Brett Stephens is a right-of-center opinion writer for The New York Times. For the Times’ board and readership, he is probably viewed as a right-wing extremist from their far left vantage point. However, in the interest of appearing balanced, the paper gives him a platform to share his thoughts.
On September 21, 2022, Stephens lambasted the terrible failure of the Biden Administration’s handling of the border and immigration generally. He mocked the pathetic response of the dim-witted Vice President Kamala Harris to questions about the security of the border. He reviewed the statistics of the enormous spike of immigrant encounters at the United States’ southern border. He added a few pointed remarks:
“This was not an accident of policy. It was an intention.”
“This is political malpractice on multiple levels.”
“It undermines the case for the path to citizenship”
“a see-no-problem, admit-no-fault, disavow-the-consequences, and blame-the-last-guy border policy.”
“it makes a mockery of people like Vice President Kamala Harris and others making fools of themselves by trying to defend a visibly failed policy.”
“The crisis is a failure of liberalism, classic and contemporary. It calls into question the ability, or the willingness, of a Democratic president to solve a basic law-and-order issue”
Pretty scathing stuff. A full on assault of the Biden/Harris failure to secure the border and manage the influx of immigrants. Dereliction of duty, an abandonment of law-and-order.
One would imagine a headline for such a piece along the lines of “Biden And Harris Fail America – US Citizens And Immigrants”, or “Biden Administration Deliberately Refuses To Secure The Borders” or perhaps “Biden’s Political Malpractice Regarding The Border May Cost Him The Election”.
The Times would do no such thing.
Instead, the paper titled the hit piece with a rosy “The Border Crisis Could Still Be Biden’s Opportunity.” It was as if the left-wing outlet bemoaned that they had to run Stephen’s article, and hoped that readers would only read the headline, skip the actual article, and chant “Let’s Go Brandon,” but mean it as being supportive of Biden.
Is this the path to coexistence between right-and-left? Deliberately mislabeling opinions we don’t like rather than live with the dissonance?
The Grey Lady long ago moved away from its tagline “All The News That’s Fit To Print” to “All The Opinions Our Liberal Readers Want.” It now occasionally posts criticisms of Democrats, but paints it with lipstick hoping people won’t notice.
The “Women’s March” has a deep history of anti-Semitism of its own making. The New York Times touched upon some of those points in an article about “Russian troll factories” which “put a sustained effort into discrediting the movement by circulating damning, often fabricated narratives around Ms. [Linda] Sarsour.” The article focused on the fuel which amplified her extremist anti-Zionist views which rocked the message of the movement.
The article stated that fractures in society, distrust in institutions and Sarsour’s dabbling in anti-Semitism were already present, and that the Russian bots added fuel to the fire by exaggerating Sarsour’s statements on social media. The Times even touched upon the anti-Semitic charges against other members of the Women’s March movement who support the notorious anti-Semite Rev. Louis Farrakhan.
But the article made the anti-Semitism embedded in the Women’s March appear minor; a couple of discrete and misunderstood comments by the founders, which were inflamed by a foreign government. In doing so, it absolved the organization for repeatedly inciting Jew hatred.
That’s the wrong conclusion.
Just a few months after the large January 2017 march in Washington, D.C., the city of Chicago held a rally where Jewish marchers carrying a rainbow flag with the Jewish star in the middle were asked to leave because the organizers said they “repeatedly expressed support for Zionism.” One of the people who was asked to leave told the Windy City Times that she was made to feel that “as a Jew, I am not welcome here.”
In June 2019, the Washington, D.C. march followed suit and prohibited marchers from carrying flags with the Jewish star on it. Organizers said “The DC Dyke March is a pro-Muslim and pro-Palestinian space…We do ask that participants not bring pro-Israel paraphernalia in solidarity with our queer Palestinian friends.” Several Jewish groups including A Wider Bridge, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, and Zioness wrote a joint statement that “We come together to strongly condemn the leadership of the DC Dyke March for their decision to ban the Jewish Star of David on a pride flag and Israeli iconography.”
The repeated banning of Jewish pride at the marches stems from Linda Sarsour’s “activism,” as the Times calls it. She’s tweeted “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She equated the belief that Jews should be free of anti-Semitism as self-governing people in their ancestral home as the equivalent to being a Nazi, with “We will not be silenced by Blue Lives Matter, by white supremacists, by neo-Nazis, or right-wing Zionists.” She’s said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible.
Those are Sarsour’s words, repeated again and again, specifically meant to instill the discredited noxious “Zionism is Racism” libel into the fabric of the Women’s March movement.
The Times neglected to tell its readers that when Sarsour and her colleagues stepped down from their leadership positions of the organization, other anti-Semites took their place, like CAIR’s Zahara Billoo. She was in kindred spirit of Sarsour, having tweeted the grotesque “Israel is an apartheid, racist, terrorist state and it commits war crimes as a hobby.” An obvious choice to lead the Women’s March if it is hell bent on advancing anti-Semitism.
Billoo also offered this bit of advice for Muslims some time after leaving the Women’s March board, that Jews are the enemy: “Know your enemies, and I’m not going to sugar-coat that. They are your enemies. There are organizations and infrastructure out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations, I mean the foreign policy organizations that say they’re not Zionists but want a two-state solution. I’m not a Palestinian myself but it’s my understanding that that is laughable. So know your enemies.” Billoo listed some of them: “We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Because just because they’re your friend today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights. So oppose the vehement fascists but oppose the polite Zionists too. They are not your friends.“
It could very well be that Russia added some fuel to the Linda Sarsour story, but the anti-Semitic toxicity prevalent among the group’s founders was their own. The insidious jihad fomented by the alt-left activists was a deliberate feature of their own making. Russia may have helped fan the flames, but the inferno of hatred came from within the movement itself.
The New York Times printed a very long article about Hasidic schools in New York which took in roughly $1 billion of pubic money over the last few years, and claimed that they failed to provide a basic education on purpose. The Times mocked the terrible hiring practices at the schools and essentially urged the government to stop funding them until they improved their practices, as the paper released the article just two days before the New York State Board of Regents met on the matter.
A deeper review of the Times article shows that the paper may have reached the wrong conclusion – that the schools require MORE money to succeed, not less.
The Times made its conclusion clear on the front page when it wrote “where other schools may be underperforming because of underfunding and mismanagement, these schools are different. They are failing by design.“
The article made it appear that the Jewish schools are actually OVERFUNDED, calling out “$1 Billion. Amount of government money collected in the past four years by Hasidic boys’ schools, even though they appear to be operating in violation of state laws guaranteeing students an adequate education.” It mocked the hiring practices of the schools, writing “Often, English teachers cannot speak the language fluently themselves. Many earn as little as $15 an hour. Some have been hired off Craigslist or ads on lamp posts.” The article added that the schools “mostly hire only Hasidic men as teachers, regardless of whether they know English. One former student said he once had a secular teacher who doubled as the school cook.“
The article made it appear that the schools are just pocketing the money, especially as it highlighted that one of the Hasidic school networks “controlled over $500 million in assets,” and showed a picture with accompanying text that one school building “takes up a city block.“
But a deeper dive of these observations paints the opposite picture.
Small Subsidies Per Yeshiva Child
The $1 billion sounds like a huge headline figure going out to failing private schools. The accompanying Times’ commentary spelling out that the sum covers four years is perhaps lost in the momentary shock. It equates to roughly $250 million per year used to support 50,000 boys, or roughly $5,000 per student per year. That figure covers transportation, food, child care and special ed classes, in addition to general education.
By way of comparison, New York City has an annual budget of $38 billion for 919,000 students (a steadily declining number that was over 1 million just two years ago). That’s over $41,000 per student. It’s a gap of more than $36,000 per child compared to yeshiva boys.
The article hinted about this enormous gap in a few spots without sharing the math.
It first attributed the basic fact as a defense offered by the Hasidic schools, making the small subsidy seem biased: “They [the Hasidic schools] denied some of the Times findings,… that the schools receive far less taxpayer money per pupil than public schools do.” The qualified speaker tainted the observation.
