The Media Splits on Showing “Islamic Terrorism” and its Presence in Israel

On March 22, 2017 a terrorist attack in the heart of London left several people dead. The description of the attack from two leading media companies took very different approaches.

Islamic Terrorism

The Wall Street Journal made to bones about the terrorist and his motives. In the opening lines of the lead article “London Rampage Leaves 4 Dead,” the paper wrote “A suspected Islamist Terrorist mowed down scores of pedestrians…” The article continued to underscore the ongoing battle with Islamic terror at various points:

  • ‘the most serious act of terror in the U.K. since 2005, when coordinated bombings by Islamist extremists on buses and subway trains claimed 52 lives.”
  • Mark Rowley, the U.K.’s top counter-terror police official said… it was an act of ‘Islamist-related’ terrorism”
  • “a man fatally shot a soldier at Canada’s National War Memorial before getting inside the country’s Parliament building and being shot by security forces, in a Islamist-influenced terror attack”

 


Front page of Wall Street Journal March 23, 2017

The New York Times took a very different approach.

The New York Times ran an article “Deadly Attack Near U.K. Parliament; Car Plows Victims on Westminster Bridge,” which ran over 1700 words. At no time did the article mention the words Muslim or Islamic.

The Times referred to a “knife-wielding assailant” carrying out the attack and that the “assailant” had been killed. The only reference that the terrorist was even a male came from third party sources such as Prime Minister Theresa May confirming “that the attack had been carried out by a lone male assailant.” Witnesses gave corroboration that the attacker was a “middle-aged man holding a knife.”

I’m glad that the Times was avoiding male-bashing. Or maybe it was because the New York Times did not want to assume that the terrorist did not identify as a woman?

Israel

The Times did quote someone that noted that these kinds of terrorist attacks have occurred in other countries – including Israel.

Political violence is relatively rare in Britain, where gun ownership is stringently restricted…. Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official now at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that the London attack was consistent with the recent pattern of attacks in which a vehicle was used to kill people, citing assaults in France, Germany and Israel.”

That was an improvement relative to the Wall Street Journal that recalled vehicular attacks in France and Belgium, as well as Islamic terrorism in Canada. But not such terrorism in Israel.

Pretty extraordinary, since the car-ramming attacks in Israel were so prevalent in recent years.


For some time, The New York Times has avoided labeling terrorism as having anything to do with Islam. It has now seemingly made a further pivot to label terrorism as politically (not religiously) motivated, which may let it acknowledge the incessant terrorism waged against Israel by Palestinian Arabs. (The liberal editors of the Times will seemingly forever ignore the Hamas Charter which declares “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” and “In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.“)

Should the pro-Israel community claim a small victory? Maybe.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

The Media Finds Religion in Matters of Security. Sometimes.

New York Times’ Lost Pictures and Morality for the Year 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The New York Times Pre-Occupation with Lies

On March 9, 2017, The New York Times wrote an editorial called “Israel Says Dissenters Are Unwelcome.” The NYT editorial board did not simply disagree with Israel’s decision to bar entry to people that advocated for boycotting the Jewish State, it mischaracterized the situation completely.


New York Times editorial on March 9, 2017

In the editorial, the paper littered the article with the words “occupation” and “settlements.” It never stated that Israel does not view Jews living on the east side of the arbitrary Green Line (EGL) as an occupation, as international law in 1920 and 1922 explicitly gave Jews those exact rights. It never stated that advocates of the BDS campaign are adopting an anti-Semitic platform that was instituted by the Jordanians who expelled all of the Jews from the region in 1949, then annexed it and gave citizenship only to non-Jews. It did not give the readers the facts that the Palestinian Arabs have adopted this policy and have a law that selling any land to a Jew is punishable by death.

Further, the Times wrote that “The United States, Israel’s strongest military supporter, has consistently held that settlement building in the occupied territories is illegal.” That is a boldface lie. President Carter was the only US president to call Jews living in EGL/West Bank illegal. All others – including President Obama – used language like “unhelpful” or, as Obama said “illegitimate.”

Lastly, the editorial stated that BDS supporters are those “who support the search for a lasting peace.” The BDS campaign is all about anti-normalization of Jews and Arabs living and working together. It is either a call by anti-Semites and Israel haters, or by others that believe that a Jew-free state is the only solution for peace. If that is true, then Israel should apply the same logic and expel every Arab from the Jewish State. But the NYT labeled Israelis who advocate such approach as “far-right extremists.” Why not use the same label for BDS-supporters?


