorists that included Palestinians and Egyptians. Six civilians were murdered, as well as a soldier and police officer who had come to assist the victims and 31 were wounded. Three days later, after returning home from a vacation abroad, Jerusalem Post columnist Larry Derfner wrote a column on his blog justifying Palestinian terrorism. He began:

I think a lot of people who realize that the occupation is wrong also realize that the Palestinians have the right to resist it; to use violence against Israelis, even to kill Israelis, especially when Israel is showing zero willingness to end the occupation, which has been the case since the Netanyahu government took over (among other times in the past).

And later:

... the Palestinians, like every nation living under hostile rule, have the right to fight back, that their terrorism, especially in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government, is justified...

...Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack. They had the same right to fight for their freedom as any other unfree nation in history ever had. And just like every harsh, unjust government in history bears the blame for the deaths of its own people at the hands of rebels, so Israel, which rules the Palestinians harshly and unjustly, is to blame for those eight Israeli deaths...

Even though Derfner acknowledged at the time that his own justification of terrorism could be used by other terrorists as encouragement -- "The possibility that Israel’s enemies could use my or anybody else’s justification of terror for their campaign is a daunting one; I wouldn’t like to see this column quoted on a pro-Hamas website, and I realize it could happen" -- it did not stop him. Apparently overcome by his own moral rightness, he felt he just had to show those Israelis that it was really them who were "compelling [Palestinians] to engage in terrorism", and "that the blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on [Israeli] hands." Derfner's readers and his employers at the Jerusalem Post were not quite as taken by the righteousness of his terror justification, and he was fired from his post at the newspaper.

Shocking? Thomas Friedman lied about the Saudis? - by Stephen M. Flatow

...Thanks for your honesty, Mr. Shaath. Now we know that while Thomas Friedman and the New York Times were promoting the Saudi peace plan, the Saudis were financing second intifada attacks such as the Passover massacre. They were never interested in peace. Their checkbooks expressed their true feelings about Jews and Israel. An apology from their PR agent, Friedman, is long overdue.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
08 March '17..

For the past 15 years, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been promoting the so-called “Saudi Initiative,” a plan which he says proves that Saudi Arabia sincerely wants peace with Israel. But this week, a senior Palestinian leader revealed that at the very moment the Saudis were launching that plan, they were financing a major wave of terrorism against Israel.

It’s time for Friedman to publicly admit he was wrong and apologize for the harm he caused to Israel.

It all started Feb. 6, 2002, when Friedman devoted his New York Times column to a memo that he wanted President George W. Bush to send to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and other Arab leaders. The memo would urge the Arabs to recognize Israel in exchange for an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 armistice lines (including re-dividing Jerusalem).

Friedman then flew to Saudi Arabia, where he was granted a rare interview with Crown Prince Abdullah. And lo and behold, Abdullah proceeded to unveil a “Saudi peace plan” identical to what Friedman had been pushing. Friedman’s Feb. 17, 2002 column then became the vehicle for announcing the Saudi plan. Quite an unusual channel for an international diplomatic announcement!

(Continue to Full Post)

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Actually, Palestinians Hate Blue Israel Too - by Jonathan Tobin

...Whether or not they like Netanyahu, a clear majority know that Palestinians have repeatedly rejected peace and still have a conception of national identity that makes peace impossible for the present. Israeli society is split along religious, economic, security, and political fault lines. But when placed in the context of Palestinian hate, international anti-Semitism and Obama’s betrayal, the cultural divide between right and left is not quite as great as Israel’s critics would have us believe.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
03 January '17..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/palestinians-hate-blue-israel-too/

For the mainstream media, explaining Israeli politics is difficult work. A country where the poor and disenfranchised immigrants from the Middle East have traditionally supported the party of the right (Likud) while the wealthy and the upper middle-class of largely European origin are the last strongholds of the political left does not translate easily into American political context. In the United States, political culture is rooted in very different concerns than those of the average Israeli, where security issues and attitudes toward the Arab world still dominate. The temptation to make flawed analogies, it seems, is still irresistible. That led to the New York Times’s attempt to ascribe reactions in Israel to Secretary of State John Kerry’s astonishing attack on the Jewish state last week to a divide between “red state” and “blue state” Israeli voters. The piece not only failed to effectively analyze the Israeli response to the Obama administration but also the reason why the Middle East conflict hasn’t been solved.

New Times Jerusalem bureau chief Peter Baker isn’t entirely wrong when he says that there is a stark divide between left and right in Israel. For some who live in secular and liberal Tel Aviv, what goes in Jerusalem and even along the border with Gaza–let alone West Bank settlements–has sometimes been of little interest. I can recall conversing with Tel Aviv residents about a visit to Sderot in the south eight years ago, which at the time was besieged by Palestinian missile fire, in which they reacted as if I was speaking of what was happening in Afghanistan. The disconnect between the minority who blame their own country for the lack of peace and the majority who correctly see the problem as the function of Palestinian intransigence is great, even if Hamas’s 2014 missile attacks on the secular metropolis erased some of the left’s complacency.

Yet the left-wing establishment that once dominated Israeli politics and society was effectively marginalized by the collapse of the peace process in the carnage of the second intifada. In the wake of the Palestinians’ refusal of an offer of statehood from the last Labor-led government in 2000, the even split between left and right that had characterized Israeli politics since the 1970s was transformed into a new reality in which power rested with a dominant right and an ever-changing roster of centrist parties. The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now serving his third consecutive term in power and that the only viable alternative comes from Yair Lapid of the centrist Yesh Atid Party speaks volumes about how little influence leftist organs like Haaretz have, even as it continues to support attacks on the Jewish state from foreign critics like Kerry.

Surprise? NY Times’ Tom Friedman Projects His Own Sins Onto Netanyahu - by Ira Stoll

...To use Thomas Friedman’s own mixed metaphors, it’s as if Obama and Kerry are giving their Israeli dog Netanyahu a scrap from the table while they are busy feasting on champagne and caviar with Ayatollah Khamenei. And Thomas Friedman, Obama and Kerry are kicking the dog for its failure to be sufficiently appreciative.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
29 December '16..

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman likens Prime Minister Netanyahu to a “dog” and a “drunk” — and then, with a remarkable lack of self-awareness, faults President-elect Trump’s choice to be ambassador to Israel for insulting other Jews.

Sure enough, in his latest column Friedman writes that “Netanyahu is a leader who is forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it.”

That isn’t even good writing. If Friedman wanted to convey the idea that Netanyahu is indecisive, or stuck, he would have done better to have written that Netanyahu is a leader who is forever treading water in the middle of the Rubicon, or forever backfloating in the middle of the Rubicon. That, however, would have avoided the opportunity to describe the elected leader of the Jewish state as a dog, and thus repeat a classic antisemitic trope last seen in the infamous New Yorker article by Lena Dunham, “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz.” As the Anti-Defamation League helpfully pointed out back when that New Yorker screed was published, “The piece is particularly troubling because it evokes memories of the ‘No Jews or Dogs Allowed’ signs from our own early history in this country, and also because, in a much more sinister way, many in the Muslim world today hatefully refer to Jews as ‘dogs.’”

(Continue to Full Article)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Question. How Many Jewish Children Are Too Many for the NYT, Obama?

...If the issue that so disturbs President Obama is that the Jewish mothers and fathers of East Jerusalem are having too many children, maybe he wants to propose a solution rather than simply allow the United Nations Security Council to condemn the newborns? What’s his answer? An old-fashioned Chinese Communist-style one-child policy, with state-enforced abortions?

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
28 December '16..

In a lead, front-page news article headlined “Defying U.N., Israel Prepares to Build More Settlements,” the New York Times conveys an explanation for the United States failure to veto an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations Security Council.

“The addition of more than 100,000 settlers during Mr. Obama’s tenure convinced him that it was time to change the approach at the United Nations, aides said,” the Times reports. The Times doesn’t identify who these “aides” were or otherwise explain why limiting Jewish population growth in the West Bank is a project worthy of presidential attention

A deeper look at some of the math in the Times article makes Obama’s action seem even more peculiar. The Times reports:

(Continue to Full Article)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.