Only on the fourth page of the Times’ article did the Times state two critical facts clearly: “Hasidic boy’s yeshivas receive far less per pupil than public schools, and they charge tuition.” Public school students get more than 8 times the funding as these yeshiva boys, as detailed above. The fact that these private schools charge tuition needs further elaboration as well.
The boys’ schools don’t operate on a budget of $5,000 per student. Parents pay tuition as noted by the Times.
These ultra Orthodox families typically have very large families. For example, on the fifth page of the article, the Times mentioned a family with six children. It also mentioned Naftuli Moser who started an advocacy group to improve secular education in yeshivas. The Times did not write that Moser is one of 17 children.
Consider the tuition bills for these families. If the yeshivas charged like the public schools, six children with a funding gap of $36,000 each would mean a tuition bill of $216,000 per year for the family. For Moser’s family, the annual tuition bill would be $612,000!
Needless to say, these schools cannot operate with the generosity afforded to public school teachers backed by powerful teacher unions. The yeshivas need to hire teachers on a budget to match the incomes of these large Hasidic families. The overall school budget is a fraction of the $41,000 spent per pupil in public schools. The schools also make accommodations for parents who cannot afford full tuition for all of their kids, by having the fathers teach at the school, accounting for Yiddish-speakers teaching English as featured in the article.
And yes, teachers do double-duty, including teaching and acting as the school chef. It keeps the school budgets down and the tuitions more affordable.
Wealth Amidst The Poverty
The Times article made the Hasidic community appear to be sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars and then taking a billion dollars from the government. Much of the wealth in the Hasidic community revolves around real estate holdings in Brooklyn. Educating nearly 100,000 boys and girls – roughly 1/10th the size of New York City’s public school students – requires many buildings. The dense communities where the Hasidim live drive up demand and therefore the prices.
This is a community whose wealth – to the extent there is some – is mostly illiquid. It is in the very homes and schools they live in every day.
Both the Times’ opening conclusion that Hasidic schools are neither underfunded nor mismanaged, and the timing of the article’s release before the Board of Regents meeting, had the desired impact of the city threatening to cut funding to the schools. As reviewed above, that is ill advised. Why take away transportation, food and other subsidies to a poor community already struggling?
More money needs to flow into the Hasidic school system, not less. That does not mean simply writing checks without accountability. The system needs to pivot to address the plain facts that yeshiva students are growing rapidly and now account for almost 10% of New York City students, as the public schools continue to shrink.
A few suggestions:
Bilingual Yiddish schools. New York City has 545 bilingual schools. They are mostly in Spanish, but also include French, Russian, Chinese, Bengali and Haitian-Creole. It is time to invest in distinct Yiddish schools in coordination with the Hasidic community. The schools would need to be segregated by gender and timed to allow for religious private school either in the morning or afternoon, switching off for different groups in the area to fully utilize the facilities.
Employ/ Pay Secular Teachers Directly. For those parents that do not want to use bilingual Yiddish schools, the city should pay for qualified secular teachers directly. As public school teachers are being retired due to the shrinking public school student body, reassign the teachers to teach secular subjects in these yeshivas.
Should the community fail to adopt these investments in secular education, punitive measures should be considered. However, immediately jumping to threaten poor Hasidic schools that get minimal funding is counterproductive and mean-spirited.
If we truly want all students to be educated and to succeed, we need to examine the situation honestly and invest appropriately. The New York Times and Board of Regents seemingly have chosen the opposite path, and acted abusively to a large impoverished minority. If it is simply a coincidence that these secular bodies opted to target ultra Orthodox Jews, I leave it to each reader to consider.
Much of the global media covered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ disgusting comments while he was in Germany, as he tried to gain international support for his approach to dealing with Israel. Their coverage was quite different.
While standing alongside German Chancellor Olaf Schloz, a reporter asked Abbas if he would apologize to Israel for the Palestinian kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, as Germany was set to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the event in a few weeks. Abbas ignored the question, and instead offered “From 1947 to the present day, Israel has committed 50 massacres in Palestinian villages and cities, in Deir Yassin, Tantura, Kafr Qasim and many others, 50 massacres, 50 Holocausts.“
The condemnations for the Palestinian leader’s trivialization of the Holocaust – in Germany of all places – in response to a question about Palestinian terrorism, and inverting Jewish victim to murderer, came from around the world. Some news organization opted to focus squarely on the Holocaust denial and rebukes, while other for-profit media companies decided to provide context.