The editorial page is a place where the paper makes its opinions, and the paper has every right to state its ignorant views. However, printing outright lies and misinformation does nothing to educate readers. Other than to the fact that the Times consistently ignores facts.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Legal Israeli Settlements

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

Israel’s Freedom of the Press; New York Times “Nonsense”

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

The New York Times wants the military to defeat terrorists (but not Hamas)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Every Picture Tells a Story: Anti-Semitism

The Every Picture Tells a Story series in FirstOneThrough compares the use of photographs and captions in the major US newspapers. It demonstrates time-and-again how a liberal paper like The New York Times advances a Palestinian Arab narrative over an Israeli narrative, even in the use of pictures.

It would appear that the Times prefers to bury stories of anti-Semitism as well.

On February 22, 2017, the major papers reviewed the toppling of roughly 200 headstones in a cemetery in St. Louis, MO. The conservative paper, The Wall Street Journal, was clear about both the significance of the event as well as the target of the attack: Jews.

20170223_052221

Cover page of the WSJ February 22, 2017

The paper printed a large color photograph on the top of its front page with a heading: “President Denounces Weekend of ‘Hate and Prejudice and Evil.” The caption of the photo read: “DESECRATION: Headstones were toppled in a Jewish cemetery over the weekend in University City, Mo. President Donald Trump on Tuesday denounced anti-Semitism, after calls for him to address the vandalism and bomb threats against Jewish community centers.

The WSJ ran a story on page A4 which included another colored picture.

20170223_052245

WSJ Page A4 on February 22, 2017

The caption read: “Jewish headstones that were toppled over the weekend were being put back Tuesday at Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in Missouri.” As with the front page picture, the caption of the picture was clear that Jews were targeted in the hate crime.

That was in sharp contrast to the coverage in The New York Times.

20170223_052156

NYT Page A13 on February 22, 2017

The New York Times did not give the story any prominence. There was neither a cover story nor picture. However, back on page A13, there was a medium-sized black-and-white picture with an innocuous caption: “Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in University City, Mo., where nearly 200 graves were vandalized.” The caption did not mention Jews or anti-Semitism.

The New York Times has a long history of picking on Israel, including targeting its leadership and policies.  The paper often minimized stories of anti-Semitism in Europe when it was tied to Israel fighting hostile neighbors. But now, as it continues to minimize stories of anti-Semitism in the United States, the Times is making more clear that the target of its bias is not Israeli policy, but Jews and the Jewish State.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Stories on New York Times minimizing anti-Semitism:

“An anti-Semitic Tinge”

“Tinge” Two. Idioms for Idiots

New York Times’ Small Anti-Semitism

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

New York Times’ Small Anti-Semitism

The number one star of YouTube – by a wide margin – is a Swedish guy by the name of Felix Kjellberg, known to his fans as PewDiePie. This week, Disney announced that it was severing all ties with the Internet sensation, after it was revealed that PewDiePie made many anti-Semitic jokes and posted Nazi imagery in his videos.

The Wall Street Journal gave the story a prominent position. It wrote about it on the front page on February 13. It followed up on the next day, giving the story a dominant position on the cover of the B Section of the paper with a large color picture, graphics and story that continued inside.

20170216_075002
February 14, 2017 Wall Street Journal Page B1
Featuring story of PewDiePie anti-Semitism

One would have a hard time finding any mention of the story in the New York Times.

Somewhere on page B3, under a section titled “Arts, Briefly” among various pictures about other news stories, there was a small mention in the final story called “Maker Studio Drops YouTube Celebrity.” No pictures, no graphs. Just a small story nestled among the crossword puzzle, KenKen and movie listings.

20170216_075020
New York Times February 14, 2017 Page B3. Find the article about PewDiePie

The New York Times is obsessed with media and the arts. It features a special Arts section every day, and most days there are cover stories about racism and bigotry in the arts such as “Dealing with #GrammysSoWhite” on the same day as the PewDiePie story. But that story about possible bias against blacks was on the cover page and included a picture. On February 16, the front page of the Arts section had an article about racism in the Oscars, with a story titled “Oscar Trail is a Leader’s Pathway to Progress.

The Grammy’s, with a viewership of about 25 million, had follow up stories on the cover page about possible racism, long after the event. The Oscars, which have not even happened but typically get about 37 million viewers, had a lead up cover story about racism.

But the number one YouTube star with 53 million followers who posts constantly, barely got a mention in the Times for being terminated for anti-Semitic posts.

It is a sad continual story of the liberal paper’s refusal to acknowledge anti-Semitism in the world. Does it make the paper anti-Semitic? Read the related articles below before you decide.


Related First.One.Through article:

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

The Media Finds Religion in Matters of Security. Sometimes.

