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

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

It is not particularly surprising that Jimmy Carter, former US president and author of “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” chose to commemorate the UN’s official Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (November 29), to launch another attack on Israel. Carter did this through lies and half-truths in a New York Times Op-Ed (printed below).

Here are some lying lowlights:

Lie: Israel cannot take control of any of the “West Bank” which it seized during a war. Carter wrote that Israel and Egypt concluded a peace deal because it was based on UN resolution 242 which included the clause “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” The peace agreement with Egypt has nothing to do with the Palestinian Arabs.

  • The “West Bank” was taken during a DEFENSIVE war. While it is a matter of debate whether Israel’s 1967 preemptive attack on Egypt which was ready to attack Israel was offensive or defensive, there is no debate that the Jordanians (and Palestinian Arabs who had taken Jordanian citizenship) attacked Israel first. The laws about the inadmissibility of taking land have to do with a “belligerent party,” not the defensive party.
  • The international community recognizes Israel’s taking land in a defensive war. After the Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948-9, Israel seized much more land than was granted to it under UN Resolution 181, known as the 1947 Partition Plan. The dynamic of taking more of the “West Bank” in yet another defensive war follows the same principle.
  • The Sinai peninsula was never part of the Palestine Mandate.  Israel returned land to Egypt that it took in the 1967 war, land that was never part of the Palestine Mandate which sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland. However, the “West Bank” is part-and-parcel of the Palestine Mandate, just as the land west of the 1949 Green Line was part of the Jewish homeland.

Lie: The Palestinians seek “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every state in the area can live in security.” Carter continued to recite language from UN resolution 242, but failed to connect Palestinians to the clause.

  • The Palestinian Arabs have voted for war, not peace. The Palestinian Arabs voted Hamas, a recognized terrorist group that seeks the destruction of Israel, to 58% of the parliament in 2006. Palestinian polls show Palestinian Arabs favoring the group in every poll. This is a group that has the most anti-Semitic charter in the world, which specifically calls for killing Jews and destroying all of Israel. The Hamas leadership continues to incite violence against Israelis.

Lie: Carter implied that “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” meant withdrawal from the West Bank. It does not.

  • A withdrawal from “territories” but not “all of the territories.”  The language in the UN resolution was approved with specific amendments in the final text. It specifically did not call for Israel to remove troops from all of the new lands, as the 1949 Armistice Agreements with Egypt and with Jordan specifically stated that the Armistice Lines / the Green Line was NOT to be considered a new border.

Lie: Carter stated that Jewish homes in the West Bank were “constructed illegally by Israel on Palestinian territory.” Carter has adopted the anti-Israel United Nations language in describing “settlements” as illegal. He might as well also state that “Zionism is racism,” as stated in UN Resolution 3379 which was passed in 1975 under his watch.

  • Jews living throughout the West Bank is LEGAL. International law in 1920 (San Remo Agreement) and 1922 (Mandate of Palestine) specifically stated that Jewish immigration was to be encouraged throughout Palestine and that “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief” (Mandate Article 15). You cannot bar Jews from living in the West Bank as a matter of moral and legal principle.

Lie: Carter wrote that Obama declared that the border between Israel and Palestine “should be based on the 1967 lines.”   This is a half-truth that is a complete lie.

  • Obama stated that borders should be negotiated between the two parties and include land swaps to account for current realities. Carter deliberately misled his liberal fans and Israel-bashers by only using half of Obama’s suggested course to peace. Obama stated that the borders would NOT look like the 1967 borders, but Carter piecemealed Obama’s quote into a distortion, a lie.  It should be further noted that Obama’s language was much softer than the assurances that President George W. Bush gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

Lie: Carter implied that the Israelis’ “commitment to peace is in danger of abrogation,” and said nothing about Palestinian Arabs lack of desire for peace.

  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated repeatedly he seeks to commence negotiations immediately to resolve the conflict. It is Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas that refuses to engage with Israel. It is Mahmoud Abbas that incites terror against Israelis and seeks to deny Jewish rights and history in Jerusalem. Only Israeli leadership has declared the goal of two states for two peoples, while Abbas has called for an Arab state of Palestine devoid of Jews, and Israel, which should be a bi-national state.

Lie: Carter calls all of the West Bank “Palestinian Land,” which are “occupied.”