Some of the background proffered was shocking and says much about the news organization’s biases, their readers and sponsors.
Basically all news groups focused on Abbas’ “50 Holocaust” statement and the condemnations. Almost all – including AP News and The Guardian – provided background that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, except for Axios, which delivers news in an abbreviated bullet point format. None of the major news outlets informed readers that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, as the country feels a moral duty to not obfuscate its historic crimes against humanity. Depending on when the story broke, the media reported on the “clarification” posted on Abbas’s political party’s website.
The 1972 Palestinian massacre of Israeli athletes, the focus of the question to Abbas, was only referred to as an “attack” by Axios and Reuters. Each declined to write that eleven athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
Very few media shops gave their readership color that Abbas has a long history of Holocaust denial, including writing his doctoral thesis on the idea that Zionists conspired with the Nazis to make life unbearable for European Jews to get the Jews to move to Palestine. Abbas falsely alleges – to this day – that Jews have neither history in, nor interest to move to Palestine, so Zionists worked with the German government to prod the Jews to move. Both CNN and The New York Times gave some color on Abbas’ history of anti-Semitism.
On the fringe, CNN, Reuters and The New York Times tried to explain Abbas’s revolting comments.
CNN and Reuters essentially reprinted the Palestinian “clarification” statement which wrongfully stated that “Israeli forces” have been engaged in “massacres” of Palestinians since the “Nakba” of the founding of Israel. Reuters and The New York Times elected to write about recent battles between Palestinian Arabs and Israel that left many Arabs dead, as if somehow the slaughter of defenseless Jewish Germans by the Nazi government is akin to a war between two armed groups.
The New York Times went even further. It quoted a disgraced former Prime Minister from over a decade ago who served time in prison, who “welcomed” the Palestinian non-apology, making the matter seem like water-under-the-bridge. Such ridiculous editorializing could only happen at the anti-Zionist Times. Or maybe Qatari-owned al Jazeera.
In case readers were not satisfied that Abbas was cleared of charges of anti-Semitism by four prime ministers ago-Ehud Olmert, the Times added a bunch of information that has absolutely nothing to do with the story. It wrote that Abbas has worked closely with Israeli security to prevent violence, and that “right-wing Israeli politicians” try to isolate and demonize Abbas, even though he helps keep the peace. If that doesn’t convince the reader to absolve Abbas, the Times added that Abbas is deeply unpopular among Palestinian Arabs anyway.
The New York Times has long peddled in anti-Israel editorializing. It has now added Holocaust denial-enablement to its revolting repertoire.
The New York Times used four journalists to cover the August 14 Arab terrorist attack on Israeli Jews in Jerusalem. The journalists reporting from Jerusalem, Seoul and Hong Kong (I have no idea why correspondents from thousands of miles away were needed) could not muster a clear and balanced report.
The article started with the usual anti-Israel bias with the headline “Eight Injured in Shooting in Jerusalem” which did not clearly label the attacker as an Arab Muslim nor the victims as Israeli and American Jews. While the article would eventually reveal that the attacker was a “Palestinian man”, it would never clearly state that the victims were all Jewish. Instead, the attack was crafted as between warring countries, continuing a trend of Palestinians and Israelis killed over the past few months.
The Times then mentioned Silwan, the neighborhood from where the Arab terrorist came, as having tension “between its Palestinian residents and a small but growing number of Israeli settlers.” While the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are both “residents”, the Times opted to use the biased Palestinian narrative to describe the Israelis.
At that point, the paper shifted squarely to religion:
“Sacred to both Jews and Muslims, the nearby Temple Mount houses the third-holiest mosque in Islam and was the location in antiquity of two ancient Jewish temples that remain important to Jewish identity.“
According to the Times, while the Temple Mount is “sacred to both Jews and Muslims”, the site is really more important to Islam, as it “houses the third-holiest mosque in Islam”. For Jews, the site is merely a talisman and “important to Jewish identity.”
That’s a deliberate insult to millions of Jews around the world. The Temple Mount is THE holiest location for Judaism.
Continuing the trend, the article mentioned that “Hamas, the Islamist militant group that runs the Gaza Strip” celebrated the attack, but did not quote Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cheering the shooting as well, posting on Facebook “Praise to the one whose rifle only speaks against his enemy. Long live our people’s unity and long live the free hero. Praise to the rifle muzzles, our people will fight the occupation with all kinds of resistance. Save your bullets and use them against the occupation, only the occupation!!”
Why did the paper opt to only refer to the “Islamist” political-terrorist group but not the secular political one which controls the presidency and Areas A and B? Does the Times believe that the conflict is a religious one or a political one? It pivoted back-and-forth in the article inelegantly.
The four journalists contributing to the story made a final pivot at the end of the article, writing “Israeli efforts to build archaeological and tourism attractions in Silwan, mostly celebrating the area’s ancient Jewish heritage, are perceived by Palestinians as a means of eroding Palestinian claims to the city.” This pivoted the conflict as neither political nor religious but a historical one. In this case, the Times seemed more comfortable pointing out that Jews have a much longer history in the region than the Arabs who first came more recently. Perhaps it does so, questioning whether history truly fuels the conflict, or is a talking point between the parties.
The Times is dancing around the political and religious nature of the Israeli-Arab conflict. While the anti-Zionist paper is comfortable making political arguments which make Israel look like the larger and more powerful political actor, it is loathe to point out that Israel has a much deeper religious claim to the land and Jerusalem. Perhaps the liberal media fears that too much information will educate readers about the profound logic of Israel retaining full control of the Old City of Jerusalem, in direct opposition of Palestinian political goals of seizing the site from the Jewish State.
If one were to be generous about the many flaws in journalism today, one could argue that the media model is so broken that the companies can no longer afford to hire enough or high quality reporters. As such, the papers simply do not do the homework required to properly educate today’s readership which already has access to tons of information online but may not be able to locate, assemble or analyze the copious volume of data.
FirstOneThrough has criticized the anti-Israel bias of The New York Times and its latest reporter on Israel, Patrick Kingsley (who is actually much better than past Times reporters), including just a few days ago regarding President Joe Biden’s visit to the Middle East. In his article “In First Visit As President, Biden Will Find Changed Middle East Political Scene.” Kingsley placed blame for the failure of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs squarely on the shoulders of Israeli action, absolving the Palestinian Authority of any criticism. One might assume that Kingsley was ignorant about the sentiments of Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the political-terrorist group which governs Gaza. It would be both pathetic and generous to consider that the journalist covering Israel and the PA didn’t know that Palestinian Arabs poll themselves every three months.
Alas, there is a reason that many Zionists shun the New York paper and describe it as a pro-Palestinian propaganda rag, as revealed on July 16, 2022.
Kingsley clearly read the results of the June 2022 poll, as he cited the findings of six responses about the unhappiness of Palestinian Arabs. However, Kingsley refused to mention Palestinians preference for war against Jewish civilians and the rejection of a two state solution proposed by Biden, in other responses found throughout the poll.
Poll question 64 asked people in the West Bank and Gaza “Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….,” a question which should be labelled a war crime. Outrageously, 25% strongly support and 27% support the idea – a majority of those polled.
The response to Q52 had 56% of Palestinian Arabs supporting armed attacks by Arab lone wolves inside of Israel. The response to Q51 showed that 59% of Arabs think that the lone wolf attacks “contribute to the Palestinian Interest in ending the occupation.”
The responses to many questions show that a majority of Palestinian Arabs favor armed attacks against Jewish civilians and reject a two state solution (Q42 has 69% opposing two states and Q45 has 69% opposing negotiations with Israel). But Kingsley opted to not cite any of those findings.
Instead, the article titled “Biden Gives Palestinians Funding and Sympathy, But No Long-Term Plans” ended with a quote that Biden “empathized with Palestinian frustrations. ‘The Palestinian people are hurting now – you can just feel it, he said‘” echoing the statistics of Palestinian unhappiness but not their thirst for blood nor the destruction of Israel.