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

“An anti-Semitic Tinge”

“Tinge” Two. Idioms for Idiots

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Wall Street Journal Shows Unity with Israel

The conservative newspaper The Wall Street Journal has a long history of supporting Israel. The articles and editorials typically take an Israeli narrative, as reviewed in the related stories section below.

The contrast in the daily coverage to the New York Times is striking, even in the pictures each paper opts to print.

This week, a Palestinian Arab terrorist used a truck to ram down several Israeli soldiers who were standing along a beautiful promenade in Jerusalem. The Wall Street Journal showed empathy with Israel in giving the story a full page large picture at the very top of the front page. The picture showed a circle of Israeli soldiers mourning.

img_3945
Front page of the Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2017

This compared to a small black-and-white picture at the bottom of page A4 that the New York Times opted to use to cover the story.

img_3947
New York Times page A4 on 1/9/17,
with a small picture of the terrorist attack in Jerusalem

The caption of the WSJ read: “SHOW OF UNITY: Israeli soldiers gathered near the site of a truck-ramming attack Sunday. Four soldiers died and some 17 were injured.” The conservative paper has repeatedly shown its unity with America’s ally, in sharp contrast to the liberal NY Times.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

Framing the Israeli-Palestinian Arab Conflict: WSJ and NY Times

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: No Christians Targeted

Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Every Picture Tells a Story: No Christians Targeted

A horrific terrorist attack on a Coptic Church in Cairo Egypt killed dozens on December 11, 2016. The coverage in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal could not have been more different, and underline an ongoing difference between the two papers: the WSJ does not shy away from telling its viewers about radical Muslims targeting Christians and Jews in the Middle East, while the NYT would rather minimize that story, and highlight the Muslims are also victims in the wave of jihadists.

20161212_191610

Cover of The Wall Street Journal
December 12, 2016

The cover page of the WSJ had a single large color photograph of the carnage in Cairo. The boldface title of the picture read” “Bombing in Cairo Kills Dozens of Christians, Mostly Women.”  The caption continued: “Targeted: A nun surveys a church attached to Cairo’s Coptic cathedral, where at least 25 were killed in a bombing on Sunday. A8” The paper did not seek to place the blame on radical Muslims on the cover, but it did make clear that Christians were specifically targeted in the attack.

Now consider the coverage in the Times.

20161212_191628

Cover of The New York Times
December 12, 2016

The main picture on the NYT cover page was about discrimination against poor people. It was part of a multi-day story of the Times about injustices faced by people of color and the indigent.  The smaller picture on the bottom of the page discussed how ISIS marked up the pages of children’s books, presumably of Muslim children. There was no coverage of the attack on the Christian community in Egypt.

20161212_191712

Page A4 in the Times, December 12, 2016

The Times did cover the story in the middle of the paper. On page A4 there was a copy of the same picture that the Wall Street Journal posted in color on the front page. However, the Times posted it in black-and-white.  The Times shrunk the picture to such a level, that it was almost hard to notice it compared to the giant picture of Nigerian refugees (people of color) in the middle of the page. The headline of the bombing attack did state that the “Bombing Targets Egypt’s Christian Minority,” however, it is a question of whether anyone would pause to read the article compared to the prominent article on the page “Niger Feels Ripple Effect of Boko Haram.

The Times coverage of world affairs follows a familiar pattern: Christians and Jews do suffer, but hardly as much as Muslims and people of color. Racism and Islamophobia are the themes of the Times. Do not get distracted by tinges of hatred of Christians and Jews. To do so, would be to invert victim and perpetrator.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

Liberals have taken to the streets to protest the loss of the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Some (like Clinton) blamed the loss on a late breaking notice by the FBI about more emails surfacing from Clinton’s email server, while others blamed the Russians for interfering in the US elections. The latest scapegoat from US President Barack Obama was that “fake news” that spread on Facebook, Twitter and Google, undermined Clinton.

Obama claimed that the “active misinformation” that spread on social media continues to threaten the “democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we’ve come to take for granted.

If only the president were as concerned about the active use of half-truths that are told routinely in the left-wing media and the United Nations. Those “credible” sources deliberately tell a fraction of the story and lead people to focus on the wrong targets through vicious alt-left editing. Those half-truths are just as lethal and the authors are just as guilty of spreading lies.

Consider the liberal media source, NPR. On November 15, 2016 it wrote about President-elect Donald Trump consideration of moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In giving background to the story, NPR wrote: The western part of Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The eastern part of the city was entirely Arab when Israel captured it in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Many Israeli Jews have moved into the eastern part of the city, and Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, though no other country recognizes this.”

The NPR background made it sound like Israel took over the eastern half of Jerusalem in a war, and then asserted its control over the area, even though no country recognizes Israel’s positions. NPR deliberately omitted that:

  • Jews had always lived in Jerusalem, and have constituted a majority of the city since 1870
  • The Arabs initiated a war against Israel in 1948-9 and took control of the eastern half of the city and then EVICTED ALL OF THE JEWS from that part of the city, that’s why there were no Jews there in 1967.
  • When Jordan annexed the “West Bank” and eastern part of Jerusalem in 1950, no country recognized Jordan’s claim on the land.
  • Israel took the eastern half of Jerusalem in a DEFENSIVE WAR, after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.

These facts are never shared in the liberal media, and by doing so, the liberal press provides the public with a biased half-truth narrative that Israel was an aggressor in seizing land that belonged to Arabs by history and right. It is simply not true.

Consider the beacon of the left-wing media, The New York Times.  It covered anti-Semitic riots in Europe in 2014 with a passing comment that there may have been a “tinge” of antisemitism when mobs called out that “Hitler was Right.” It did this repeatedly.

The Times also actively shielded its liberal champion, President Obama from criticism. Consider that when the Times wrote about Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, it chose to include pictures of Israeli soldiers, Palestinian Arab victims and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout the conflict. The paper never showed the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, of Hamas or of Israeli victims. These pictures were also in sharp contrast to articles about US drone attacks that kill civilians, that NEVER show pictures of Obama alongside the story. Ever wonder why?

Regarding racism in the United States, the Times continued to suggest that racism was rising from the right-wing against blacks and Muslims in various articles.  They did this, even though the number of hate crimes committed by whites dropped significantly, from 63% in 2007, to 29% in 2015.

The liberal papers have company at the United Nations.

The UN media center is a frequent peddler of half-truths. It is seemingly not sufficient for the global body to be extremely prejudiced against Israel; its media center deliberately omits comments made on the world stage that could be construed as sympathetic towards Israel. Consider:

  • When world leaders spoke about the alarming attacks against Israelis in October 2015, the press corps only mentioned attacks against Arabs, and completely deleted “Israel” from the summary comments, as detailed in “UN Press Corps Expunges Israel.” The media center refused to publish the comments made by the UN Assistant Secretary General complimenting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for trying to calm the situation.
  • On December 15, 2015, the High Commissioner for Human Rights gave a press briefing where she spoke about violence in Israel which killed dozens, including 21 Israelis. The UN media centre deliberately deleted any mention of Israelis, and only spoke of Palestinians and foreigners that were killed.

The list of disturbing “half-truths” which relay a false narrative is long.


Fake news is indeed a problem, but arguably a smaller one than the half-truths peddled by the mainstream media.  The fake news sites will ultimately earn a reputation for doing so, such as magazines that tout that Elvis is alive and that Hollywood stars are having babies with aliens. The flash of news is rapidly revealed as entertainment.

However, the persistent and dangerous problem of lies, stems from the “accepted” mainstream media that distort reality to fit their liberal agenda.

Christiane Amanpour, a journalist for CNN received a Press Freedom Award in November 2016. In her remarks she attacked Donald Trump as a demagogue who would stifle free speech. She stated that “journalists… need to recommit to robust fact-based reporting without fear.” As she made such comments, her smugness masked her complicity in feeding the world half-truths. Her fellow journalists have spent years feeding a feast of delicious liberal fabrications, at the expense of unvarnished accuracy.

amanpour-freedom-press-burton-benjamin-award-full-speech-00080106-large-169
Christiane Amanpour Receiving Press Freedom Award November 2016

Amanpour added that “I learned a long, long time ago – when I was covering the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia – never to equate victim and aggressor.  Never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then, if you do,… you are party and accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences.” Perhaps she was criticizing the New York Times which gave a glowing review of the opera “Death of Klinghoffer,” about Palestinian Arab terrorists that threw an elderly Jew in a wheelchair off of a ship to his death, which it called a “masterpiece” as “the opera gives voice to all sides.

Amanpour called for advertisers to stop advertising on the “fake news sites,” a call for action that seemed a bit cheeky, considering she makes her living from those same advertisers.

In short, Amanpour has still not internalized that she is a part of a biased-and-bought media industry that is the core of the problem.

It has therefore become an unfortunate necessity for blogs such as FirstOneThrough to do a critical and factual analysis of the world affairs, because of the failures of mainstream media, not the fake news sites. It does the original analysis without any advertising, and is not beholden to any purchaser’s point of view.  The digital revolution that cares about truth will ultimately abandon today’s popular press in favor of such sites, and use fake news sites as entertainment, much as they view The Onion.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Israel’s Freedom of the Press; New York Times “Nonsense”

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

Thomas Friedman Thinks Palestinians are Crazy in the Margins, While Israel is Crazy in the Mainstream

The New York Times Wrote About Computer Hackers Charged by the US and Israel. Differently.

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

What’s “Left” for The New York Times?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

On November 14, 2016, the NY Times published an article about hate crimes in which it deliberately misled its readers in several areas.

The article entitled “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims,” sought to continue a NY Times narrative that Trump supporters are white racists and xenophobes.  In this article, it chose to do this by emphasizing certain facts, redirecting the reader, and omitting some statistics completely.

All crimes are terrible, and hate crimes are particularly noxious.  If America wants to confront them with solutions, it needs to review them honestly.

The Focus on Muslims

The title of the article focused on the rise in hate crimes against Muslims, as did the article itself.  While there was a significant jump in the anti-Muslim attacks, an average Muslim in 2015 was still 50% LESS likely to be attacked than an average Jew (257 attacks against an American Muslim population of 3.3 million, versus 664 attacks against 5.8 million American Jews).

The Times did say that Jews were the most frequently attacked religious group, while blacks were the most targeted race – in the article’s seventh paragraph.  However, it then sought to redirect the reader to the significance of the anti-Muslim attacks:

“Blacks were the most frequent victims of hate crimes based on race, while Jews were the most frequent victims based on religion, according to the F.B.I. data. But the increases in attacks on these groups were smaller than the rise in attacks against Muslims and transgender people.”

Hey reader! Over here!  Focus on Muslims and transgender attacks! That’s the real story, not the groups that are subject to the most hate crimes!  Never mind that the total number of attacks against Muslims and transgender people COMBINED was LESS THAN HALF of the number of attacks against Jews.

Blame Trump

For over a year, the Times has called out Donald Trump and his supporters as being racists, homophobes and xenophobes. The Times told all of its readers to fear the local radical right much more than radical Islamic terrorism in articles throughout the year.  This article began:

“WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. reported Monday that attacks against American Muslims surged last year, driving an overall increase in hate crime against all groups.

The data, which is the most comprehensive look at hate crime nationwide, expanded on previous findings by researchers and outside monitors, who have noted an alarming rise in some types of crimes tied to the vitriol of this year’s presidential campaign and the aftermath of terrorist attacks at home and abroad since 2015.

That trend appears to have spiked in just the last week, with civil rights groups and news organizations reporting dozens of verbal or physical assaults on minorities and others that appear to have been fueled by divisions over the election.”

This is complete editorializing by the Times.  The FBI report gave a statistical analysis and breakdown of attacks that occurred in 2015. The report did not get into speculation about what drove people to commit the crimes. It certainly did not cover November 2016 when the report was solely about 2015.

The Times seemed to further add support for its rationale of blaming Trump, by stating “Attacks against Muslim Americans saw the biggest surge. There were 257 reports of assaults, attacks on mosques and other hate crimes against Muslims last year, a jump of about 67 percent over 2014. It was the highest total since 2001, when more than 480 attacks occurred in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.”

For the Times, Donald Trump equals September 11 for Muslim Americans.

Yet, if one were to scratch the surface, it would be clear that the number of attacks against Muslims has up-and-down years.  For example, hate crimes against Muslim Americans spiked in the early Obama years compared to the George W Bush years.  Under President Bush in 2008, there were 105 anti-Muslim attacks, which jumped by 52% to 160 attacks in 2010 under President Obama. Such attacks also jumped 15% between 2013 and 2014, well before the rise of Trump.

No Mention about the Offenders

The Times did not discuss other statistics from the FBI report, such as the ethnicity of the offenders.

In 2015, whites were twice as likely to commit a hate crime as a black American. Consider that there are over five times more whites than blacks in the US. That means that black people disproportionately are committing hate crimes (if all people are as likely to commit a hate crime, it would suggest that there would be roughly five times as many white offenders as black offenders, not two times).

The trendline about the offenders of hate crimes is also important to highlight, but dismissed in the Times.

In 2001, white people committed 4.5 times more hate crimes than black people (5,149 versus 1,157). That difference is more in line with what would be expected by the larger white population.

However, the New York Times did not report on the alarming trend of black people committing a growing and more disproportionate share of hate crimes, because it undermined the paper’s narrative that white Trump supporters are the bigots and “deplorables.”  Shining a light on the SHRINKING number of white attackers (2,657 in 2015 versus 5,149 in 2001), went against the liberals view of the world.


The reason that independents and libertarians are abandoning the Democratic Party is liberal’s blind adherance to a narrative that has no basis in facts. How can such a party hope to arrive at solutions to society’s ills if it will not honestly look at the world as it is?

hate-crimes-2015


Related First.One.Through articles:

Obama’s Select Religious Compassion

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

A Deplorable Definition

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

On October 20, 2016, the New York Times profiled a rising Israeli member of Knesset, Miri Regev.  The article, “Miri Regev’s Culture War,” highlighted her background in Israel’s “periphery,” as part of the Mizrachi or “Eastern” communities.

The Times stated that “Mizrachi” is “a catchall term that includes Jewish communities from Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the Sephardic Jews, whose origins can be traced to Spain and Portugal, who settled there. These communities immigrated to Israel in mass waves after its founding in 1948 and into the early 1950s, upending its demographic makeup. The Jewish population, almost exclusively Ashkenazi, became more than 40 percent Mizrahi. But it wasn’t just the country’s ethnic composition that changed. The Jewish population that predated the founding of the state was primarily young, secular and idealistic; it was also heavily male. By contrast, the new Mizrahi arrivals tended to be large families from traditional societies. In their ethnic garb, often with no knowledge of Hebrew, they struck the native-born Israeli sabras and the European Ashkenazim as provincial and uneducated.”

Read the passage again.  It sounds like these Jews simply left the MENA region because they wanted to go to the newly reestablished Jewish State after Israel was founded in 1948.  Nowhere in the article is there any sense that these Mizrachi Jews suffered any persecution by the Muslim nations. Such poor treatment was only under the elitist Ashkenazi Jews from Israel.

This was a continued insult and mischaracterization of history by the media of the over 850,000 Jews that were forcibly expelled or fled for their lives from communities that they had lived in for centuries, due to Muslims anger over the founding of the Jewish State in a place that they deemed “Arab land.

nyt-jews-in-arab-lands
New York Times announcing the danger to Jews in Moslem countries, 1956

The Muslim Expulsion of the Jews

Roughly two-thirds of the Jewish refugees from the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) went to Israel, while one-third fled to France.  France was a natural place for Jews to flee French-speaking Arab countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Algeria. Pogroms in Algeria began shortly after the Palestine Mandate to reestablish a Jewish homeland took effect, killing dozens in the 1920s and 1930s. During World War II, Jews were stripped of their citizenship when Nazis took over France, As Algeria was technically part of France. The French Vichy regime was particularly harsh to Jews, stripping them of most rights and ability to work.

Even as the war ended, Muslims put in place their own anti-Jewish laws. In 1962, when Algeria declared independence from France, virtually the entire Jewish community fled, seeing the Nuremberg-type laws in Muslim countries, and the fate of Jews in the rest of the MENA region. The majority of Jews went to France, while many moved to Israel.

Egypt. Nationality Laws in 1927 and 1929 gave preference to Egyptians who were Arab-Muslim. The laws made it difficult for Jews to gain citizenship, and in 1947, it is estimated that only 10,000 of the 75,000 Jews in Egypt had citizenship, while the rest were either stateless or were foreign nationals.

Jews came under direct attack at the founding of Israel, including bombings of Jewish neighborhoods in 1948 which killed 70, and a bombing in the Cairo Jewish Quarter in 1949 that killed 34.

When the Suez War with Israel broke out in 1956, there was no more room for Jews.  On November 23, 1956, the Egyptian Minister for Religious Affairs declared that “all Jews and Zionists are enemies of the state,” as Egypt moved to expel the Jews and confiscate their property.

Iraq. In the 1920s, Jews were prohibited from teaching Hebrew or Jewish history. In July 1948, Iraq made Zionism a crime, punishable with up to seven years in jail. In October 1948, all Jews who held positions in government were fired. In May 1950, Jews in Iraq were stripped of their citizenship and the government began to seize all Jewish property.

In response to the edicts, in 1951 and 1952, Israel launched Operation Ezra and Nechemia to airlift the Jews out of the country to safety. The Jewish community in Iraq that had stood had close to 130,000 people was quickly down to a mere 3000.

After the Arab armies were defeated in another war in 1967, the remnant of Jews in Iraq would find the situation unbearable. On January 27, 1969, the government hanged nine Jews in the public square to the cheers of Iraqis. The Jewish community in Iraq was soon no more.

Libya.  Jews were attacked by Libyans in the immediate aftermath of World War II, with 140 murdered in a pogrom. The Libyan government’s Nationality Law of 1951 prohibited Jews from having Libyan passports, and Jews were no longer allowed to vote or hold public office. By 1953, Jews in the country were subject to broad economic boycotts. The community of roughly 40,000 Jews dwindled to just 6 people.

Morocco. The Jewish community in Morocco was one of the largest in the MENA region, estimated at over 250,000 people.

After Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948, two pogroms broke out in Morocco, in the towns of Oujda and Djerrada. The attacks killed 47 people, wounded hundreds and lefts hundreds homeless. Not surprisingly, 10% of the country’s Jews quickly fled the country.

After Morocco declared independence in 1956, an Arabization of the country commenced, cutting Jews off from parts of society. At the same time, the government prohibited emigration to Israel, which lasted until 1963. In 1961, roughly 90,000 Moroccan Jews had to be ransomed in Operation Yakhnin, bringing Jews to Israel. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, another 40,000 Jews fled to Israel.

Syria. In 1947, the sale of any real estate to Jews was prohibited, Jews were discharged from public office, and in 1949, the governments seized Jews’ financial assets.  In 1950, Jews were forced to leave the farming industry.  Syrians took the message, an initiated pogroms from November 1947 through August 1949, killing many as they looted Jewish homes and stores.

As Jews fled, the country had their assets seized by the state.

More edicts would follow for the Jews that remained.  In 1967, Muslims were placed as principals of all Jewish schools. In 1973, with the onset of the Yom Kippur War, new edicts were enforced that Jews could no longer communicate with anyone outside of Syria.

Tunisia. Tunisia’s independence in 1956 led to an Islamification of society and placed Jews in a secondary dhimmi status. From that point on, all Jewish businesses were forced to take on a Muslim partner.

The old Tunis Jewish cemetery was expropriated in 1957, and the great Tunis synagogue was destroyed in 1960. As Jews began to flee the country in 1961 as they had in the rest of the MENA region, Tunisia only allowed Jews to take one dinar with them, as the country confiscated the rest of their possessions.

Yemen. Sharia law was instituted in 1913, and all Jewish orphans were forcibly converted to Islam. In the 1920s, Jews became excluded from the army and public service.

In 1947, riots in Aden killed 82 Jews, and in 1948, Yemeni Jews began to lose control of their possessions, with laws forcing Jews to transfer all crafts to Arabs before leaving the country.

As a result of the crisis, Operation Magic Carpet airlifted 49,000 Jews out of the country between June 1949 and September 1950.

TOTALS. The number of Jews that fled persecution from homes they lived in for centuries was between 850,000 and 1 million people.

  • Algeria 140,000
  • Egypt 75,000
  • Iraq 135,000
  • Lebanon 5,000
  • Libya 38,000
  • Morocco 265,000
  • Syria 30,000
  • Tunisia 105,000
  • Yemen 55,000

This total of 850,000 Jews does not include the Jews who fled Iran and Afghanistan.


Yet the New York Times chose to write that Jews “immigrated” to Israel, implying no malice on the part of Arabs, nor fear in the hearts of Jews.  The paper implies that the Mizrachi Jews sought to take advantage of the new Jewish State. Maybe for economic opportunities.

This characterization comes from the same media source that makes every effort to describe Palestinian Arabs as “refugees,” and despondent, even when they are living just a few miles from the homes where their grandparents sought to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

The New York Times has a long history of only parroting the Palestinian Arab narrative in their collective fight against Israel. It has now further chosen to whitewash the crimes of the entire Muslim Arab world that forcibly rid their nations of Jews as they robbed them of their dignity, lives and property.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants September 2016

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The New York Times Op-Ed on Jews and the Oslo Accords, 1993

Almost 23 years after the Oslo Peace Accord was signed in September 1993, one of its architects and champions, Israeli statesman Shimon Peres, died at 93 years old in Jerusalem, Israel. As detailed in “Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres,” the New York Times chose not to honor the Israeli leader, even as the paper repeatedly calls for a two-state solution for the Israeli-Arab Conflict.

So consider the NYT Op-Ed back on September 17, 1993, just after the Accords were signed and the major opinion makers weighed in on the agreement.

20160922_211852
New York Times Op-Ed
September 17, 1993

A.M. Rosenthal (1922-2006)
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

A.M. Rosenthal wrote about the ‘Holocaust Syndrome“, where he lamented the pessimism coming from “Jews, Israeli and American” about the ultimate outcome of the Oslo agreement. Rosenthal was sad that it was becoming fashionable for Jews to echo sentiments that were most typically heard from Israel’s enemies.

The “Holocaust Theory” advanced a notion from “deep pessimism, fear and defensiveness arising out of the Holocaust. No matter how strong the country [Israel]became, they trusted no one, relied only on arms, saw themselves perpetually as victims who had to act defensively instead of a free people determining their own destiny.”

To believe the Holocaust syndrome theory is to believe what Israel’s worst enemies say – that it was Israelis who brought a half-century of war between Jew and Arab.”