  • The West Bank includes “Palestinian Authority territory” which is administered by the PA, and Israeli territory, administered by Israel – according to the Oslo Accords, agreed to by both parties. The Oslo I and Oslo II Accords signed in 1993 and 1995 by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority handed over certain lands to the PA. Those areas, known as Area A, are where the vast majority of Arabs in the West Bank live. They are not under Israeli military control. Area C, which is under Israeli military control, is where the vast majority of Israelis live in the West Bank, and include a minimal number of Arabs.

Lie: Carter claims that the world condemns Israel since Arabs east of the Green Line cannot vote, while Israeli Jews living in EGL can. That is wild distortion of reality.

  • Arabs in Jerusalem can become citizens and vote in Israeli elections. Israel reunited the city of Jerusalem in 1967, and expanded the borders of the city in 1980. Israel gave ALL people living in the city the option to become Israeli citizens, just as the other million-plus non-Jews in Israel enjoy Israeli citizenship. Thousands of Arabs from Jerusalem have become citizens of Israel.
  • People in territories around the world don’t vote. Puerto Ricans, Guam and other US territories, are not eligible to vote in US elections. Does the world condemn the US for this structure? No. Citizens are entitled to vote – regardless of where they live. An American living in Germany for 20 years still gets to vote in US elections, while a Puerto Rican will not. Similar for Israeli citizens that opt to live in EGL/ the West Bank.

Lie: Carter calls the Palestinian Authority a “moderate Palestinian leadership.”

After laying out a package of outright lies and half-truths, Carter calls on President Obama to act quickly and: 1) recognize a Palestinian State; and 2) passing a UN Security Council Resolution that all Israeli “settlements” are illegal.  He added “Recognition of Palestine and a new Security Council resolution are not radical new measures, but a natural outgrowth of America’s support for a two-state solution.

It is beyond “radical.” It is wrong and dangerous.

To this day, Carter remains the only US president to call Israelis living in EGL/West Bank “illegal.” Obama, Bush and others used terms like “illegitimate” (Obama) or “unhelpful” (Bush) or even an “obstacle to peace,” but no other president claimed that settlements in disputed territory are “illegal.” Such a declaration is radical, and the left-wing extremist was the only president to use such terminology.

Further, recognizing a Palestinian State completely ends the Oslo Accords and a negotiated solution. It doesn’t “restart” talks, but puts both parties on the course for unilateral actions, such as annexation of additional lands. It will most likely lead to war.

Carter (like the anti-Israel UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon) has urged Hamas and Fatah to reconcile. They seek to insert a genocidal Nazi party into the Palestinian government as a pathway to peace. These are the same people that recommend these two radical actions.

While Carter and Ban are correct in recognizing that it is unsustainable to have a Palestinian state with distinct governments controlling different parts of the country, that just underscores why there cannot be recognition of a Palestinian state today. It doesn’t mean rewarding a dysfunctional and anti-Semitic government with recognition.

 20161130_070230
Jimmy Carter New York Times Op-Ed November 29, 2016

Seeing Jimmy Carter write again is a reminder of the far left fringe’s inability to see or grasp the truth of the Middle East.  Carter’s adoration of Hamas, underlines his insanity. He imagines and hopes for a world that doesn’t exist, and makes suggestions that are dangerous for civil society.


Here is Carter’s Op-Ed of lies in full. The boldface is meant as reference for the notes above.

ATLANTA — We do not yet know the policy of the next administration toward Israel and Palestine, but we do know the policy of this administration. It has been President Obama’s aim to support a negotiated end to the conflict based on two states, living side by side in peace.

That prospect is now in grave doubt. I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short. The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.

Back in 1978, during my administration, Israel’s prime minister, Menachem Begin, and Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, signed the Camp David Accords. That agreement was based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which was passed in the aftermath of the 1967 war. The key words of that resolution were “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every state in the area can live in security,” and the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

The agreement was ratified overwhelmingly by the Parliaments of Egypt and Israel. And those two foundational concepts have been the basis for the policy of the United States government and the international community ever since.

This was why, in 2009, at the beginning of his first administration, Mr. Obama reaffirmed the crucial elements of the Camp David agreement and Resolution 242 by calling for a complete freeze on the building of settlements, constructed illegally by Israel on Palestinian territory. Later, in 2011, the president made clear that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines,” and added, “negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.”

Today, however, 38 years after Camp David, the commitment to peace is in danger of abrogation. Israel is building more and more settlements, displacing Palestinians and entrenching its occupation of Palestinian lands. Over 4.5 million Palestinians live in these occupied territories, but are not citizens of Israel. Most live largely under Israeli military rule, and do not vote in Israel’s national elections.