While Palestinians openly tell of their desire for the destruction of the Jewish State and the murder of Jews, the mainstream media and polite politicians only can see Arab “frustrations.” It’s absolution via calculated omission, and a lethal form of anti-Semitism.
The New York Times is obsessed with telling the world the false narrative that Palestinian Arabs are helpless victims in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It pushed the fake story again, that Israel is solely responsible for Palestinian misery, ahead of US President Joe Biden’s visit to the region later this week.
Patrick Kingsley wrote that Biden “believes in a two state solution to the conflict.” Followed by a big “But…” which accused Israeli actions of undermining Biden’s goals.
In FOUR separate locations. the Times called out “Israeli occupation” and “settlement expansion,” including falsely alleging that Jews living in the West Bank “make a two state solution less viable.”
Another reason mentioned for the stalemate in peace discussions is “divisions within the Palestinian leadership.”
Lastly, the Times wrote that peace is far off because of “Israeli disinterest in peace negotiations.”
The Palestinian propaganda piece did not inform its readers that the PA continues to pay Arab terrorists who attack Israelis, and that funding such terrorism is a condition for the US to hand the PA any monies according to the Taylor Force Act.
Palestinian Arabs are principally and directly responsible for their stateless situation, in continuing to deny Jews their human rights and dignity. But The New York Times prefers to peddle misinformation in its ardent defense of the “underdog,” even if those Arabs are anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying terrorist-supporters. Or maybe because of it.
Jews continue to be the most targeted group of hate crimes in the United States every year. The reasons that anti-Semites give are varied but include the idea that Jews control the media, financial markets and the government.
Consider the case in January 2022 of a British man going to Texas and taking members of a synagogue hostage, and placing a call to a rabbi in New York City to get a convicted terrorist released. Why would someone possibly think that any Jew – let alone a rabbi in New York – could free someone in jail?
Adherents of the Great Replacement Theory posit that Jews are conspiring to bring non-White people into the United States to make Whites a minority. Other conspiracy theorists adopted an idea that Jews are behind COVID-19 so they can sell more drugs to people and then control them.
The insanity always targets the Jews. Why?
Certainly there have been noxious forgeries like Protocols of the Elders of Zion that fostered anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of Jewish control. But today’s mainstream media like The New York Times peddle the smear as well.
The Times ran a story on the cover of its June 23, 2022 edition that the number of Jews representing New York City in Congress could potentially fall to zero. Rather than discuss this most persecuted minority losing representation in the city with the greatest number of Jews outside of Israel, the paper used incendiary terms like “Jewish power,” “Jewish clout” and “Jewish influence” throughout the article.
This is a growing trend in the liberal paper, as well as at other outlets like CNN and MSNBC. They would never consider writing about “Asian power” taking over coveted spots in elite schools. The media companies would emphasize the change in the number of Blacks or gay people gaining positions in congress or becoming CEOs of companies.
But not for Jews. They are not described by numbers, which are anemic, but by the perception of their “power.” The media tacitly agrees with Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic tropes that Jews “hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” They believe the Jews are powerful, and to blame for world problems.
The anti-Semitic narrative has never been built on facts or figures, but on a fictitious conspiracy of Jewish power. Even now, as the number of Jews in Congress, the Supreme Court and elsewhere dwindle. Even now, as Jews on campuses are told to shut up. Even now, as the Jewish State is being targeted for boycott. Even now, as anti-Semitic attacks reach new heights.
It’s quite easy to spot an anti-Semite: they peddle in “Jewish power.” Sometimes, on the front page.
The disinformation campaign from the left is torrential when it comes to Israel.
Peter Beinart, an apologist for anti-Semites, wrote in the New York Times on May 9, 2022 about a number of things that President Joe Biden should do to reverse the actions of former President Trump to make the world a safer place. The basic premise of his editorial is curious at the start, as the Obama/Biden presidencies watched the disintegration of a sovereign Ukraine, first in a seizure of Ukraine by Russia, and then an all-out war.
In regards to Israel, the Abraham Accords that Israel struck with several Arab countries under Trump, the lowest level of Israeli deaths form terrorism and the lack of an all-out war from Gaza for the first time since Hamas took control of the area were similarly ignored. Beinart measures “peace” by his perception of what Palestinian Arabs desire.