Rosenthal dismissed that idea completely. He reviewed the history that those “shtetl Jews were ready to share Palestine with Arabs from the beginning. The Arabs refused,” and launched pogroms and wars both from within Israel and without to destroy the Jewish State. Rosenthal had no patience for Jews that were cynical about the chance for peace:

There is a mental malady that afflicts Israelis and other Jews but it is not the Holocaust syndrome. It is the tendency to confuse hope for the future with present reality….Israelis are not catatonically traumatized, curled up in a defensive ball seeing enemies everywhere. They can get up in the morning, work, raise families, make love, make peace or war, distinguish friend from foe and how to deal with each.”

“Pray for peace but add another prayer for truth upon which it depends.

Amazing words that resonate today as much as they did when they were written.

Anthony Lewis (1927-2013)
Two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize

Anthony Lewis’s post was called “The Crux of the Deal,” and was optimistic about Oslo.  He believed that each party’s self-interest would compel the parties forward.

For Palestinian Arabs, Lewis wrote that Arabs preventing terrorism would lead eventually to “establishing a Palestinian state.”  Lewis was too optimistic.

The years after the 1993 Oslo Accords were followed by hundreds of terrorist attacks by Palestinian Arabs, and by the end of the interim Oslo II Accords in 2000, Yasir Arafat (fungus be upon him) rejected the contours of the Palestinian state and launched another war against Israel.

Lewis missed another point: that the Arab-Israel Conflict was key to stability in the Middle East.

Lewis wrote: “Success would be a key to reducing tensions in the entire Middle East, and reducing the threat of the two radical states that have denounced the agreement: Iran and Iraq.” Lewis could not foresee America’s toppling of Iraq – and then abandoning it – and the turmoil that would pour out of Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya.

The cause-and-effect theories of Lewis 23 years ago proved completely wrong:

  • Israel has been able to prosper despite regional turmoil. It has done so by focusing on building businesses and technology surrounded by its strong defenses
  • It was Palestinian leaders self-interest that has dictated events and marred the prospects of peace, as they enriched themselves, maintained their “lofty” titles and avoided confrontations with fellow Arabs in the cause of peace

Self-interest may indeed be a motivator for all players in the region.  However, it would appear that Lewis was too optimistic about Palestinian Arab leadership caring more about their constituents than themselves.

Alexander Schindler (1925-2000)
Leader of the Reform Judaism Movement

Alexander Schindler described himself as “an unreconstructed dove,” in his editorial “Memo to a Hawk.” He relayed how he was worried about Likud leader Menahem Begin coming to power in 1977 and what he would do to the chances of peace.  But Schindler gave Begin a chance “and he did not disappoint.”  Schindler urged politically conservative Jews to give Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo Accord that same chance.

Schindler argued that that moment in history – 1993 – was the best time to advance peace in the region:

“It is now that the American Government’s role as guarantor of the peace is unaffected by cold war concerns. It is now that the Arab powers understand that the real threat they face is not the steady achievements of Zionism but the rampaging golem of Islamic fundamentalism. It is now that the influx of Jews to Israel from the former Soviet Union has upset the demographic contest the Palestinians had expected to win.”

Schindler gets an interesting score on predicting the future.

  • Total Miss: In 2016, the cold war is very much alive and affecting the region, as Russia takes an active role in Syria, with missiles and migrants flowing out of the region unabated.
  • Spot on: Many people did not appreciate the threat of the “rampaging golem of Islamic fundamentalism” until 9/11/2001, but Schindler did.
  • Mixed: the demographic time bomb that Yasir Arafat hoped to use to conquer Israel is still believed in some corners, and dismissed in others.

The dreamer of peace believed in the peace process, and understood the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.  However he never considered his logic that Islamic fundamentalism existed everywhere else in the Middle East except among Palestinian Arabs.


In 2016, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, world leaders came to pay their respects to a leader of the Israeli people, and a man devoted to the Oslo peace process.  As people consider Peres’s legacy over the past 70 years in public service and his persistent optimism that peace would come to the region, review the caution and optimism at the dawn of the peace process launched in Oslo, and where we are today.

For the New York Times, the lack of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, the cold war, the influx of Russian Jews, the corrupt Palestinian Arab leadership or the civil wars raging in the region. For the Times and many liberal Jews, it continues to be a hawkish Israeli government that continues to repeat the “Holocaust Syndrome.”

Perhaps it is time for everyone to re-read the prescient words and warning of A.M. Rosenthal: beware the “mental malady that afflicts Israelis and other Jews but it is not the Holocaust syndrome. It is the tendency to confuse hope for the future with present reality….Pray for peace but add another prayer for truth upon which it depends.


Related First.One.Through articles:

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

The Only Precondition for MidEast Peace Talks

“Peace” According to Palestinian “Moderates”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis