The Palestinian-American You Never Heard Of: Issam Akel

The mainstream media often reports on a handful of Palestinian-Americans. The most dominant two are women who live in America: freshman member of Congress Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Linda Sarsour, a co-chair of the 2017 Women’s March. The outspoken women often attack the the State of Israel and Zionists who support the Jewish State and they get to enjoy the press coverage which magnifies their prominence.

The press also highlights certain Palestinian Americans who live in the Middle East to portray a particular narrative of events between Israel and the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs).

Consider Tariq Abu Kheidar, a 15-year old who was beaten by Israeli police for taking part in riots. The New York Times featured a picture of the Palestinian American teenager in a huge color photo on its front page on July 7, 2014. For the paper, it symbolized the conflict of an aggressive Israeli force beating up on Arab teenagers.

Tariq Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian-American teenager who was beaten up by an Israeli border police officer in 2014. Oded Balilty/Associated Press

The Times would cover the story again in November 2015 in a follow up article “Israeli Officer Sentenced to Community Service in Beating of Palestinian American.” The Times not only got to rehash the story, but highlight that Israeli courts did not aggressively prosecute zealous law enforcement officials who beat up Arabs, in an attempt to make a parallel to police officers in the United States attacking minorities.

However, the Times never reported on another Palestinian American who was the focus of international diplomacy, a man sentenced to a life in prison with hard labor by the Palestinian Authority for the “crime” of selling land to a Jew.

Issam Akel, a 55-year old man with American citizenship who lived in the eastern part of Jerusalem, was arrested by the Palestinian Authority in October 2018. His crime of selling his house to a Jew could have carried a death sentence, but he “only” received a life sentence, possibly because he was an American. The Trump administration secured his release to American authorities in January 2019. The Times would neither report on his arrest nor his release.

(Screenshot/Wattan News Agency)

The Times will not write about the vile antisemitism and suffering of Palestinian Americans under the Palestinian Authority as doing so undermines the narrative that the PA is moderate. The Times will only write stories where Palestinian Americans are victims of right-wing Americans and Israelis.


Related First.One.Through articles:

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

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

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

NY Times Disgraceful Journeys

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

Thomas Friedman is a Peddler of Racist Fiction and Adolescent Fantasy

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Advertisements

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

The Crime, Hatred and Motivation. Antisemitism All The Same

I have attended only one Supreme Court case. It was in October 2002 when I got to listen to a few minutes of a case as I did not have a reserved seat, so was ushered through the august chamber pretty quickly as a spectator standing in the back.

During that short time, I heard Justice Antonin Scalia asking questions which were designed to parse the space between law and motivation. His words were powerful then and remain so today:

“SCALIA: Now, let’s assume that there is a Federal statute that makes discrimination because of, or failure to hire someone, or let’s say, let’s say killing
someone solely because of his race — a crime, a separate crime. And someone, let’s assume he kills someone who is Jewish, and he said, well, I didn’t kill him solely because he was Jewish; I killed him because I disagree with the policies of Israel. Does that get him out of the statute?

MR. FRANKLIN: But it’s important. The section 525 is drafted — is an antidiscrimination statute, but it’s drafted differently than other — title VII, for
example, does not use the word —

SCALIA: I’m getting to the question of whether the fact that you have some other motive eliminates the sole causality. The only reason this person was killed was because he was Jewish, and so also here, the only reason this license was
terminated is because the person hadn’t paid. Now, there may be some regulatory motive in the background, just as in the hypothetical that I invented there was some international political motive in the background, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the person was killed solely because he was Jewish, and it seems to me that the license here was revoked solely because the payment hadn’t been made.”

The 2002 case was not about racism or antisemitism or any capital offense. It was on a commercial matter, but Scalia opted to throw in a hypothetical situation of whether a targeted killing of a person for being a Jew was perhaps not discriminatory and diluted by the motivation behind that murder.

Of all the theoretical examples Scalia could have dreamed up about a commercial dispute, he opted to tie antisemitism with anti-Zionism.