Meanwhile, about 600,000 Israeli settlers in Palestine enjoy the benefits of Israeli citizenship and laws. This process is hastening a one-state reality that could destroy Israeli democracy and will result in intensifying international condemnation of Israel.

The Carter Center has continued to support a two-state solution by hosting discussions this month with Israeli and Palestinian representatives, searching for an avenue toward peace. Based on the positive feedback from those talks, I am certain that United States recognition of a Palestinian state would make it easier for other countries that have not recognized Palestine to do so, and would clear the way for a Security Council resolution on the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict. It should reaffirm the illegality of all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open the possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications. Security guarantees for both Israel and Palestine are imperative, and the resolution must acknowledge the right of both the states of Israel and Palestine to live in peace and security. Further measures should include the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and a possible peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations.

A strong Security Council resolution would underscore that the Geneva Conventions and other human rights protections apply to all parties at all times. It would also support any agreement reached by the parties regarding Palestinian refugees.

The combined weight of United States recognition, United Nations membership and a Security Council resolution solidly grounded in international law would lay the foundation for future diplomacy. These steps would bolster moderate Palestinian leadership, while sending a clear assurance to the Israeli public of the worldwide recognition of Israel and its security.

This is the best — now, perhaps, the only — means of countering the one-state reality that Israel is imposing on itself and the Palestinian people. Recognition of Palestine and a new Security Council resolution are not radical new measures, but a natural outgrowth of America’s support for a two-state solution.

The primary foreign policy goal of my life has been to help bring peace to Israel and its neighbors. That September in 1978, I was proud to say to a joint session of Congress, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” As Mr. Begin and Mr. Sadat sat in the balcony above us, the members of Congress stood and applauded the two heroic peacemakers.

I fear for the spirit of Camp David. We must not squander this chance.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Palestinians are “Desperate” for…

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

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

The Impossible Liberal Standard

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

CNN’s Embrace of Hamas

Squeezing Zionism

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

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

The “Every Picture Tells a Story” series has exposed the long history of the New York Times in using its pictures and captions to portray Israelis as militant occupiers and Palestinian Arabs as victims.  However, one would imagine that the paper would rally behind one of its heroes: the liberal Israeli statesman and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Shimon Peres. But at the funeral of Peres, the Times once again dismissed the Israeli leader and promoted the Palestinian Arabs.

Consider first the coverage by the conservative newspaper the Wall Street Journal:

20161001_194726
Cover of the Wall Street Journal, Saturday October 1, 2016

The top half of the front page contained three pictures from the funeral of Shimon Peres, two of which portrayed the Israeli flag-draped coffin of the esteemed leader. The pictures were of: the honor guard carrying the coffin of Peres; Israeli Prime Minister shaking hands and welcoming acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; and US President Barack Obama with a somber expression placing his hand on the coffin.

The caption of the picture read:

HONORED: Members of a Knesset guard carry the flag-draped coffin of the late Israeli statesman Shimon Peres; Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; and President Barack Obama takes a moment.”

The Wall Street Journal led with the word “honored” of the “late Israeli statesman.” It showed world leaders like Obama and Netanyahu considering the Israeli leader. It led the entire collage with a bold header “World Leaders Say Farewell to Israel’s ‘Biggest Dreamer.‘”

A respectful farewell by the paper indeed.

Contrast that with the New York Times picture and caption.

20161001_194737
Cover page of New York Times October 1, 2016

On the bottom half of the front page was a single picture. It featured no Israeli flags. It did have Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or US President Obama.

It featured Mahmoud Abbas, front-and-center.

The caption read:

“Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, center, at the funeral of Shimon Peres on Friday.”

Not only did the caption pay no homage to Peres, it focused squarely on “the Palestinian president.”  But there is no country of Palestine recognized by the United States or Israel. Abbas is simply the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, whose term expired close to eight years ago.

The title of the article stated: “World Leaders Gather to Mourn Peres, and Possibly His Dream.” Is a reader to infer that Abbas is a world leader? That he’s the president of a country? That Peres ended life as a failure?

It is both remarkable and frightening that a paper that theoretically loved the liberal Israeli leader, would opt to belittle him as their eulogy.

Or perhaps this was yet another declaration of the NYT, that the Jewish State never deserves a tribute.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

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: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

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

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

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis