The past month was already horrible. Members of Congress, most of them far-left Socialists, voted to defund Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. The New York Times wrote about one of the extremists, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who cried at the floor of Congress because she abstained from voting rather than “voting with her conscience” due to “influential lobbyists and rabbis.“
The anti-Zionist paper pulled the comment about rabbis in its online edition, trying to be clear that it only hates Israel supporters and not all Jews. However, the paper continues to insert its bias against any support for the Jewish State, even for its defenses.
In a soft piece about considering the new host of the television show “Jeopardy,” the Times wrote that the Jewish actress Mayim Bialik was a difficult choice, as she has been involved in a number of controversial topics. Sandwiched between her decisions about not vaccination her children and promoting a health supplement that was sued over false advertising, the opinion-paper f/k/a newspaper wrote “she blogged about donating money to buy bulletproof vests for the Israel Defense Force.“
When the Times reported on the far-left’s votes against Israel’s defenses, it was covering an event. Now the Times made clear its own identical opinion as the anti-Israel extremists: Israelis should not have protection and should be vulnerable to assailants from Gaza, Iran and elsewhere.
In back-to-back days, The New York Times again proved it knows nothing about Israel.
On September 24, the paper wrote that “progressives” were against Israel repeatedly as it described nine members of Congress who voted against funding Israel’s missile defensive system:
“The episode captured the bitter divide among Democrats over Israel, which has pit a small but vocal group of progressives who have called for an end to conditions-free aid to the country against the vast majority of the party, which maintains that the United States must not waver in its backing for Israel’s right to defend itself.”
“After the vote, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez drew condemnations on social media both from supporters of Israel, who savaged her for failing to support the funding, and from progressives and pro-Palestinian activists, who expressed outrage that she ultimately did not register her opposition to it.”
“The debate on the House floor grew bitter Thursday as some progressive Democrats who were opposed called Israel an “apartheid state,” an accusation that at least one proponent of the bill called antisemitic.”
“The dispute began this week, after progressives revolted at the inclusion of the Iron Dome funding in an emergency spending bill, effectively threatening to shut down the government rather than support the money.”
“Some progressive lawmakers grew furious with Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, who pushed for the swift vote on Iron Dome funding. “
Ocasio-Cortez and many of the other people who are against Israel maintaining a defense program against the thousands of missiles launched by HAMAS, the US-designated terrorist group, are anti-Israel Socialist extremists. Most are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group of extremists peddling in anti-Semitic tropes.
True liberal-progressives, like Rep. Ritchie Torres who proudly supports Israel, understand that Israel is a beacon of liberal values in a radical, authoritarian, Muslim Middle East. Whether regarding women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, climate change, recycling, freedoms of press, religion, assembly or any of a variety of issues, Israel is by far the most democratic and liberal country for a thousand miles in any direction. No liberal-progressive would ever side with the Palestinian political-terrorist group Hamas over Israel.
The New York Times peddled much of its typical inanity on September 23rd but added its own anti-Semitism to the article. It said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to vote against the Iron Dome funding but the “powerful” Israel lobby made her simply vote “present.”
This charge is a classic anti-Semitic smear, and echoes anti-Semites like Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler who claimed that powerful Jews run the press, politicians, the banks and all of society. It is a line that the former liberal-progressive and now anti-Semitic Socialist extremist newspaper repeats frequently.
True liberal-progressives proudly stand with Jews and Israel both because of their commitment to human rights and that they are the most persecuted minority in the world. It is the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Socialist extremists that are vilifying Jews and the Jewish State, and they must be repudiated completely.
On August 24, 1929, Palestinian Arabs incited a riot throughout the Jewish holy land with rumors that Jews were attempting to seize and destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. In Hebron, sixty-nine Jews were brutally slaughtered and hundreds were maimed and injured. The catastrophe was so horrific, that the British who were ruling the land under international mandate, felt compelled to evacuate all of the Jews from the city as they did not feel it would be safe for any Jew to remain among the majority Arab population, ethnically-cleansing the Jewish victims from their holy city.
On the 92nd anniversary of the Arab massacre of Jews, The New York Times wrote an article about Jews praying on the Temple Mount. It characterized the Jews as having a history of aggressively pushing onto a Muslim holy site inciting riots.
The article began with stating that Israel forbids Jews from praying on the Temple Mount, which is true, but it did not state that Israel was maintaining the anti-Semitic policy instituted by Jordan of banning Jewish prayer when it illegally ruled the city. The omission was minor in comparison to the paper’s recap of history.
The paper noted that Israel is in charge of security and the Jordanian waqf is responsible for administrative matters on the Temple Mount, but “when the balance of power has teetered,” bad events happen. The Times listed the visit of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 setting off the “Second Intifada“; Israel installing metal detectors in 2017 that led to riots; and Israeli police “raid[ing] the compound several times last spring” provoking an 11-day war with Hamas. In each situation, Israeli actions were attributed as the provocation which led to deaths and destruction.
Misleading its readership, the Times did not write that the “Second Intifada” which began in 2000 was the result of Yasser Arafat, the head of the Palestinian Authority, rejecting the Israeli peace offer capping the Oslo Accords, which would have given Palestinians roughly 98% of their demands, and instead opting for a multi-year war. The Times did not describe Arabs shooting police officers on the Temple Mount in 2017 which led to the decision to install metal detectors. The paper omitted the Arab riots over the evictions of squatters in homes in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood next to the Old City and the Palestinian Authority cancelling elections which made HAMAS launch hundreds of missiles at Israeli towns.
The Times inverted every story, and recast the Arab attackers as victims.
Obviously, the paper left out the massacre of 69 Jews in Hebron as it revealed that Arabs murder Jews for perceived threats, not actual force.
The New York Times is attempting to rewrite history that Jews are responsible for war, a smear promoted in the infamous forgery ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and in the HAMAS Charter. It is a vile tactic which anti-Semites have used for a long time. That the Times would specifically do it on the anniversary of the 1929 Hebron Massacre marks its editors as cruel sadists as well.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization declared an independent State of Palestine in 1988. Only Arab and Muslim countries recognized it, while about a decade ago, countries in Latin America also chose to recognize it. The United States and much of the western world has refused to recognize such entity, in the hopes that the contours of such state will be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
But The New York Times is not waiting for the U.S. government, and has now recognized the entity as a state throughout the paper.
On August 23, 2021, Will Shortz, long-time editor of the crossword puzzle, added a clue which specifically called Palestine an actual country.
This is part of an ongoing initiative of the paper. On April 24, 2021, the Times wrote about “Palestinian East Jerusalem,” which compounded multiple layers of fiction: there hasn’t been an entity called “East Jerusalem” since 1967 and it certainly isn’t part of a State of Palestine.
The New York Times deliberately does not call HAMAS, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, with such designation as it tries to sanitize the genocidal anti-Semitism of the group. The paper is now further breaking with official U.S. foreign policy in recognizing a Palestinian State as it attempts to mainstream the Palestinian narrative to its far-left readership.
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.