Scalia did not do this because he was a raving anti-Semite nor because he detested Israel. He used an example which he thought drove home his point which everyone in the room readily understood. People sitting and standing in the highest court in the free world understood the ties between antisemitism and the hatred for the Jewish State. Even though no one in the room was thinking about religion at that time, everyone had long ago internalized the various reasons people killed Jews over the centuries: Christ killers (Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council); getting out of the debt of money lenders (various European governments throughout the Middle Ages); dirty, impure global manipulators (Nazis, Cossacks); and the latest preposterous version peddled globally since the 2001 Durban Conference and actualized in the terrorism of the Second Intifada, that Israel is a racist colonial apartheid Jewish state which occupies and torments a helpless and innocent indigenous Arab population.

In the Scalia hypothetical, the particular person was attacked because he was a Jew, making it an antisemitic hate crime. The inspiration for the assault was anger against the Jewish State, but the nature of the crime remained the same. At least for that Conservative Justice.

Exactly 5,999 days after Scalia made his argument, a Norwegian rapper named Kaveh Kholardi called out on stage “f***ing Jews” during a public event promoting multiculturalism. The Norwegian attorney general absolved Kholardi of violating a Norwegian hate crime stating that while the comment “seems to be targeting Jews, it can however also be said to express dissatisfaction with the policies of the State of Israel.” That ruling came despite Kholardi never mentioning “Israel” and posting on Twitter just days before the concert “f***ing Jews are so corrupt.” In the Norwegian court, the crime was no longer a crime and hate was no longer hate if a political motivation could be manufactured.

The crime and hatred against Jews by the alt-right, the alt-left and Islamic radicals may be the same, but the underlying motivations of each group may be different. It matters to some, but not others.

Motivations

The global king of liberal media, The New York Times posted a cartoon on April 25, 2019 about US President Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and dark glasses as though he were blind, led by a dog with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face on it with a Jewish Star hanging from the collar.


The New York Times International edition on April 25, 2019

Maybe the motivation for the Times’ cartoon was their befuddlement about Trump’s following Netanyahu’s lead on all things related to the Middle East. But if it were just that, why put a Jewish yarmulke on Trump? Why specifically make him Jewish when he is Presbyterian?

Similarly, in 2014, the Times called the opera “The Death of Klinghoffer” which sought to find the “humanity in the terrorists” who threw an elderly wheelchair-confined Jew off of a ship, a “masterpiece.” The opera was written about a murdered American Jew, not an Israeli killed by Palestinians. Why should such an opera that seeks to find “humanity” in murderers be composed and performed at all, and why should the Times celebrate it?

The answer is a curiosity: since the alt-left would like to see the Palestinian Arabs have their own state, the Islamic terrorists had LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION, so the crime was negated, enabling their progressive fringe celebration.

When alt-right nationalists burst into a Chabad House in California and a synagogue in Pittsburgh killing innocent Jewish worshipers, the alt-left condemned the slaughter because the motivation as described in the killers’ “manifestos” was hatred of minorities and HIAS, a Jewish organization benefiting immigrants. Those are currently progressive protected classes. However, when Palestinian Islamic radicals slaughtered four rabbis in a synagogue in Jerusalem, progressive groups and the Islamic radical dominated-United Nations condemned the impasse of the peace process, thereby rationalizing the murder. The New York Times stated that Hamas “is so consumed with hatred for Israel that it has repeatedly resorted to violence.” It wrote “restoring” to violence, as if the 1988 Hamas Charter wasn’t the most anti-Semitic governing document ever written, which explicitly calls for the murder of Jews. The liberal rag chose to INVERT CAUSE-AND-EFFECT, making the Islamic hatred and violence by-products of Israeli actions rather than the root cause of the conflict.

When Palestinian terrorism was particularly frequent and noxious, the Times called the actions “desperate” because there was NO CHOICE to running over Israeli civilians and stabbing them in the streets and their beds. Those where acts of desperation, not hatred.

The United Nations and the progressive fringe reject the Conservative Supreme Justice Scalia’s notion that a crime is a crime regardless of motivation. If the motivation – say anger at the lack of a Palestinian State – is legitimate, the crime is rationalized and validated. Tricks such as inverting the dynamic that it is the Israelis who are racists, not the Palestinian Arabs, portrays Arabs as justly responding to a situation, not initiating it. The violence against Israeli Jews are acts of desperation, not cold-blooded murder. For the alt-left, only the alt-right kills Jews for that reason.

Jews are currently hated openly and being murdered by the alt-right, the alt-left and Islamic radicals, with each group attempting to rationalize its crimes with manifestos, smug self-righteous editorials and illegitimate UN resolutions. But make no mistake: there is no absolution from morphing malevolent motivations. This proud American Jewish Zionist says to all three groups: you are all evil and you are all guilty.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Cause and Effect: Making Gaza

Fun With Cause-and-Effect: Gaza Border Protests

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Germans have “Schadenfreude” Jews have “Alemtzev”

Murdered Jews as Political Fodder at Election Season in America and Always in Israel

Calls From the Ashes

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

 

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Pure hatred is ugly in any situation. Hatred begotten of a sick mindset that views certain people as being deeply sinister and sub-human is yet a darker shade in the evil shadow of mankind. That’s what racism and antisemitism is and has always been, and it should be unremarkably easy to denounce clearly and without condition.

But the increasingly far-left turn of mainstream media like The New York Times cannot do so.

On April 5, 2019, the paper ran a cover story with no picture called “Extremes of Right and Left Share an Ancient Bias.” The title made this writer hopeful that the paper would finally acknowledge the mainstreaming of antisemitism that has infected the alt-left, just as it continues to address the antisemitism of the alt-right.

But the Times could not.

The paper relayed its perceptions as to the causes of the spike in antisemitism over the past five years. It described the hatred from the alt-right as coming from racists and neo-Nazis in Europe and America. The paper included three color photographs on page A8 highlighting some of those attacks.

The Times would also include one color photograph of an opposition march against the UK Labour Party which has been peddling anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda for several years. There was however, no picture of the Labour party head Jeremy Corbyn celebrating with Islamic terrorists and sporting the four finger Muslim Brotherhood “rabia” salute or dozens of other anti-Israel and antisemitic stories emanating from the UK’s left-wing party.

There were no pictures of Ilhan Omar, Louis Farrakhan or other Muslims and people of color who comprise the third ugly leg of the antisemitic trifecta. There were no pictures of the victims throughout Europe of Muslim antisemitism, or of the Chabad House in India where Muslim terrorists went out of their way to kill the handful of Jews in India, while engaged in a massive terrorist operation. Of course, there were no pictures of Muslims attacking Jews in Israel.

The Times has taken the position that the antisemitism from the alt-left and Muslims is because of Israel’s actions against Palestinian Arabs. The final 14 paragraphs of the article – meant to discuss antisemitism – described how Israel’s government is comprised of far right-wing racists who persecute Muslims. The implication is therefore that the leftists and Muslims were protesters against racism, rather than anti-Semites themselves.

Fourteen paragraphs about Israelis being racists. Not Muslims.

  • The Times decided to not print the ADL polls which show that Muslims are three to five times more antisemitic than Christians in Europe.
  • The Times decided to not point out how millions of dollars from the Arab world has poured into American universities to fund Arab Studies programs and anti-Israel activities.
  • The Times ignored the leaders of the “Women’s March” attacking Jews and Israel.
  • The Times would not print Louis Farrakhan’s vile comments or that his audience dwarfed the crowd of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.
  • The Times ignored the long history of Muslims killing Jews around the world long before the 2014 War From Gaza, including the Iranians blowing up the Jewish Center in Argentina in 1994 or the mass shooting of a Turkish synagogue in 1986.

The Times refuses to portray fanatical Muslims as deeply anti-Semitic just as it refuses to acknowledge the evolving deep hatred from the alt-left (NY liberal politicians refused to allow Jewish schools to have police protection!) Every violent action Muslims and the alt-left take are protests, not antisemitism.

Further, the Times spins a narrative that the alt-left and radical Muslims are in the right to protest Israel, because Israel is supposedly a racist colonial oppressor of indigenous Arabs. The paper argues that it is the treatment of Palestinian Arabs which upsets the left-wing, as oppose to the very existence of Israel. The phrase “treatment of Palestinians” has become commonplace in the paper as the source of the protests. The paper will almost never mention the virulently antisemitic Hamas Charter which calls for the death of Jews, or note that Palestinians voted Hamas to 58% of parliament with such charter. It will not call Hamas a terrorist group even though it has been designated as such by the United States and many other countries.

For the Times, antisemitism is ancient but the the bias has different origins. The alt-right is evil, your father’s antisemitism, easy to recognize by the white nationalists which should be condemned. But the newer antisemitism isn’t really evil at all, as it’s a legitimate form of protest by Muslims and progressives against racist Zionists.

The fact that all three groups want Jews dead and the Jewish State destroyed is a coincidence of conclusion. Please don’t besmirch progressives and Muslims or we’ll have to label you as alt-right racists too.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

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

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

CNN Will Not Report Islamic Terrorism

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Anti-Israel Lobbyists Dwarf Pro-Israel Lobbyists

As AIPAC kicks off its 2019 conference in Washington, D.C., it is worth reviewing some basic statistics about this pro-Israel lobbying group.

Biden_at_AIPAC, once upon a time

According to Open Secrets, AIPAC spent $3.5 million on lobbying in 2018, slightly more than the $3.4 million it spent in 2017. This is a relatively small number compared to the anti-Israel Open Society Foundation (OSF) which spent $31.5 million in 2018 – NINE TIMES what AIPAC spent. That figure is also almost four times the $16 million that OSF spent on US lobbying in 2017. This huge jump in lobbying dollars may coincide with George Soros’s transfer of $18 BILLION into OSF, making it the second largest “charity”/ largest lobbying group in the United States. (By calling itself a charity instead of a lobbying group, Soros was able to avoid paying any capital gains on the billions of investment dollars in his hedge fund.)

In addition to its work lobbying the US government, the OSF directly funds many anti-Israel organizations according to NGO Monitor, including Adalah, Breaking the Silence, Ir Amim and Al-Haq.

That’s just one giant far left-wing lobbying group countering most of AIPAC’s agenda.

The left-wing J Street has likewise repeatedly fought the current Israeli administration and lobbied aggressively against it, and spent more money lobbying Congress in 2018 than AIPAC, a total of $4 million. Not one dollar of J Street went to Republican candidates, which is not surprising as it is really an alternative to the Republic Jewish Coalition, not a broad-based bipartisan group like AIPAC.

When it comes to foreign countries lobbying the US government, the number one country was South Korea, spending $82.5 million in 2018. I do not recall hearing any of the Democratic candidates for president who ran to the defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s remarks about AIPAC talking about South Korea.

Perhaps that is because foreign governments and their companies are mostly lobbying about trade deals which are critical for their economies. The top governments lobbying the US are:

South Korea
Bermuda
Japan
Ireland
Israel
Marshall Islands
Bahamas
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
China

That’s Israel at number five- behind Bermuda and Ireland.

But the liberal media will print articles about the pro-Israel lobby as if it’s a right-wing money machine – even though AIPAC doesn’t give money to candidates while J Street and the OSF do. It will try to defend Ilhan Omar’s AIPAC lobbying comments, while refusing to actually point out that it’s the left-wing groups like OSF and J Street that are really powerful and spending the money to trash Israel.

Perhaps the New York Times is getting money from J Street and George Soros too?


The bipartisan group AIPAC spends less on lobbying than the far left-wing J Street, and a small fraction of what George Soros’s Open Society spends on US lobbyists. The Democratic machine has taken notice what the money spigot is demanding and is taking their anti-Israel talking points to line their pockets. Not that the media will tell you what’s actually going on. #AlternativeFacts


Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street is a Partisan Left-Wing Group, NOT an Alternative to AIPAC

Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

The Anger from the Zionist Center

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

The Evil Architects at J Street Take a Bow

A Basic Lesson of How to be Supportive

The Impossible Liberal Standard

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

The Illogic of Land Swaps

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

When Power Talks the Truth

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Examining Ilhan Omar’s Point About Muslim Antisemitism

Rep. Ilhan Omar made several comments which were widely viewed as antisemitic in her first weeks in office. As part of her defense, she offered the following:

“what I am fearful of is that because [Rep.] Rashida [Tlaib] and I are Muslim, that a lot of Jewish colleagues, a lot of our Jewish constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel, to be anti-Semitic, because we are Muslim.”

Omar claimed that people – Jews in particular – think that she is more inclined to be anti-Semitic because she is Muslim. Why would she make that accusation? Are Jews particularly paranoid about Muslims?

The New York Times decided to write a large article about AIPAC because of Omar’s comments attacking the pro-Israel lobby in an article called “Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is AIPAC Too Powerful?” on March 4, 2019. Perhaps the Times will soon do a follow up article asking whether Jews really know how to ‘hypnotize‘ the world the way that Omar also claimed.

As The New York Times goes through great lengths to not label Muslims or Palestinian Arabs as anti-Semites (only Israelis are racists), the paper will likely never examine this other charge made by Omar. So it is worth doing such analysis here to see if either of Omar’s assumption are correct: that Muslims are particularly anti-Semitic or that Jews unfairly think that Muslims are anti-Semitic.

Muslim Anti-Zionism

Before investigating Muslim antisemitism, let’s consider whether there is a poisonous Muslim anti-Zionism that is more acute than Christian, Hindu or other religions approach to the Jewish State, since Omar claimed that the essence of her attacks were really against Israel, not Jews.

  • Attacking Israel in many wars. From the very beginning of the modern state of Israel, EVERY WAR Israel has fought has been against Muslim countries which have attacked it, including Egypt; Jordan; Syria; Lebanon; and Iraq
  • Not recognizing Israel. Ever. There are 30 Muslim countries that still do not recognize the basic existence of Israel. This has been a consistent theme from before the 1967 war, going all of the way back to 1948.
  • Labeling “Zionism is Racism.” The Organization of Islamic Corporation (OIC) is a bloc of 57 Muslim-majority countries. These countries routinely press for resolutions at the United Nations against Israel. They were behind the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution passed at the UN in 1973.
  • Promoting BDS, including for athletes and academia. Muslim countries routinely bar Israelis from attending international sporting events and academic symposiums. When Israelis do compete, the Muslim host countries often do not display the Israeli flag or play the Israeli national anthem when Israelis win. Oftentimes, athletes from Muslim countries refuse to compete against Israelis.

Muslim nations have attacked Israel physically and economically since the re-establishment of the Jewish State in 1948. The Muslim-majority countries also attempt to dismantle Israel diplomatically at the United Nations and lobby Israel’s major sponsor, the United States, to abandon the cause of the Jewish State. The Muslim country assaults are in shark contrast to non-Muslim nations which almost all have diplomatic relations and are active trading partners with Israel.

CHECK. Muslims are much more anti-Zionist than non-Muslims.

Muslim Antisemitism

Beyond the Muslim attacks against the Jewish State, how have Muslims treated Jews over the past century?

  • Muslim and Arab countries routed their Jewish populations after 1948. After the founding of the modern Jewish State, Muslim countries actively persecuted their Jewish – not Israeli – but Jewish citizens. One million Jews were forced to leave Muslim countries from Morocco to Iran from 1948 to the 1970’s.
  • Muslim-majority countries most anti-Semitic (2014 ADL poll). The Anti-Defamation League conducted a global poll of antisemitism in 2014 and 2015. People in Muslim majority countries held much more anti-Jewish views than other countries. The worst were Palestinian Arabs at 93% hating Jews, followed by Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria and Tunisia with scores of 92%, 88%, 87%, 87% and 86%, respectively. By way of comparison, Christian majority countries like Ireland (which has many anti-Israel laws) scored 20%, Denmark 9% and Australia 14%.
  • Muslims more antisemitic where they are minority (2015 ADL poll). The ADL refined their study the following year and broke down the people by their religion inside Christian-majority countries. In every instance, whether for France, Italy or Germany, Muslims were two to five times more likely to harbor anti-Jewish attitudes than non-Muslims.
  • Imams in Europe calling for death to Jews. Islamic religious leaders in Europe have called for attacks against Jews
  • Islamic radicals target Jews in Europe. While Muslim terrorists had a terrible reason for killing people working at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in France, they had only one reason – antisemitism – to go out of their way to kill people at a small kosher supermarket. Other targeted actions include a Muslim terrorist shooting up a Jewish museum in Belgium, and the murder of elderly Jews by Muslims in France.
  • Jews joining alt-right parties in Europe to stem Muslim tide. The persistent Muslim antisemitism has caused Jews to begin joining alt-Right parties – in Germany of all places. The immediate danger for Jews is clearly believed to be from Muslims, not racist Christians.
  • Pakistan-India terrorists went out of way to attack Chabad (2008). The Muslim antisemitism is not confined to MENA or Europe. When Muslim terrorists launched an enormous attack in Mumbai India in 2008, they went out of their way to a small Jewish Chabad house just to torture and kill the few Jews who lived in the city.
  • American Muslim antisemitism. The radical Islamic Jew hatred is found in the United States as well. The leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, has repeatedly slandered Jews and Judaism.
  • “Sons of Apes and Pigs” in the Koran. Unfortunately, many of these Islamic radicals who harbor deep antisemitism look to the Koran to defend their screed. They point to passages in their holy scriptures that call Jews names and demand that they be killed.

Antisemitism is prevalent in both Muslim majority countries and among Muslims who live in Christians countries.

CHECK. Muslims are much more antisemitic than non-Muslims around the world.

Palestinian Antisemitism

Some people who attack Israel do so because they feel that Israel mistreats Palestinians. They have argued that the Israel-Palestinian Conflict is simply one about land and has nothing to do with a clash of religions. Or to be more clear, they believe Palestinian Arabs don’t hate Jews, just the group of foreigners who took over their land.

Below is a review whether Palestinians hate the Jewish State, hate Jews and Judaism, or simply want to have independence and sovereignty, with no hatred at all (perhaps just frustration).

  • Ottoman, British, Egyptian and Jordanian versus Israeli control. If one chooses to adopt the Palestinian narrative, that the Arabs of Palestine have always been a distinct people and nation which were just “occupied” throughout their history by Ottomans for 500 years (Muslims, not Arabs), then British for a few decades, then by Egypt in Gaza (1949-67) and by Jordan in the “West Bank” (1949-67), why did the Palestinians NEVER revolt and attack any of those Muslim occupiers? Why did they suddenly take up arms against Jews?
  • Palestinian Law forbids the sale of land to Jews. Palestinian law – still on the books – calls for a death sentence for any Palestinian who sells land to a Jew. Not an Israeli Arab- just Jews, Israeli or otherwise.
  • The founding Hamas Charter is the most anti-Semitic political document ever written. The Islamic terrorist group Hamas combined the most vile parts of the infamous forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the worst possible reading of the Koran to establish its mantra to kill the Jews of the world who foment global anarchy. With that antisemitic platform, Palestinians elected Hamas to 58% of their parliament. The head of Hamas would win an election for president if held today according to polls.
  • The president of the Palestinian authority is a Holocaust Denier. The current head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, wrote his doctoral thesis on a particularly noxious form of Holocaust denial which says that Zionists conspired with the Nazis to make things horrible for the Jews in Europe so they would move to Palestine. (The Jewish Zionists instigated the Holocaust of their fellow Jews – just imagine how inhumane they would treat non-Jews!)
  • Abbas denies many elements of Jewish history in the holy land. Abbas enjoys making speeches before journalists and the United Nations General Assembly denying the connection of Jews to their holy land:
    • He denies that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years
    • He denies that the two Jewish Temples sat on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem
    • He denies that Jews have been the majority of the population of Jerusalem since the 1860’s
    • He claims that Jesus was a Palestinian, rather than a Jew
    • He claims that Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites in an attempt to pre-date Jewish claims to the land, even though the descendants of the Canaanites are Lebanese (the historic holy land included southern Lebanon and Syria)
  • Abbas said that Great Britain promoted the Balfour Declaration to get rid of its Jews.  Adding yet more insult to injury, Abbas said that not only do the Jews lack any history and rights to Israel, the only reason that the Balfour Declaration was made was that the English hated their Jews and were looking to get rid of them. (it’s not just us, they’re bad people!)
  • Palestinians deny Jewish rights to worship. Muslims – including Ottomans, Jordanians and Palestinians – have routinely tried to obliterate Jewish history and deny Jewish rights to pray:
    • For centuries, the Ottomans (then Jordanians) denied Jews the right to pray at Judaism’s second holiest location, the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron
    • Similarly, Jews continue to be forbidden to pray at their holiest location, the Jewish Temple Mount
    • Palestinians tried to take over Joseph’s Tomb and turn it into a mosque, just as they did to Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem
  • Palestinians demand a country free of Jews. What could possibly be more antisemitic than demanding a country completely free of Jews? Even Iran doesn’t go that far.

These are not competing claims over land, This is an evil, raging rant of antisemitism that has never been defeated or kept in check. Unlike American racism including the horrible lynchings and attacks on blacks in the American South which were finally countered with marches and changes in law, and the evil of Nazi Germany’s antisemitism which was vanquished in a war defeating their army and wicked worldview, Muslim antisemitism has metastasized. It has been ignored, excused, encouraged and empowered for the past 100 years.

Ilhan Omar asked a question about why Jews think that Muslims are anti-Semitic, and the alt-left has run to her side with fig leaves. While the left-wing media has sought to examine her charges of the powerful Jew, it refuses to report on the rampant Muslim antisemitism in Muslim countries, around the world, in the United States and Israel itself.

Ilhan Omar – and much more importantly, everybody else – here is the answer to your question about whether Jews unfairly criticize Muslims or whether Muslims really are anti-Semitic.


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

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

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

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

Covering Racism

Abbas’ European Audience for His Rantings

A Response to Rashid Khalidi’s Distortions on the Balfour Declaration

Will Israel Also Remove an Umbrella from the Western Wall Plaza?

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists”

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

My Terrorism

Eyes Wide Shut

Related First.One.Through videos:

The UN Looks to Believe the Palestinians (music by Rod Stewart)

Jews and US Foreign Policy (music by Vangelis)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

New York Times Reprints Union Manifesto

The Los Angeles Teacher’s Union went on strike, abandoning roughly 600,000 students. The 30,000 public school teachers want many things, the primary one of which is more money. You’d be hard pressed to learn about how much money they make today, their pension and healthcare benefits and vacation perks from the New York Times.

The NY Times front page January 18, 2019 article focused on the plight of the students. The article conveyed how poor students have no place to go while rich students did while school was out. It described a California tax system that favored rich neighborhoods over poor ones. It described how California public schools often had over 40 students per grade while most urban public schools had between 16 and 28 (curious math when 600,000 students serviced by 30,000 teachers implies an average of 20 students per teacher). The article reviewed how charter schools hurt the public schools.

In other words, the paper published a sad story about the students without shedding light on what teachers in California earn. One would imagine that an actual NEWSpaper which is (theoretically) meant to educate readers would supply some basic information about the REASON FOR THE STRIKE. Instead, the liberal rag opted to make it sound like the teachers are striking for the benefit of the students.

Here is some data from the California Department of Education:

  • For elementary schools, the mid-range average salary for a teacher in a middle-sized school is $75,417. For a large school, the average teacher makes $80,256
  • For high schools, the mid-range average salary for a teacher in a middle-sized school is $80,177. For a large school, the average teacher makes $86,127
  • Overall, the average salary of public school teachers in 201617 in the State of California was $79,128
  • California public school teachers don’t pay social security tax – they aren’t a part of the country-wide system of support for seniors. Instead, they have their own pension system. The pension allows people to begin withdrawing money without penalty at age 60 or 62 – five years before the rest of the country gets any social security benefits. Further, the system doesn’t pay out anemic monies to seniors – the annual payout often exceeds the annual salary the teachers earned for the rest of their lives. (In case you’re wondering how such a system can work with such generous payments and little teacher pay-in – it can’t. It’s supported by taxes).
  • Health benefits for California teachers are among the best in the country.
  • While most Americans work at least 245 days per year, school teachers in California work only 180 days, 26% less.
  • Did we mention job security? While most Americans are worried about losing their jobs or their employer failing, teachers in California have almost a guaranteed job for life.

The average teacher in California makes 52% more than the average person (average CA salary is $51,910), has a more generous pension and works significantly fewer hours than the rest of the people in the state.

But the NY Times opted to not educate its readers. Instead, it opted to be the public mouthpiece of union labor, pretending the strike is about the welfare of children rather than the pockets of union members. Another edition of #AlternativeFacts


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

If a Black Muslim Cop Kills a White Woman, Does it Make a Sound?

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

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

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

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

The NY Times outdoes itself Swapping News and Editorials

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

The New York Times spared no ink to report on an incident in the Israeli-Arab Conflict on December 30, 2018. In a large front page picture and story which covered a full three additional pages, the Times wrote a detailed story which it called “a symbol of the conflict.”


Spread of NY Times on Israeli soldier shooting Palestinian medic
December 30, 2018

The tragic story of a female Palestinian medic being killed is an unfortunate incident but does not scratch the surface about the essence of the conflict itself. That the Times would repeat over-and-again that the incident is a “symbol” says more about the Times perception of the conflict than the actual situation itself.

The Times elaborate “symbolic” story was of

  • a killing of a Palestinian, not an Israeli,
  • in Gaza, not in Israel,
  • by a soldier, not a civilian,
  • where the separation fence held, and was not cut through

But the entire nature of the conflict stems from Palestinian Arabs rejection of the Jewish State and Jews living in Israel. It is not about the recent “Gaza Blockade” or a Palestinian protest to those actions taken by Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, as the Times attests.

A true symbol of the conflict can be seen in the murder of another woman, by the name of Neta Sorek.


Neta Sorek, Israeli woman killed while walking near Beit Shemesh, Israel
by Palestinian Arabs on February 24, 2010

Neta Sorek was an English teacher in the Israeli city of Zichron Yaakov. A proud feminist, she was also a strong advocate for peace with Palestinian Arabs, and held many events together with Arabs as a member of the group Women for Peace.

But this Israeli’s quest for peace was rewarded with murder.

On February 24, 2010, a few Palestinian Arabs found a gap in the security barrier Israeli had constructed to stem the wave of Arab killers coming from the West Bank. The Arabs robbed a car in the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh and drove to a nearby Christian monastery waiting for nightfall to assault unarmed Jews. Neta happened to be there at the monastery, enjoying the surrounding gardens by herself. The Arabs saw her and stabbed her to death. The Arabs then escaped back through the barrier into the West Bank.

A few months later, on December 18, the same Palestinian Arabs came through the barrier again. This time, they found two women going for a walk in the Mata forest near Beit Shemesh. Kristine Luken, an American Christian who was visiting Israel to gain a deeper connection to God was there with her friend, Kay Wilson, an Israeli tour guide who was escorting her on her journey. The Arabs attacked both women, killing Luken while Wilson managed to survive despite over a dozen stab wounds.


The real “symbol of the conflict” is a slaughtered Jewish feminist peace activist by Palestinian Arabs who infiltrated Israel. That horrific story – and of subsequent attacks by Palestinian Arabs – highlights the rabid Arab antisemitism at the core of the standoff and underscores the reason Israel was compelled to build – and continue to maintain – the security barriers in Gaza and the West Bank.

But the New York Times tells its readers otherwise. It declared that the conflict is about Israeli soldiers (“the far stronger party“), sitting comfortably behind a fence shooting at unarmed women in Gaza, amounting to war crimes. The Times deployed five journalists (David Halbfinger, Yousur Al-Hlou, Malachy Brown, Iyad Abuhewila and Neil Collier) and wrote 2000+ words with multiple pictures and graphics about the “symbol of the conflict,” to which Israel “refuses to find a solution.” The authors never mentioned Hamas’s stated mission for destroying Israel, the Palestinians electing Hamas to 58% of Parliament, or their preference to elect a Hamas leader as the next president in every poll. The core of the conflict was concealed; the perpetrators were cast as victims.

And what about Neta Sorek? Like the murdered woman in the Times article, she was a feminist. She was unarmed. She was killed by the opposing side.

Good luck finding a single word or picture of her in The New York Times.

Even the murdered American woman, Kristine Luken would get no ink, until a year later when four Palestinians were sentenced for her murder and that of Neta Sorek.

A microcosm of the conflict played out in the gardens of a Christian monastery in Israel, where a country that welcomes people of all religions became a crime scene. A woman who strove for peace was slaughtered for the simple reason that she was Jewish by Arab assailants who wanted to rid the region of Jews. The Muslim terrorists found a hole in the Jewish State’s defenses and seized the opportunity to commit murder, repeatedly until caught.

Not for The New York Times. It believes that Israel is a racist right-wing colonial occupier of Arab land, indifferent to non-Jewish lives.

The symbol of #AlternativeFacts is the New York Times.


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

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

Reviewing the Rhetoric of Palestinian Arabs and Israelis

The Proud Fathers of Palestinian Terrorists

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

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

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

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

Regarding Israel

On the land:

Zionism is evil:

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

Israelis are right-wing racists:

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

Israeli leaders deserve no honor:

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

The Palestinian Arabs

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

Palestinians are victims:

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

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

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

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

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

There is no Muslim anti-Semitism:

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

Palestinians and Muslim countries are not radical, but progressive:

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

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

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

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

Overall, the framework for the conflict has been recast:

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

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

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


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Covering Racism

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

 

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

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

Full Personal Freedom to Buy/
Limits on Selling Preferences

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

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

BDS

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Three Camps of Ethnic Cleansing in the BDS Movement

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

BDS and Christian Persecution

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

When Power Talks the Truth

Denying Entry and Citizenship

Ending Apartheid in Jerusalem

The Personalisation of War

Iran’s New Favorite Jewish Scholars

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis