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

On March 23, 2018, an 85-year old Holocaust survivor was found brutally murdered in her apartment in Paris, France. The French authorities have been loathe to call the attack anti-Semitism, and the New York Times has been similarly adamant in not mentioning that the killers were Muslim.

In an article without any pictures on page A7 of the March 27, 2018 New York printed edition, the article noted how the French did not clearly call the murder stemming from anti-Semitism, writing:

“The Paris prosecutor’s office said on Monday that Ms. Knoll had been killed because of her ‘membership, real or supposed, of the victim of a particular religion,’ – a roundabout way of saying she was killed because she was Jewish.”

It was appropriate that the paper spelled out what the prosecutor’s failed to state clearly – that the victim was attacked because of anti-Semitism. It is therefore surprising that the paper would similarly fail to identify the attackers in this incident – and many others in France – as being Muslims.

The Times wrote that the Paris prosecutor’s office said that the two men arrested for the murder were from “North African origin,” but failed to clarify that almost all of the men that moved to Paris from North Africa were Muslim.

When the Times gave background about the murder of an elderly Jewish woman, Sarah Halami, last year in France, it would only write that the killer was “a man of Malian origin who shouted ‘God is Great’ before throwing her out a window.” Did the paper clarify that he was Muslim, that 95% of Mali is Muslim, or that he actually said “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic? No.

When the Times wrote about the murder of four people in a Parisian kosher supermarket attack in 2015, it rightly called the attack antisemitic, but it only noted that the killer was “Amedy Coulibaly, a heavily armed Frenchman.” Did it mention that he was a pro-ISIS Islamic radical of Malian descent? No.

When the Times described the “2012 assault on a Jewish school in Toulouse by Mohammed Merah, who killed three children and a teacher after killing three soldiers,” did it add that he was a Muslim of Algerian descent that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda? No.

Did the Times give any color as to root cause of the murder of an elderly Jew? Well, it did – because of perceived Jewish actions. “The suspect ‘said that the Jews have the money, and that was the reason he attacked her,’ Mr. Kalifat said [who heads a French Jewish organization.]” The problem was that Jews have the money. There was no mention of noxious Islamic Jew-hatred.

This has become standard practice for the New York Times, to conceal the background of the attackers, especially if they are Muslim.

The Times does not touch the much more prevalent anti-Semitism in the Muslim community than in France generally. The ADL released a report of Jew-hatred around the world and broke down the details by religion. The results were startling about the perception of Jews :

  • Jews have too much power in the business world: 35% of Christians; 65% of Muslims; 25% of Atheists held such views in France
  • Jews have too much power in the financial markets: 27% of Christians; 64% of Muslims; 23% of Atheists
  • Jews have too much power in the global affairs: 21% of Christians; 54% of Muslims; 19% of Atheists
  • Jews control the media: 21% of Christians; 61% of Muslims; 18% of Atheists

The disparity continued for seven other opinions. Overall, the ADL concluded that 49% of Muslims in France are anti-Semites compared to 17% of French Christians and 14% of French atheists.

The Holocaust of the Jews in Europe during World War II happened at the hands of Christians. The terrorism against the Jews worldwide today is happening at the hands of Muslim extremists. And the media is remaining silent as it seeks to curtail “Islamophobia.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Covering Racism

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

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

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

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Advertisements

The Ties that Bind (and Those Unmentioned)

1400 girls in England raped by [Asians/Pakistanis/Muslims]

The case of the 1400 girls that were bound, beaten and raped over a period of 13 years in England horrified the civilized world. That such an event could go on at all, and then further, left unchecked by police has rightfully enraged the citizens of England and abroad.

Presumably, actions will being taken to right the wrong that was done to the girls and to prosecute those responsible. As part of the process, people are analyzing what could make people commit such atrocities on young children, and how could the police avoid taking action for so long.

Any decent analysis will examine the history of the cases and look for trends: time; place; individual; community; backgrounds; people and friends involved; etc. Common themes will certainly emerge. Some will be important and others less so.

