I’m on a new crusade. It is my goal to expose to you the unabashed anti-Semitism that permeates the New York Times.
Yeah, I know most of us no longer/have never read the Times, at least not regularly. But many people, including many Jews, do. The “paper of record” certainly has a long one when it comes to a double-standard with Jews and the Jewish state and while the Times is known as an anti-Bush paper, it is subtly (and not-so-subtly) anti-Semitic. What makes matters worse is that Jews make up a large number of their subscribers.
So why do Jews continue to support a paper that it so antagonistic to the very people who support it? I assume two reasons. Firstly, like their support of the Democratic Party, which is far less pro-Israel today than the GOP, it is a force of habit. Historically, Jews have flocked to the Democratic Party because of their concern for social justice. However, as the Dems become more anti-Israel and less tolerant than their Republican counterparts, switching allegiance is a difficult choice.
Secondly, less religious Jews, while still supporting Israel in name, have less emotional ties to the land. In fact, most Orthodox Jews I know (and have heard from) are fervently pro-Bush because they see that, for the first time, an administration is not being taken in by Arab propaganda. In many liberal views, admitting that human beings are each different from others goes against their core beliefs. They internalize emotions and believe that all anyone wants is to live in peace with each other.
Unfortunately, that is a very naïve way to view the world. One of the liberal’s biggest complaints about President Bush is that he uses “cowboy diplomacy” and that he dares strike a difference between good and evil. They criticize his core religious belief that there is evil in the world. His critics can not understand his way of thinking because in their view, there is no such thing as God – only man. Sure they talk up G-d when they need to reach out to “middle-America”, but in practice, belief in the Almighty – true belief – is laughed at, and even demonized (how’s that for irony?).
So it makes sense to liberals they abhor war and all that goes with it. Everyone I know abhors war and would prefer it not to have to happen. But taking a stand that it is ALWAYS wrong is such plain foolish. Israel is in a war against people who simply hate the fact that we live. Should we give in to that and say, “That’s okay. You have a right to that opinion?”
Not recognizing that the enemy is different from us is suicide. Did Hamas win the election in Gaza? Yes. Does that mean we should allow them, since they are an elected group, to fire rockets and kill innocent Israelis? Of course not. One of the biggest mistakes liberals make is that they can not accept, nor understand evil. I believe it was Sting who sang, “I hope the Russians love their children too.” Well guess what? The Islamofacists love their children too. You see it all the time when you witness some poor Arab crying that the big, bad Jew bulldozed her house. Of course, what you don’t see is the other child who loved so much that he strapped a bomb around his waist and killed dozens of people (along with their children) in a pizza shop.
The question was asked by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; “How many of our children must die before the world realizes they are killing us?” Apparently, all of them.
So, to get off the tangent, let’s get back to the New York Times. In its stated goal of “all the news that’s fit to print”, only they decide what that is. Unfortunately, the news THEY find fit is often the same news that comes out of the headquarters of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Jezeera. So for my top 10 list this week, I present to you this:
THE TOP TEN PROOF THE NEW YORK TIMES IS ANTI-SEMITIC
(taken from the outstanding article on The American Thinker)
10. When Democratic Congressman John Conyers staged a mock anti-Bush hearing some months ago. The hearing was simulcast at the Democratic National Headquarters, since a number of democratic Congressmen were in attendance at the “hearing” itself. The “hearings” featured anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and during the event anti-Semitic literature was handed out at the DNC. How do we know this? The Washington Post was at the event and reported on the anti-Semitism; the New York Times was there as well, yet had not one iota of news about this aspect of the conference when it reported on it.
9. In its story on the funeral of Rosa Parks, the NY Times noted as dignitaries, The Reverends Louis “the Jews are a gutter religion” Farrakhan and Al “Crown Heights” Sharpton. Dignitaries?
8. (Former) Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet commented that Arafat was politically "right" to take up arms against Israel, and even uses the word "heroic" in a description of the terrorist leader, following Arafat’s death.
7. The Times gave front-page treatment to the story of an illegal immigrant teenage Muslim girl who was deported after investigations revealed she was frequently visiting Islamic anti-Semitic websites. The Times vehemently objected to this deportation.
6. The Times refused to publish the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons that stirred up riots in Europe, yet had no problem with an anti-AIPAC ad replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes about mysterious Jews working behind the scenes, with a hirsute gorilla holding an Israeli flag on top of the dome of the US Capitol. The ad was sponsored by a well-known anti-Semitic group,a fact that if not known could have been easily discovered, if by no other means than simply by looking at the advertisement.
5. Featured columnist Nicholas Kristof engaged in a many-columned defense of Florida professor Sami Al-Arian who was charged by the Federal Government with funding terror groups. Kristof was outraged by charges and ignored evidence of well-documented ties to terrorists, as Joel Mowbray noted. Al-Arian admitted making statements along the lines of “Let us damn America,” referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs” and called for the death of Jews. Yet Kristof defended his character in a March 1st, 2002, column as “someone who denounces terrorism [and] promotes interfaith services with Jews and Christians.”
4. In April, 2005 a prison Imam named Umar Abdul-Jalil gave a speech to prisoners in which he claimed that Muslim inmates are “literally tortured” in the federal jail in Manhattan and that “Zionists of the media” dictate what Islam is to us. His slur about Jews in the media is one of the hoariest and most dangerous of anti-Semitic clichés. Mayor Bloomberg merely gave him a slap on the wrist: a suspension of two weeks. The New York Times op-ed page praised this weak rebuke.
3. The Times’ star columnist Maureen Dowd seemed to have no trouble cooing over the new Saudi Arabian Ambassador to America, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who founded the Saudi equivalent of the Gestapo (a Heydrich reincarnated), and is part of a kleptocracy that has exported anti-Semitism all over the world, including here in America. Dowd characterized him as a “charming” prince, “dressed in a long white robe and checkered headdress” going on and on about him. This is a charmer who has justified suicide attacks against Israelis. How ironic that this adulation comes from a woman who works for a newspaper that advocates income equality (certainly not the economic system found in the Saudi Arabia that keeps its millions of foreign workers in servitude) and who wrote a book titled Are men necessary? I suppose in Dowd’s worldview the charming new envoy is a necessary man.
2. A New York Times reporter, Philip Shenon, was charged by the Justice Department with giving the Global Relief Foundation a phone tip that the FBI was going to be raiding its offices the next day (December 14, 2001). As now-legendary U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an August 7, 2002, letter to the New York Times legal department, “It has been conclusively established that the Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of the New York Times.”
1. While other newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum are suitable alarmed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s stated goal of destroying Israel, the Times itself is rather blasé about the issue. Despite Iran’s lead role in international terrorism, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its role in the killing Americans over the last 20 years and the hostage crisis 30 years ago, and numerous statements from its leaders over the years (a former President openly gloated that Israel could be destroyed with one nuclear bomb and the current leader echoes this when he talks of “Rotten Israel will be annihilated by one storm”), the Times doesn’t seem to see a problem with an Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Tom Friedman wrote that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran because it “is the wisest thing under the circumstances”. This is despite Ahmadinejad’s statement in October 2005 that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the earth.” He also proudly hosted a conference “A World without Zionism.”
Yeah, I know most of us no longer/have never read the Times, at least not regularly. But many people, including many Jews, do. The “paper of record” certainly has a long one when it comes to a double-standard with Jews and the Jewish state and while the Times is known as an anti-Bush paper, it is subtly (and not-so-subtly) anti-Semitic. What makes matters worse is that Jews make up a large number of their subscribers.
So why do Jews continue to support a paper that it so antagonistic to the very people who support it? I assume two reasons. Firstly, like their support of the Democratic Party, which is far less pro-Israel today than the GOP, it is a force of habit. Historically, Jews have flocked to the Democratic Party because of their concern for social justice. However, as the Dems become more anti-Israel and less tolerant than their Republican counterparts, switching allegiance is a difficult choice.
Secondly, less religious Jews, while still supporting Israel in name, have less emotional ties to the land. In fact, most Orthodox Jews I know (and have heard from) are fervently pro-Bush because they see that, for the first time, an administration is not being taken in by Arab propaganda. In many liberal views, admitting that human beings are each different from others goes against their core beliefs. They internalize emotions and believe that all anyone wants is to live in peace with each other.
Unfortunately, that is a very naïve way to view the world. One of the liberal’s biggest complaints about President Bush is that he uses “cowboy diplomacy” and that he dares strike a difference between good and evil. They criticize his core religious belief that there is evil in the world. His critics can not understand his way of thinking because in their view, there is no such thing as God – only man. Sure they talk up G-d when they need to reach out to “middle-America”, but in practice, belief in the Almighty – true belief – is laughed at, and even demonized (how’s that for irony?).
So it makes sense to liberals they abhor war and all that goes with it. Everyone I know abhors war and would prefer it not to have to happen. But taking a stand that it is ALWAYS wrong is such plain foolish. Israel is in a war against people who simply hate the fact that we live. Should we give in to that and say, “That’s okay. You have a right to that opinion?”
Not recognizing that the enemy is different from us is suicide. Did Hamas win the election in Gaza? Yes. Does that mean we should allow them, since they are an elected group, to fire rockets and kill innocent Israelis? Of course not. One of the biggest mistakes liberals make is that they can not accept, nor understand evil. I believe it was Sting who sang, “I hope the Russians love their children too.” Well guess what? The Islamofacists love their children too. You see it all the time when you witness some poor Arab crying that the big, bad Jew bulldozed her house. Of course, what you don’t see is the other child who loved so much that he strapped a bomb around his waist and killed dozens of people (along with their children) in a pizza shop.
The question was asked by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; “How many of our children must die before the world realizes they are killing us?” Apparently, all of them.
So, to get off the tangent, let’s get back to the New York Times. In its stated goal of “all the news that’s fit to print”, only they decide what that is. Unfortunately, the news THEY find fit is often the same news that comes out of the headquarters of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Jezeera. So for my top 10 list this week, I present to you this:
THE TOP TEN PROOF THE NEW YORK TIMES IS ANTI-SEMITIC
(taken from the outstanding article on The American Thinker)
10. When Democratic Congressman John Conyers staged a mock anti-Bush hearing some months ago. The hearing was simulcast at the Democratic National Headquarters, since a number of democratic Congressmen were in attendance at the “hearing” itself. The “hearings” featured anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and during the event anti-Semitic literature was handed out at the DNC. How do we know this? The Washington Post was at the event and reported on the anti-Semitism; the New York Times was there as well, yet had not one iota of news about this aspect of the conference when it reported on it.
9. In its story on the funeral of Rosa Parks, the NY Times noted as dignitaries, The Reverends Louis “the Jews are a gutter religion” Farrakhan and Al “Crown Heights” Sharpton. Dignitaries?
8. (Former) Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet commented that Arafat was politically "right" to take up arms against Israel, and even uses the word "heroic" in a description of the terrorist leader, following Arafat’s death.
7. The Times gave front-page treatment to the story of an illegal immigrant teenage Muslim girl who was deported after investigations revealed she was frequently visiting Islamic anti-Semitic websites. The Times vehemently objected to this deportation.
6. The Times refused to publish the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons that stirred up riots in Europe, yet had no problem with an anti-AIPAC ad replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes about mysterious Jews working behind the scenes, with a hirsute gorilla holding an Israeli flag on top of the dome of the US Capitol. The ad was sponsored by a well-known anti-Semitic group,a fact that if not known could have been easily discovered, if by no other means than simply by looking at the advertisement.
5. Featured columnist Nicholas Kristof engaged in a many-columned defense of Florida professor Sami Al-Arian who was charged by the Federal Government with funding terror groups. Kristof was outraged by charges and ignored evidence of well-documented ties to terrorists, as Joel Mowbray noted. Al-Arian admitted making statements along the lines of “Let us damn America,” referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs” and called for the death of Jews. Yet Kristof defended his character in a March 1st, 2002, column as “someone who denounces terrorism [and] promotes interfaith services with Jews and Christians.”
4. In April, 2005 a prison Imam named Umar Abdul-Jalil gave a speech to prisoners in which he claimed that Muslim inmates are “literally tortured” in the federal jail in Manhattan and that “Zionists of the media” dictate what Islam is to us. His slur about Jews in the media is one of the hoariest and most dangerous of anti-Semitic clichés. Mayor Bloomberg merely gave him a slap on the wrist: a suspension of two weeks. The New York Times op-ed page praised this weak rebuke.
3. The Times’ star columnist Maureen Dowd seemed to have no trouble cooing over the new Saudi Arabian Ambassador to America, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who founded the Saudi equivalent of the Gestapo (a Heydrich reincarnated), and is part of a kleptocracy that has exported anti-Semitism all over the world, including here in America. Dowd characterized him as a “charming” prince, “dressed in a long white robe and checkered headdress” going on and on about him. This is a charmer who has justified suicide attacks against Israelis. How ironic that this adulation comes from a woman who works for a newspaper that advocates income equality (certainly not the economic system found in the Saudi Arabia that keeps its millions of foreign workers in servitude) and who wrote a book titled Are men necessary? I suppose in Dowd’s worldview the charming new envoy is a necessary man.
2. A New York Times reporter, Philip Shenon, was charged by the Justice Department with giving the Global Relief Foundation a phone tip that the FBI was going to be raiding its offices the next day (December 14, 2001). As now-legendary U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an August 7, 2002, letter to the New York Times legal department, “It has been conclusively established that the Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of the New York Times.”
1. While other newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum are suitable alarmed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s stated goal of destroying Israel, the Times itself is rather blasé about the issue. Despite Iran’s lead role in international terrorism, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its role in the killing Americans over the last 20 years and the hostage crisis 30 years ago, and numerous statements from its leaders over the years (a former President openly gloated that Israel could be destroyed with one nuclear bomb and the current leader echoes this when he talks of “Rotten Israel will be annihilated by one storm”), the Times doesn’t seem to see a problem with an Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Tom Friedman wrote that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran because it “is the wisest thing under the circumstances”. This is despite Ahmadinejad’s statement in October 2005 that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the earth.” He also proudly hosted a conference “A World without Zionism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment