To listen to anti-Zionist media reports on Israel is to hear a constant refrain “which most of the world considers illegal” appended to many sentences. Jews living in East Jerusalem gets the clause “which most of the world considers illegal.” Jews building a house in Efrat has an annex “which most of the world considers illegal.” An Israeli Jew with a businesses in Hebron is qualified with “which most of the world considers illegal.”
The presence of Jews anywhere in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region outside the Pale of Israel is considered illegal by much of the world, and the left-wing media will remind you of it every chance it gets (actually the media fails to mention that Arab countries ethnically cleansed its Jews as doing so would distract from its anti-Israel narrative). It does this in a tacit endorsement of the world’s anti-Zionism, not a criticism of the global backwards thinking.
Most of the world also considers gay marriage to be illegal. Even more, most regard simply being gay a crime. Committing a homosexual act is so offensive, it is a crime worthy of capital punishment in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia (Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home country), Sudan and Yemen.
As June is Gay Pride Month in the United States, it would be appropriate for every story that mentions homosexuality to include the phrase “which most of the world considers illegal.” Should broadcasters and newspapers opt not to, they should either similarly stop using the catchy phrase when mentioning Jews living in Jerusalem or acknowledge their own ingrained anti-Zionist bias.
After several weeks of smearing the Jewish State in its latest defensive battle with the terrorists of HAMAS, The New York Times chose to address anti-Semitism in the United States. However, being alt-left, the former newspaper portrayed all of the assailants in a variety of alt-right / Republican / White supremacy clothing. Not a Black, Brown or leftist anti-Semite could be found.
The May 27, 2021 New York Times article was called “Anti-Semitism Surges in Wake of Gaza Clash,” and began on the bottom of the front page and continued along with three black-and-white images on page A17. The pictures, like the article, chose to sanitize “Pro-Palestinian” Arab anti-Semitism as well as hatred from the Black community.
The article stated:
“Until the latest surge, anti-Semitic violence in recent years was largely considered a right-wing phenomenon, driven by a white supremacist movement emboldened by rhetoric from former President Donald J. Trump, who often trafficked in stereotypes.
“Many of the most recent incidents, by contrast, have come from perpetrators expressing support for the Palestinian cause and criticism of Israel’s right-wing government.”
The Times wrote that there are seemingly two types of anti-Semitism – racists from the right-wing and those opposed to the Israeli right-wing. The two rights are both (presumably) wrong, and the “left” was noticeably absent from any accusation.
When the article wrote about two men recently apprehended in connection with attacks on Jewish persons and locations, it only mentioned their names, Waseem Awawdeh and Ali Alaheri. It did not mention their ethnicity (presumably Arab and Muslim) which the paper does frequently in articles with White attackers.
The article also noted the Charlottesville “Unite the Right rally in 2017” where people shouted “Jews will not replace us!” That event was attended by over 100 people. The paper failed to similarly write about the Black Muslim Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan’s address to thousands of people in 2018 where he said he’s not an anti-Semite, “I’m an anti-Termite.” Farrakhan posted a video of the remarks to his million followers, but the Times ignored the episode.
The Times went on to list the shootings of Jews by White gunmen in Pittsburgh and San Diego, but did not list any attacks by Black people such as the killings in Jersey City by an organized team of Black Israelites or the machete attack by a Black man at a rabbi’s house in Monsey, NY. Nor would it describe the rocks and bricks thrown into synagogues in Riverdale, NY or at the faces of Jews in Brooklyn by Black people.
Because that would alter the narrative that the progressive left is pushing: hatred and racism are solely the domain of White Republicans.
To underscore the progressive argument, the Times went on to write “Jews and others were particularly stung by comments by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has spent the past week repeatedly comparing mask and vaccine mandates to the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany, and by the Republicanleadership’s slow response to her remarks.” The article would not discuss the repeated disgusting anti-Semitic remarks of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and the Democratic leadership’s vigorous defense of her. No mention of Rashida Tlaib‘s (D-MI) only showing concern for anti-Semitism when she thought a White person committed the crime. No review of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) comparing the holding cells at the Mexican border to a concentration camp.
The omissions of Black, Brown and progressive anti-Semites were not oversights but a deliberate reorientation by progressive America after the murder of George Floyd to protect people of color.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wrote about the Intelligence Project (IP) in October 2020 which called for demoting the racism and anti-Semitism by Black people because it would lead to over-policing. The report argued that Black anger is warranted while White anger is not:
“SPLC, and IP more specifically, recognizes the common language shared by our Black Separatist listing and federal attempts to criminalize Black activism. We reject federal law enforcement’s false and misleading contention regarding threats from Black separatists. We believe this contention is used to justify the over-policing and surveillance of communities of color. Contributing to a false dichotomy does not serve SPLC’s mission of racial equity…. The Black Separatist listing created a color line bias, separating hate and extremism by race and granting the appearance of a false equivalency of equal hate on both sides. But the hate is not equal. Black separatism was born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression…. Black separatism is a response to white supremacy and white nationalism…. We aim to expose these groups without helping the FBI in its definition of Black identity extremists.”
For the SPLC, Black Israelites may have killed Jews in Jersey City because of anti-Semitism, but at the core, their anger was justified because non-Blacks were moving into their communities. Progressives may note that Farrakhan peddles in anti-Semitism, but they consider it low-grade and based on righteous anger.
For progressives, racism can only be viewed through the lens of power, and they have concluded that Jews have all the power relative to People of Color and Palestinian Arabs, failing to note the deep anti-Semitism in that opinion.
The New York Times has been writing since the Obama years that anti-Semitism exists because the alt-right is racist and Israel is racist because it hated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The “Defund Police” and BlackLivesMatter movements are giving the progressive media additional leeway to absolve the anti-Semitism of Black and Brown people.
There is a message for Jews to internalize in observing how the left-wing media insists that the only real anti-Semites are right-wing White Republicans as it shields the anti-Jewish hate from people of color: Jews are simply tools in their political machinations to reorient America. Anti-Semitism is not a real concern for progressives but an issue to be used selectively to advance a massive redistribution of power and wealth.
The Three Little Pigs is a well-known children’s story. It relays how three pigs lived in different houses – of straw, sticks and of bricks. When a big bad wolf blew on the house of the pig living in a straw house, it collapsed quickly. In some versions of the story that pig ran to his friend in the house of sticks and in other versions he was eaten by the wolf.
The wolf then pursued the pigs in the house of sticks. It too came crashing down under the force of the wolf and the pigs ran for shelter in the pig’s house made of bricks. Using the same approach as before, the wolf was unable to blow down the strong house and needed to use greater force and a variety of means to try to destroy the brick house and kill the pigs inside. Ultimately, the wolf tried to climb down the chimney but the pigs had a fire ready for him and he died due to his own maniacal pursuits.
While using an un-kosher / non-halal animal is not ideal, this story is useful in considering the situation of the Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors.
Global Destruction of All Homes
The Jewish people built their foundational home in the land of Israel and have always considered it the center of Judaism, but those homes were destroyed over the millennia. They rebuilt houses of straw, sticks and bricks around the world, almost all of which crumbled under the forces of foes and neighbors including Babylonians, Romans, Muslims, Crusaders, Cossacks and Nazis. As recently as a century ago, there were many Jewish brick houses found in Poland, Germany, Austria, Argentina and Morocco while the Jewish homes in the United States, Palestine and Russia were only built with sticks and straw.
The Holocaust in Europe and the expulsion of Jews of the Arab world destroyed the magnificent brick houses as well as the smaller and more delicate ones. The remaining Jews scattered to rebuild and fortify the remaining houses. Today, the main Jewish brick homes stand in Israel and the United States, where approximately 85% of world Jewry lives.
Jewish Brick Homes in Israel
In Israel, the Jews are surrounded by roughly 7.25% of the global Muslim population. Israeli Jews are outnumbered by 20-to-1 in just their immediate vicinity, even though Israel has the largest number of Jews in the world. That is because Muslims outnumber Jews by over 100-to-1 in total.
Over the past century, Arab Muslim neighbors fought many wars – conventional and otherwise – against the Jews, trying to destroy their presence in their holy land. Jews survived the attacks and hardened their homes to withstand the onslaughts of their neighbors’ tanks, guns, scud missiles, hijackings, rockets and more.
As in “The Three Little Pigs,” the wolves were forced to modify their tactics to achieve their goal.
Palestinian suicide bombers forced Israel to build a separation barrier in the West Bank and convinced Israel to abandon its presence in Gaza. Building upon the successful guerilla warfare, the Palestinian wolves built terror tunnels for abductions, and introduced widespread stabbings, car rammings and incendiary balloons against Israelis.
The schemes did not produce the Muslims’ desired effects so the wolves have adopted two new principle strategies: 1) obtain powerful weapons of mass destruction; and 2) get Israel to soften its defenses so the wolves can penetrate the Jewish homes and drive them from the land.
The nuclear weapons plan of Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) were foiled by Israel. At present, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains committed to pursuing nuclear weapons while calling for the destruction of Israel.
Regarding softening up Israel, the Palestinians seek to use global pressure – economic, political and military – to make Israel much more vulnerable to its all-out attacks and ultimately achieve the stated aim as clearly articulated in the HAMAS charter: destroy Israel and kill the Jews.
Nothing mobilizes the world against Jews as much as pictures of them killing children to rekindle historic blood libels. So HAMAS puts children in the frontlines of incursions at the Gaza border fence. The terrorist group launches rockets from residential neighborhoods, stores rockets in schools and builds terror tunnels underneath homes. Israel’s retaliatory attacks are designed by Palestinians to kill children who are served in open square caskets on the pages of the anti-Zionist world media.
The noise not only activates anti-Zionist forces and makes Israel rethink how to prosecute wars, it serves as effective cover for Iran and others Islamic regimes to continue to build their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities.
The Lies of Victim Tally and Proportionate Force
The tally of the victims in battles between HAMAS and Israel will always be lopsided and serves as another effective tool to hurt Israel. The anti-Zionist press readily regurgitates the false narrative that victim tallies equates to proportionality of force. The truth is that HAMAS uses the maximum forces at its disposal while Israel uses only an iota of its capabilities. Gazans deliberately fire at Israeli civilians while Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties with targeted attacks after warnings.
The gap in victim tallies is the result of a difference of FORCE MINUS DEFENSES, not a disproportionate use of force. Gazans lack bomb shelters for civilians and an air defense system. They fire missiles from densely populated neighborhoods which are intertwined with terrorist infrastructure. To isolate the comparison of force between the parties is to consider Gazans’ all-out evil intent of using its maximal firepower, against the soft power of a superior army. The disproportionate defenses produced the real difference, not the applied force of each party.
If there was no Egyptian and Israeli blockade of Gaza and HAMAS was able to import more advanced weaponry from Iran and Turkey, the death and destruction which Israel would have been forced to unleash on Gaza would have been significantly greater. The blockade likely saved thousands of Arab and Jewish lives.
But pro-Palestinian advocates will argue for lifting the blockade of Gaza, for spending millions to rebuild the Strip complete with bomb shelters, for boycotting Israeli companies, for stripping the Jewish State’s military aid and charging the country and its leaders with war crimes. Each action would increase the duration of the next war and its death toll.
The world’s remaining Jews have only two brick houses, and have learned to recognize the tactics and relentlessness of those desirous of destroying them. Jews cannot be passive as both the wolves and the wolves in sheep’s clothing act to destroy their last homes.
The world has a long history of telling Jews where they can and cannot live. Jews were not only barred from certain professions in the countries in which they lived but were limited in where they could have a home. Russia had its ‘Pale of Settlement’ and Europe had its ghettoes. Today, the United Nations supports Arabs’ wishes for Jews to be barred from living in half of the Jewish holy land.
The absurd whines of ‘Judaizing’ Jerusalem coming from Muslim countries is to be expected. Their wish to delegitimize the ancient history and deep roots of Jews to a city they also consider holy has a selfish motivation. While it doesn’t give them a pass for the anti-Semitism of denying Jews their history and culture, it can at least be rationalized.
But what can possibly be the motivation of The New York Times writing about the ‘Judaization’ of Israel itself?
As the latest May 2021 Gaza war came to a close, the Times ran a piece on May 23rd “Before Rage Flared, A Push To Makes Israeli Mixed Towns More Jewish.” The Times bemoaned how many “right-wing” Jews were leaving the West Bank and settling into mixed Arab-Jewish Israeli towns, making them more Jewish. Somehow the paper which repeatedly criticizes Jews living east of the 1948 Armistice Lines is now even upset when the Jews leave and move west of the ’48 Lines, if they seek to live amongst Arabs.
The Times has been educating its readers that Jews should remain in their ghettoes, even in the United States. It wrote in a sympathetic manner how the Black community in Jersey City and other New Jersey towns felt that Jews were aggressively pushing into their Black communities. For the progressive media, it was not surprising that several Black people shot and killed Jewish residents. As President Obama’s press secretary Josh Earnest said of Jews moving into homes in Jerusalem which they had legally purchased, those Jews have an “agenda [which] provokes tensions.” For progressives,it is the presence of Jews which causes the problem, not the non-Jewish hatred of incoming Jewish neighbors.
Even inside of Israel, the anti-Zionist rag bemoans the presence of Jews which it can only picture as right-wing nationalistic racists, in sharp contrast to Arabs who have a rightful aspiration to a Jew-free country as well as being independent or a majority inside of Israel. The progressive mantra of a two state solution is 1.5 states for Arabs and 0.5 of a state for Jews. And even that, might be too much for those ‘right-wing’ Jews.
The anti-Zionist New York Times is accelerating its attacks on the Jewish State with a narrative that Jewish Israelis are racists as it moves towards accusations of apartheid. It would seem that the Gray Lady is newly interested in evictions when it comes to illegal Arab squatters as opposed to Jewish families thrown out of their homes in their most holy city.
On May 8, 2021, the Gray Lady printed an article “As Court Decision Nears, Battle over Evictions in East Jerusalem.” The article noted that the Israeli Supreme Court will soon rule on whether to evict Arab residents of Jerusalem (the Times calls them “Palestinians of East Jerusalem”) who moved into homes “vacated” by Jews in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. The article failed to state that Jordan (and four other Arab armies) invaded Israel in that war, evicted all of the Jews from Judea and Samaria including the eastern portion of Jerusalem in an act of ethnic cleansing, illegally annexed the region in 1950, and then granted Jordanian citizenship to all Arabs in 1954 while specifically excluding Jews in a further highly anti-Semitic action.
Instead, the Times said that “Jordan captured the area, including East Jerusalem in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948” making East Jerusalem sound like an actual city rather than the fact that Jordan invaded Jerusalem and seized the eastern half CREATING “EAST JERUSALEM,” an entity that existed until Jordanians attacked Israel again in a war that resulted in Israel reunifying the city.
The paper had the temerity of calling the Jews who moved back into their homes in the reunified capital as “settlers.” Recasting people moving back into their homes nineteen years after being evicted in a brutal act of ethnic cleansing as new foreign interlopers, is something that only an alt-left anti-Zionist can explain.
To support its jaundiced narrative, the Times quoted an Israeli who said that Jews have an ancient connection to the city so they have a right to keep the city Jewish, making the Jewish claim to the area seem ancient and fanatical. The Times statement was designed to be inflammatory and distracted readers from the legal property rights of the Jewish owners. If the paper wanted to add historical context to the story, it could have added the fact that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for over 150 years. Jews living in the eastern part of the Jerusalem is not recreating a 2,000-year old factoid, but a continuation of Jews living – and being a majority – in the city for centuries.
Jerusalem Day, a holiday marking the reunification of the city divided by war, is also a moment to celebrate the end of the anti-Semitic Arab ethnic cleansing in Judaism’s holiest city. This year, it should also be celebrated with writing to The New York Times at firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com to demand the paper stop its misinformation campaign regarding Israel, ignoring Jerusalem’s Jewish majority since the 1860’s and the eviction of Jews from the eastern half of the city at the hands of invading Arabs. The false narrative promoted by anti-Zionists is the basis for outrageous declarations like UNSC Resolution 2334, which advocate for a Jew-free “East Jerusalem,” and a reinstitution of the ethnic cleansing program of 1949 to 1967.
Over Jerusalem’s 4,000-year history, it has been attacked and ransacked dozens of times. In modern times, the city was divided for 19 years, from 1949 to 1967, after the Jordanian army invaded Israel, evicted all of the Jews from Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, annexed the region and granted Jordanian citizenship to all Arabs, specifically excluding Jews. After the Jordanians attacked Israel again in June 1967, Israel took the region that Jordan had illegally seized and removed the barbed wire and roadblocks which had split the city, unifying Jerusalem once again. The Jewish State officially annexed the city in 1980.
The United Nations, which had wanted Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem to be an international Holy Basin, neither part of a Jewish State nor an Arab one, still uses the term “East Jerusalem” even though the demarcation has long been erased. Pro-Arab publications like the New York Times have called it “Arab East Jerusalem,” adding a non-Jewish adjective, either to note that the eastern part of the city is 60% Arab and only 40% Jewish, or to distance the Jewish Temple Mount, the holiest place for Jews, from the public sphere. Or both.
As the number of Jews continues to grow throughout unified Jerusalem, the left-wing anti-Zionist publication took yet a new pro-Arab step on April 24, 2021, calling the eastern part of the city “Palestinian East Jerusalem,” in an article which inverted the Arab attacks on Jews and response of Jews to those attacks (but that’s standard reporting for the Times.)
For clarity, Israel granted all Arabs living in Israel in 1948 citizenship and has allowed any Arab living in Jerusalem to apply for Israeli citizenship when it officially annexed the eastern part of the city. Thousands of Jerusalem Arabs have already taken Israeli citizenship and many more have applied and are in process. However, the New York Times has now opted to distance Arabs in Jerusalem from Israel by declaring that they are Palestinian and that the area is occupied Palestinian territory. This is a complete lie, as the area was never Palestinian, just illegally occupied Jordanian territory and the Arabs are either Israeli citizens or residents.
The article written by Isabel Kershner attempted to further the fabrication of a “Palestinian East Jerusalem” with statements like:
“Jews and Palestinians then split off into gangs and roamed the streets on their respective sides of the city…”
“… a main thoroughfare which that runs along the dividing line between East and West Jerusalem.“
These statements are ridiculous. There hasn’t been a dividing line in Jerusalem for 44 years as Jerusalem is a single unified city. Some of the largest Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are in the so-called “Palestinian” side of the city.
For the Times, those facts need to be challenged as often as possible.
In the same article, the paper noted that “Israel annexed East Jerusalem after capturing it in the 1967 Middle East War,” failing to state that Israel didn’t capture it from “Palestine” which didn’t exist, nor that Israel took it from Jordan which had illegally annexed it, nor that Israel took it in a defensive battle. Instead, the Times added that “most of the world considers it occupied territory [by Israel].” An ill-informed reader is left with the false impression that Israel illegally seized Palestinian land.
Conversely, when speaking of the Palestinians claim for the eastern half of the city with quotes of “East Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Palestine,” and that Fatah “praised the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem for defending the city and the Aqsa mosque, the revered Muslim holy site,” it again called the Arabs of Jerusalem as “Palestinians,” noted that Jerusalem was holy to Muslims (the article never said anything like that for Jews) and did not have any counter-narrative as it did in regards to Israel reunifying the city.
To further its jaundiced narrative, the Times wrote about “an extremist Jewish supremacy group,” and “young, Jewish supporters of the Jewish supremacist organization Lehava,” continuing its narrative that Israeli Jews are racists. This is in sharp contrast to Palestinian Arabs who are portrayed as innocents who were prevented from gathering at a “festive meeting place… during Ramadan” by police. The facts that Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic group in the world, voted a Holocaust denier to the presidency and a terrorist group with a charter which reads like a combination of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion to 58% of its parliament, never make it into the pages of the anti-Zionist Gray Lady.
The New York Times has taken yet another anti-Israel step in the Arab-Israeli conflict to fabricate a narrative that eastern Jerusalem is an actual Palestinian city, uniquely holy to Muslims, besieged by a racist Jewish State.
The New York Times has an aggressive re-education effort about the world. It distorts history and facts in its enterprise, particularly when it comes to Israel.
A March 21, 2021 article was designed to elicit empathy for Palestinian Arabs, which is the anti-Israel’s paper common practice and right. What is unfortunate is not simply the bias but distortion of truth.
The paper’s background to the area commonly known as the “West Bank” was as follows:
“The Israeli government’s explanation for the demolitions dates back to the 1990s Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. The agreement gave Israel administrative control over more than 60 percent of the West Bank, including most of the Jordan Valley, pending further negotiations which were meant to be completed within five years.
“But over two decades of talks, the two sides have failed to agree on a deal, so Israel retains control of the lands – known as Area C – and has the right to demolish homes built there without planning permission.”
The 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords did not “give Israel administrative control” over area C; the Accords gave the Palestinian Authority (PA) control over Areas A and B. Israel has had administrative control of the West Bank for over fifty years. The Israelis gave the Palestinians the opportunity to control an area for the first time in history.
The Israelis were willing to give the PA more lands, including the vast majority of Area C in 2000. Not getting 100% of their stated desires, the Palestinians launched what is gently described as the “Second Intifada,” a murderous guerilla war waged for four years until Israel was able to halt the Palestinian killers by constructing a security barrier.
Israel handed additional lands to the Palestinians in 2005, as it withdrew from the Gaza Strip. That action led to wars from Gaza in 2008, 2012 and 2014 followed by West Bank car ramming and stabbing attacks in 2015 and 2016. The Palestinian actions destroyed any notion of Israel ceding control of more land to an entity hell-bent on murder. This reality is a far cry from the Times narrative that “the two sides failed to agree on a deal.”
Lastly, the Times, which forever likes to use harsh terms like “occupation” and “illegal” for Israel, is loathe to point out Palestinian terrorism and illegal activities. Like “illegal aliens” in the United States being called “undocumented immigrants,” the Times sanitized the illegally built Arab structures by claiming they were simply completed “without planning permission.”
The New York Times is deliberately posting ahistorical information to sway its readership to take a positive view of Palestinian Arabs and a negative view of Israel. It is part of the left-wing mantra to engage globally by distancing America from allies like Israel and warming relationships with state sponsors of terrorism like Iran.
Henry Ford Sr., the founder of the Ford Motor Corporation was a well known vile anti-Semite. He published a four-volume work called “The International Jew” in the early 1920’s which encapsulated much of the bile from the Russian forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion“. Both publications assert that Jews seek to control the world, as summed up in a line from Ford’s work: “If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power. Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously.“
This smear has been uttered from the lips of the world’s worst genocidal anti-Semites, from Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s, to the Palestinian political / terrorist group Hamas in the present day.
It is catching on in liberal circles today as well.
Consider the March 13, 2021 New York Times article about “nearly $3 billion earmarked for private schools… which came after Mr. Schumer was lobbied by the powerful Orthodox Jewish community in New York City, riled other Democratic leaders and public school advocates.” The “powerful” Jews got a U.S. senator to funnel money to their schools “even after House Democrats expressly sought to curtail such funding by effectively capping coronavirus relief for private education in the bill at about $200 million. Mr. Schumer, in the 11th hour, struck the House provision and inserted $2.75 billion — about 12 times more funding than the House had allowed.”
New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo agrees with the Times about Orthodox Jews. In October 2020 he berated the community about their actions during the pandemic and added “these ultra-Orthodox communities, who are also very politically powerful, don’t kid yourself.“
In January 2019, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said that the pro-Israel community controls Congress saying “that is generally sort of a right of passage for politicians in the United States and that is sort of to profess sort of fealty, or at least pay homage, to AIPAC, the pro-Israel PAC that is very, very prominent.” Newly-minted Democratic member of Congress Ilhan Omar of “it’s all about the Benjamins“-fame enthusiastically agreed. The former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke was so impressed, that he sent Omar a heart emoji.
MSNBC wrote articles about how Republican “candidates for president are trumping out to Las Vegas to go kiss the ring of a billionaire casino owner,” Sheldon Adelson. However, when MSNBC wrote about Michael Bloomberg spending $400 million on the 2020 presidential race it wrote “Bloomberg’s ambitions serve as a reminder of the limits of money.” It also wrote in a positive tone that “Mayor Bloomberg and his team are making good on their commitment to beating Donald Trump.” For the liberal MSM, it would seem that Jewish billionaires are manipulative schemers when they back Republicans but noble fighters who sometimes lose when supporting Democrats.
The media’s education about Jewish control is not limited to politicians. The New York Times bemoaned how the Metropolitan Opera House “bow[ed] to the wishes… of Jewish critics” of the ‘Death of Klinghoffer’ opera and cancelled its global telecast.
When the largest newspaper and the governor of the state with the largest number of Jews comfortably smear the Jewish community in the manner of Henry Ford, decent people must assess the state of anti-Semitism everywhere in the United States, and most definitely, the rest of the world.
The United States Congress passed bi-partisan legislation which was signed into law by President Donald Trump in March 2018 which limited funds to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as long as it supported terror.
H.R. 1625 included language from the Taylor Force Act, named for an American murdered by a Palestinian Arab while visiting Israel, which specifically called out:
“The Palestinian Authority’s practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror.“
It added that Congress further
“calls on the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and any successor or affiliated organizations to stop payments for acts of terrorism by individuals who are imprisoned after being fairly tried and convicted for acts of terrorism and by individuals who died committing acts of terrorism and to repeal the laws authorizing such payments.“
The terms “terrorists” and “terrorism” being used for Palestinian Arabs is an anathema for The New York Times. The liberal paper actively seeks to portray the Palestinian Arabs in a favorable light as much as possible and did so in a March 11, 2021 article called “Chance of Renovation of School on West Bank Hinge on Aid From U.S.”
After twenty paragraphs of describing the students in an Arab school simply wanting an education and fearful of “ultranationalist settlers,” the article described the Taylor Force Act, albeit quite differently from than the actual text cited above. The Times wrote:
“The Act restricts the U.S. government’s ability to disburse aid that “directly benefits” the Palestinian Authority as long as the authority pays the salaries of Palestinian security prisoners and slain attackers.“
The word “slain” is defined as “to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers.” In other words, according to the Times, it is the Palestinian “attackers” who are killed violently and wantonly by Israelis. In regards to the Palestinians, they are not terrorists, but just “attackers” who may or may not kill violently, wantonly or in great numbers. Probably not.
This is a complete inversion of the U.S. law which sought to defend basic human rights by denying the funding of terrorism, turning the killers into the victims.
The misdirection of the Times continued a few paragraphs later with:
“The Palestinian Authority hasn’t announced plans for any significant reforms to its highly popular payment system.” That’s true. Palestinian Arabs love the flow of money coming from U.S. taxpayers to terrorists even if it means that they will be denied any aid from the United States. They would rather continue funding the murder of Israelis than have money to pay for a school.
But that story is lost in the Times’ misinformation piece which made the money to Palestinians look like a convenient system set up to aid the impoverished. Instead, the article finished with the plea “Our [Palestinian] kids have nothing to do with politics… why should they pay the price?” A brilliant advertisement, making the reader adopt the first person image that their “own” children are the ones who suffer from the U.S. law.
The United States stands against terrorists and those who fund and support them – not just including, but specifically – the Palestinian Authority. It is an insult to the memory and families of the American and Israeli victims of Palestinian Arab terrorists that the Times actively inverts the killers and the victims.
The mainstream media has been advancing the notion that the United States has always been, and remains, a country entrenched in systemic racism. It uses myriad statistics to support this theory such as higher Black unemployment, poverty and incarceration nationwide.
Recently, the liberal media has used the pandemic as another example to support their belief of systemic racism. For months, they reported that more Black and Hispanic people lost their jobs, and have been infected and died from COVID-19. The media informed the public that it was because of systemic racism and rich White people taking all of the vaccines as a matter of privilege.
So it was a (momentary) nice surprise to see The New York Times finally write that a major reason that Black people have not been vaccinated is that they don’t want to be vaccinated. The March 11, 2021 Times article “Misinformation Deepens a Gap in Vaccinations” described how Black people do not trust the government and believe that the vaccines are harmful because they have been fed “misinformation”. As the Times has repeatedly described mis/disinformation campaigns as a right-wing phenomenon, it was clear that the Times was attempting to portray another right-wing racist assault on people of color.
The Times article described over-and-again how Blacks and Hispanics and “communities of color” were weary about being vaccinated because they distrusted the government – and for good reason. It noted that “the belief that doctors are interested in experimenting on certain communities has deep roots among some groups, Ms. Kolai said. Anti-vaccine activists have drawn historical examples, including Nazi doctors who ran experiments in concentration camps, and the Baltimore hospital where, 70 years ago, cancer cells were collected from Henrietta Lacks, a Black mother of five.” Somehow, the Times omitted that the Nazi victims were Jews (who have been getting vaccinated), leaving a reader to imagine that those in concentration camps may have been Hispanics at the Mexico-U.S. border, as liberals termed those detention facilities.
The Times went on to accuse White people because “Many Black and Hispanic people were already struggling to make appointments and reach vaccination sites that are often in whiter, wealthier neighborhoods. And officials in some cities say that people from those [whiter, wealthier] neighborhoods also have been flooding appointment systems and taking supply intended for poorer Black and Hispanic residents.” It seemed like the Times was pushing a narrative in which rich White right-wing racists convince Black people that the vaccines are unhealthy so they could then sweep in to take all of the vaccines intended for poorer neighborhoods.
Lost in all the conspiracy peddling was self-reflection. The progressive disinformation campaign about American systemic racism has further instilled the sense of distrust in the government and the medical profession, making minorities increasingly wary of signing up to get vaccinated.
Indeed there is a disinformation harming minorities, but its sources is the very media that points elsewhere.