At this point, reporting from some media outlets consider certain characteristics of the assailants important while others avoid them. Consider:

    • The Telegraph. Initial articles mentioned that the men were from “Asian gangs”. Later editorial-news clearly stated that “All but one of the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage”.
    • The Wall Street Journal. The initial two stories mentioned the “Pakistani origin” of the attackers, but did not mention their religion. The third article did not specifically say that they were Muslim, but said that the Muslim community condemned the crimes, adding a quote from a member of the Muslim community that the attackers “are not Muslims.” In the fourth article, it declared that “the abusers were of Pakistani and Muslim origin”.
    • The Guardian. First described the attackers as “Asian”. Later articles mentioned the “perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers.”  Editorials in September reverted back to saying the rapists were “Asian”.
    • The New York Times. Has referred to the perpetrators as “men of Pakistani heritage”. To this day, none of their news accounts mention that the attackers were Muslim.

 

There was an evolution of the news flow in the more conservative papers: first the men are described as “Asian”, then “Pakistani” and finally “Muslim”. There are several reasons why this evolution may have occurred: more information about the perpetrators gradually became known, or the relevance of the additional information was viewed as more important as time went on.

The Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal added information that the attackers were Muslim. The Guardian held off, and only obtusely referred to their Islamic faith in an article on September 2nd where it reverted back to describing the attackers as “Asian” but the “growing influx of the far right” had expressed its anger at the “Muslim community”.  The New York Times has avoided mentioning the religion of the rapist in any manner.

By the beginning of September, the common religious background of the attackers was well reported. One must therefore conclude that the New York Times deliberately decided to not point out the attackers religious background because they felt it was not relevant to the story (but somehow their Pakistani heritage was).

Was the fact that the men were Muslim relevant to their actions? Was the fact that they were Muslim relevant to their community’s failure of reporting their actions? Was their religion a factor in the police not investigating the many reported cases? Was there an important distinction between being Pakistani and Muslim? Was this simply a gang that happened to be both Pakistani and Muslim and the religion and heritage of the people had only to do with their kinship and nothing to do with the attacks or cover-up?

Perhaps the investigations will resolve the questions. It will be interesting to see if a divide between conservative and liberal papers shields the perpetrators faith (but not heritage) at that time.


Source:

NYTimes : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/europe/children-in-rotherham-england-were-sexually-abused-report-says.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html

Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-k-report-details-widespread-child-sex-abuse-in-rotherham-england-1409095700

http://online.wsj.com/articles/calls-for-resignation-grow-after-u-k-report-on-sex-abuse-in-rotherham-1409177623

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rotherham-residents-search-for-answers-in-u-k-sex-abuse-scandal-1409272644

http://online.wsj.com/articles/brendan-oneill-when-political-correctness-took-over-in-yorkshire-1409249308

 

The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-children-sexually-abused-report

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/26/rotherham-child-sex-exploitation-capital

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/rotherham-you-cant-blame-all-of-us

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11057647/Rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-1400-children-exploited-by-Asian-gangs-while-authorities-turned-a-blind-eye.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html

National Review editorial: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386648/rotherhams-and-englands-shame-john-osullivan

Forbes editorial: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/

 

 

Israel and Wars

Human beings have been at war with each other for thousands of years.  The past 100 years have been particularly violent.

World War I began in 1914, and claimed roughly 16 million people (including 7 million civilians.) The years that followed saw repeated conflicts with some of the worst death tolls in human history: World War II (60+ million); Sino-Japanese war (20 million); Chinese Civil War (7.5 million); Russian Civil War (5 million); and on and on.

One hundred years on, in 2014, battles continue to rage in Syria, Ukraine and around Africa including: Somalia; Sudan; Libya; Guinea-Bissau and the Central Africa Republic. Many of these conflicts are a long way from being resolved.

There are many conspiracy theorists who believe Jews are behind all of the wars in the world. These anti-Semites have bought the lines and lies of Hamas, the democratically-elected Palestinian terrorist organization, which has stated their twisted thinking in their charter:

“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it” (Article 22)

Most wars have nothing to do with Israel.  Muslim countries and territories have been in roughly 50 wars since the founding of Israel in 1948 which have killed over 8.3 million people.  Wars involving Israel account for 1% of those fatalities.  By way of comparison, wars with world powers (US, Russia and France) against Muslim countries killed over 7 times as many people as wars involving Israel.

Over 90% of fatalities in wars with a Muslim country are in wars against other Muslims.

But is it easier to blame yourself or a scapegoat?

List of recent Muslim Wars:

  • 1983-2005 Sudan (Muslim)-South Sudan (Christian)- 1.8 million killed
  • 1980-1988 Iran (Muslim)-Iraq (Muslim) 1.5 million, including 200,000 Kurdish civilians, many from mustard gas
  • 1967-1970 Nigeria (Muslim) civil war – 1.2+ million
  • 1975-2002 Angola (Muslim) civil war 800,000+
  • 1955-1972 Sudan (Muslim/christian) civil war- 500,000 killed
  • 1991-2006 Somalia (Muslim) civil war 300,000+
  • 1971 Bangladesh (Muslim)-west Pakistan(Muslim) 300,000
  • 1974-1980 Ethiopian (Muslim) civil war 250,000+
  • 1954-1962 France-Algeria (Muslim) 250,000
  • 1976-1990 Lebanon civil war (Muslim/Christian fighting) 200,000+ killed
  • 2011-present Syria civil war (Muslim) 170,000+
  • 2003-2011 US-Iraq (Muslim) 160,000+ killed
  • 1962-1970 Yemen (Muslim) Civil War/Egypt(Muslim) 100,000+, including thousands of civilians from mustard gas
  • 1979-1988 USSR-Afghanistan (Muslim) 100,000 killed
  • 1992-1995 Bosnian War  100,000 killed; 1 million displaced
  • 1975-1990 Indonesia (Muslim)-East Timor(Christian) 100,000 killed, mostly Christians
  • 1994-1995 Russia- Chechnya (Muslim) 80,000
  • 1991-2002 Sierra Leone (Muslim) civil war 50,000+
  • 2001-present US-Afghanistan (Muslim) 47,000+
  • 1984-present Turkey (Muslim)-Kurds 44,000
  • 1999 Russia – Chechnya (Muslim) 40,000+
  • 1990-1991 US-Iraq (Muslim), Kuwait (Muslim) 35,000
  • 2006-2009 Somalia (Muslim)-Ethiopia 28,000
  • 1982-1983 Israel (Jewish)-Lebanon (Muslim) 27,000
  • 1982 Syria (Muslim) Hama uprising 20,000
  • 1948-1949 Israel(Jewish) – Egypt (Muslim), Syria(Muslim), Jordan(Muslim), Iraq(Muslim), Saudi Arabia (Muslim), Sudan(Muslim), Yemen(Muslim) 18,000
  • 1973 Israel(Jewish)-Egypt(Muslim); Syria(Muslim) 18,000
  • 1967 Israel(Jewish)-Egypt(Muslim); Jordan(Muslim); Syria(Muslim) 16,000
  • 1971 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 13,000
  • 2011 Libya (Muslim) civil war 8000+
  • 1947-1948 India(Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 7,500
  • 1965 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 6800
  • 2000-2008 Israel (Jewish)-Palestinians 6500
  • 2004- Shia Insurgency in Yemen 5000
  • 2009-present Somalia(Muslim) civil war 4000
  • 2001 AlQaeda (Muslim)- US 3000
  • 1999 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 2500
  • 1987-1993 Israel (Jewish)-Palestinians 2300
  • 2009-present south Yemen(Muslim) 1500
  • 2008 Israel(Jewish)-Hamas(Muslim) 1400
  • 2005-2010 Chad (Muslim/christian) civil war 1000+
  • 1990 Iraq (Muslim)-Kuwait(Muslim) 1000+ killed
  • 2006 Israel (Jewish)-Hezbollah(Muslim) 600
  • 1989-1991 Mauritania(Muslim)-Senegal(Muslim) 500
  • 1985 Mali (Muslim)- Burkina Faso (Muslim) 250
  • 2012 Israel (Jewish)- Hamas 200+
  • 1991-2001 Djibouti civil war 100+


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/records/2014.shtml

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397