The New York Times Excuses Palestinian “Localized Expressions of Impatience.” I Mean Rockets.

The horrible anti-Israel bias of the NY Times has been going on for roughly a decade and is covered in detail in the article “A Review of The New York Times Anti-Israel Bias,” so the May 6, 2019 article covering the 600 rockets fired by Palestinian terrorists into Israel was certainly going to be much of the same. However, one cannot help but marvel at the entirely new expressions concocted at the paper to excuse the Palestinian war crimes.

Consider this paragraph from the paper’s front page:

“The outbreak of violence appears to have begun on Friday, when a sniper wounded two Israelis, a violent but localized expression of Palestinian impatience with Israel’s failure to alleviate dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza.”

The paragraph is so rich in its toxicity, that it’s not surprising that it took both David Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner to write it.

  • a violent but localized expression” What a phrase! It was violent – but localized! The mass murderer who walked into a mosque in New Zealand was also “violent but localized.” How did they come up with such nonsense? Such poetry!
  • expression of Palestinian impatience”  It’s important for readers of The Tiimes to understand that Palestinian Arabs are not evil terrorists; they’re simply impatient. Don’t you also sometimes get impatient? These Arab snipers are really very much like you. Minus the the attempted murder.
  • Palestinian impatience with Israel’s failure”  This is even more to the point: while Palestinians might be a bit hasty, the actual failure here is really by Israel. Israel is to blame for Israelis getting shot.
  • Israel’s failure to alleviate dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza.”  And Israel’s failure is colossal. Israel is responsible for the dire humanitarian condition in Gaza.

Just like that, Israel is the evil reprehensible party and the Palestinians are merely frustrated by Israeli action. The war crimes here are by Israel, not Palestinians according to The Times. A brilliant inversion of narrative in one sentence.

So sublime, you swallowed it whole and didn’t choke on it.


Cover page of The New York Times on May 6, 2019 with a lead article titled
“Israel and Gaza in Worst Combat Since 2014”

The article continued on page A7. The expressions were not as precious as the one above, but the excuses for the Palestinian violence would multiply.

“Hamas uses its defiance of Israel to portray itself as the true voice of the Palestinian resistance, and Israel’s right-wing government exploits Gaza’s unruliness to argue that it lacks a partner for peace talks.”

Are you catching onto the games of the Times?

  • Hamas uses its defiance” No longer violence, just defiance. Hamas stands up for the little guy. It’s the Middle East’s version of talking Truth to Power, or some other favorite alt-left nonsense to wash away vile Muslim antisemitism.
  • true voice of the Palestinian resistance,”  Resistance is not only non-violent, it’s not even a force in itself; it only exists in opposition to a force, namely Israel.
  • Israel’s right-wing government”  Nothing gets the hair up of a Times’ reader more than the expression “right-wing.” The expression includes a skull and crossbones and warning that it’s poison. The reader has abundant clarity of who is the good guy and the bad guy in the conflict.
  • Israel’s right-wing government exploits Gaza” Not surprising that a right wing government would exploit people. That’s what bad people do.
  • Gaza’s unruliness” In case you missed it, the Times will repeat it over-and-again that Gaza is not violent and that Hamas is not recognized as a terrorist organization by many countries including the U.S.. Gaza is just a tad unruly as part of its resistance – maybe a bit like some anti-Trump Times readers.
  • lacks a partner for peace talks.” Peace talks? Seriously? Hamas Charter clearly states that it wants the destruction of the Jewish State and that it will never enter into peace talks with Israel. Israel isn’t looking to find or manufacture excuses for not advancing peace talks; Hamas states so openly and repeatedly themselves.

The topsy turvy world of #AlternativeFacts would continue.

“The fury of the weekend’s fighting reflected pent-up Palestinian frustration over Israel’s slow pace in easing restrictions that have sent the densely populated and impoverished territory into economic free fall, said Tareq Baconi, an analyst with the International Crisis Group.”

At least the Times came back to the violence – but without squarely placing it on Palestinians. It used generic language about the fighting from both sides. Additionally:

  • pent-up Palestinian frustration” The Times makes the point over-and-again that the Palestinians are just frustrated and impatient. Do they demand the destruction of Israel? You won’t read that in the Times.
  • Israel’s slow pace in easing restrictions”  To be clear once more, Israel’s the party that set this all in motion. An inversion of cause-and-effect.
  • the densely populated and impoverished territory”  Root for the underdog! Pick Palestinians!
  • Israel’s slow pace… have sent the… territory into economic free fall.” Israel’s the cause of the economic free fall. Not the kleptocracy of the Palestinian leadership. Not the failure of using the foreign aid for rockets, terror tunnels and martyr payments instead of building an economy. Israel’s fault. World, please help!


New York Times page A7 of May 6, 2019

Palestinian Arab terrorists launched 600 rockets into Israeli civilian population centers, and The New York Times sought to educate its morally-stunted readership that the true villain in the episode was Israel. Worse, it normalized the violence with soft words of “resistance,” “defiance” and “frustration,” the same words it uses for its cherished progressives in the U.S.A. fighting Trump. It’s a dog whistle to join the B.D.S. movement against Israel and the anti-Zionist cause. Or worse, to use violence against Israel and its supporters during the horrific spike of antisemitism globally.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Cause and Effect: Making Gaza

The Crime, Hatred and Motivation. Antisemitism All The Same

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

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem

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

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The New York Times Excuses Palestinian “Localized Expressions of Impatience.” I Mean Rockets.

  1. Spot on analysis. I was struck by the blatant bias of this NY TIMES article when it was published verbatim in my local paper (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE). The entire “news” article is full of bias and opinions.
    One other point: The U-T later tried to justify the biased “it’s just Palestinian frustration” statement in the article, the U-T Readers Rep (as the NY TIMES directed after getting such “bias” queries) pointed to the “proof” of this statement found later in the article: “‘The fury of the weekend’s fighting reflected pent-up Palestinian frustrations over Israel’s slow pace in easing restrictions that have sent the densely populated and impoverished territory into economic free fall, said Tareq Baconi, an analyst with the International Crisis Group.”
    Oh, so it must be true. But wait — who or what is the “International Crisis Group”? Turns out, it’s a highly controversial anti-Israel “peace” group significantly funded by George Soros and heaving funding from rich Muslim benefactors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group
    I see nothing wrong with quoting the group’s spokesman. But their bias should have been included the paragraph. Think not? If the NY TIMES quotes a think tank funded by David Koch or other libertarian sympathizers, they always include a reference to the think tank’s bias — AS THEY SHOULD!
    But like most liberal papers, the NY TIMES (and my lower paper) seldom mentions the bias of liberal nonprofits. Stunning revelation, I know.
    One other point: Imagine the city of Tijuana just across the border in Mexico allowed terrorists to fire 600 rockets into my San Diego region — intended to kill or maim as many civilians as possible (NOT even targeting military targets). The terrorists’ stated goal would be the annihilation of San Diegans and the retaking of the region by Mexico (remember, we “stole” Mexico’s land in the 19th century).
    Would we strike back? OF COURSE! Assuming we didn’t then directly attack and occupy TJ, would we leave our borders open after such an attack? How about if such rocket attacks had become a common occurrence? Not to mention tunnels designed to get terrorists and their weapons into our country. (NOTE: No I’m NOT talking about illegal immigration tunnels — I’m talking about the Palestinian terrorists’ reason for digging tunnels into Israel.) Would our border remain open? Seriously?
    BTW — is Gaza isolated by Israel? CONSIDER: There are roads from Egypt into Gaza. In addition, Gaza has a long coastline on the Mediterranean. It can’t be TOO isolated if the Gaza terrorists can obtain 600 missiles to launch into Israel!

    Like

  2. Pingback: The NY Times Will Not Write About the Preferred Violence of Palestinians | FirstOneThrough

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s