Beinart took aim at the actions of Trump and Israel as it related to Jerusalem. He mentioned:
Biden’s desire to “reopen the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem” which Trump had closed;
That “Palestinians” live as noncitizens under Israeli control in Jerusalem;
That the U.S. needs to take “an interest in their plight”
As The New York Times does not fact-check its editorials when published by left-wing writers, here are some facts:
The U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem was in western Jerusalem. Not only is the building west of the 1949 Armistice Line, the Obama Administration weaponized the consulate in 2015 when it decided to post armed Palestinian Arabs inside the building. When Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in accordance with Congress’s Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, he folded the consulate offices into the new embassy building. Palestinian Arab concerns continued to be addressed, contrary to Beinart’s implication, it simply lacked the symbolism of a stand-alone building.
What is the “plight” of Palestinians in Jerusalem that Beinart calls out? The Arab population has skyrocketed (+3.4 times compared to +1.9 times for Jews between 1990 and 2019) as well as the number of households (+188% versus +64% for Jews between 1990 and 2019). The Arabs in Jerusalem are much the same as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population, with similar fertility rates, age demographics, employment and poverty rates. What does Beinart think of the “plight” of Charedi Jews in Jerusalem? How does he feel about the Jews who were ethnically-cleansed from the Old City of Jerusalem by Arabs in 1949 and banned from the city, even for prayer, until 1967?
Beinart’s overall contention in his tightly-worded and factually-incorrect paragraph seems to be that Trump sided with Israel in regards to Jerusalem and left the Palestinians to suffer under the racist Israeli regime, leaving the region much more unsafe. It is an inversion of the truth, as the region was much safer under the Trump years and it is the Arabs who made the Jews suffer under their control of the eastern portion of Jerusalem.
The New York Times is manufacturing a narrative that “East Jerusalem” still exists and that it’s Palestinian. Beinart added his voice to that fiction, that the Biden administration needs to show the Palestinians that he has “an interest in their plight,” by reversing Trump’s pro-Israel actions. And even more than gestures to Palestinian Arabs (on an unmentioned murdering spree), Beinart wants Biden to give the Islamic Republic of Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism which has threatened the destruction of Israel, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons. Again.
Have an interest in a topic? Email email@example.com
The New York Times has formulated a new approach for reducing the importance of the Temple Mount to Jews and Judaism by reframing the language of its journalists.
Refer to the site by the preferred name of Muslims, “al Aqsa Mosque compound”
State that it’s the holiest location IN JERUSALEM for both Muslims and Jews
There was a time – before the Democratic Slide on Israel – that the paper would refer to the site as the Temple Mount, or sometimes the Temple Mount/ al Aqsa compound. No longer. Now the paper’s official designation is Al Aqsa Mosque compound, and if appropriate for context, will add that Jews call it the Temple Mount. Such is the approach of the anti-Israel United Nations, and now seemingly, of the global paper.
As the paper reduces the Jewish connection to the site, it is simultaneously elevating its status among Muslims.
The paper does not inform readers that Al Aqsa is the THIRD holiest site for Muslims, and that Muslims face Mecca when they pray, even while standing at the mosque. Instead, the paper states that within the narrow confines of Jerusalem, it is Islam’s holist spot.
With such qualifier, the paper equated Judaism’s holiest site, where all Jewish prayers have been directed for 3,000 years, in the city that only Jews made into their capital every time they had self-determination, and where they are directed to visit three times every year, to having a status on par with Islam. That the very word “Zionism” is specifically about Jews returning to Jerusalem is lost on the paper despite the legions hired to cover the region. No religion nor people have as close a connection to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem as Judaism and the Jews. None. But the Times misleads, misinforms and misdirects.
That the editors of The Times let this fly is absolutely horrible journalism. That the paper’s editors likely directed this action based on it showing up repeatedly under different bylines, is outrageous.
The New York Times is involved in a disinformation campaign to reduce the significance of the Jewish Temple Mount and of Jerusalem to its liberal readership. You should ask yourselves and them why it is doing so.