New NY Times Jerusalem bureau chief's first column portrays Israel as repressive
For those of you who thought Jodi Rudoren was difficult, you may yet find yourself pining for her return. Meet Peter Baker, the New York Times' new Jerusalem bureau chief, whose first column is, to put it mildly,
troubling.
Baker's
first story went all over the map, mixing religion, politics and freedom of expression in a dishonest effort to portray Israel as a repressive society, and Culture Minister Miri Regev (who, as far as I know, is secular) as a religious fascist.
This is from the first link.
More substantively problematic was the incomplete and deceptive
framing of Minister Regev’s efforts related to taxpayer funding of
cultural events. Readers might assume her actions as characterized by
Baker compel Orwellian public expressions of fealty to the state.
But the "Loyalty in Culture" legislation seeks to remove public
funding for extreme anti-Israel projects. It permits a retroactive
reduction in the budget for "actions against the principles of the
state." Among these are cultural events that entail: "Denying the
existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
incitement to racism, violence, and terror; support for an armed
struggle or terror act by a hostile country or terror organization
against the State of Israel; marking Independence Day as a day of
mourning; an act of vandalism or physical degradation that dishonors the
country’s flag or state emblem."
The Minister is calling for what she terms "freedom in funding" along
with freedom of expression. She and those who support passage of the
law believe Israel is free not to fund cultural events that promote
terror, incite racism, denigrate Independence Day and so on.
That makes perfect sense to this Republican. Let the Arabs mourn their 'naqba' all they want, but why does the State of Israel have to pay for it? The answer is, we shouldn't. And it's not like the Times doesn't know it.
In a related story from January 2016, another Times piece
cited criticism of Regev’s initiatives but, importantly, also provided a
balancing counter-voice. Reporter Steve Erlanger wrote:
"... Mr. Leibler, The Jerusalem Post columnist, defended Ms.
Regev and Mr. Bennett as trying to ‘restore a climate that nurtures love
of Israel and promotes pride in Jewish heritage’ after years when
‘far-leftists, postmodernists and even post-Zionists took over the
Education Ministry.’"
That’s a piece of information that readers deserve to have. Readers
must hope that going forward they will get some sense of the full
context – even if the reporter’s default viewpoint is to fault Israel.
If this is the foot on which Baker has chosen to get off, one has to wonder how much objectivity we can expect from him going forward.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: CAMERA, Israeli culture, Jodi Rudoren, Miri Regev, naqba, New York Times, Peter Baker
With friends like this...
Does Jodi really think she's defending our 'right to exist' with comments like this? The reality is that for Jewish Israelis, there is very little difference between 'Israel as a Jewish state' and Israel. I doubt we'd last six months here with the Arabs in charge.
And I doubt we'd last much longer if we went back to the 1949 armistice lines and allowed the establishment of a 'Palestinian state' in the parts of Israel that are over the 'green line.'
Labels: Israel is a Jewish state, Jodi Rudoren, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, two-state solution
What the Newton public schools pro-'Palestinian' education has brought
There's a lot of outrage over
this report about the public schools in Newton, Mass., the town in which I grew up.
Parents groups are up in arms after a recent report found public
schools in Newton, Massachusetts presented whitewashed versions of Hamas
and Palestinian Authority (PA) charters, as well as other materials
posing the destruction of Israel as acceptable.
The findings were made through an investigation of classroom materials by the independent watchdog group Verity Educate, which discovered "repeated
instances of bias against Israel, bias against the US and its actions
in the Middle East, and bias that sanitizes the ideology and actions of
terrorists."
Parents for Excellence in Newton Schools (PENS), which took part in
the research, on Sunday released a statement demanding action over the
issue and detailing just how serious the school materials were.
In one case, students were given a modified version of the Hamas
charter, in which references to genocide were removed and the word "Jew"
was replaced with "Israeli" to sanitize the terrorist group's murderous
intentions.
I wonder how growing up in the Newton public schools influenced
this New York Times reporter.
Hmmm.
Labels: Jodi Rudoren, Newton South High School, Palestinian education to hatred, Palestinian propaganda
'Police say'?
Maybe @rudoren's editor missed the video? Otherwise, how could s/he have written a headline like this:
'Police say'?
Let's go to the videotape.
Starting from the 0:07 mark, what happened seems painfully obvious. 'Police say'?
Shame on the New York Times.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem Light Rail, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Palestinian terrorism
A tempest in a teapot boiled up by Jodi Rudoren
For the Jewish New Year last week, the Jewish state published a list of the most popular names given to Jewish boys and girls during the Jewish year 5774. Sounds logical, right? Not if you're the New York Times' Jodi Rudoren (who, of course, is also Jewish). Jodi complains that what they didn't tell you is that
the most popular boys' name in Israel was Mohammed, a fact that I heard in more places than I'd like to remember.
But even more striking was that Israel’s population authority left Muhammad off the annual Top 10 list of baby names it issued last week before Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year. Haaretz, the left-leaning Israeli daily that first reported the omission, called this in an editorial “another form of racism, which in Israel has become institutionalized and self-evident.”
Sabine Haddad, a spokeswoman for the agency that published the list, described the missing Muhammads as something between a mistake and a misunderstanding. The list, she said, was simply a response to requests “for Hebrew names” in conjunction with the start of “the Hebrew New Year.” It would have been better, she acknowledged, to put an asterisk noting that what she called “obviously Arabic names” were left off. “There was no intention, no political intention,” Ms. Haddad said in an interview. “When journalists called me and asked for the whole list, they received the whole list. It’s not that we hide that.”
Intent aside, Hassan Jabareen, director of Adalah, a legal advocacy center for Arab minority rights, said the episode revealed a deeper issue of invisibility for Israel’s 1.4 million Palestinian citizens and more than 300,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem.
Arabs have served in Israel’s Parliament since its opening in 1949, but only one has been a government minister. A 2011 Adalah report found that 6 percent of the state’s Civil Service jobs and 1.2 percent of tenure-track positions in universities were filled by Arabs.
“On TV, if we open Channel 1, Channel 2, Channel 10, in prime time, we don’t see Arabs as producers, as anchors — we don’t see them, they do not exist,” Mr. Jabareen complained. Each channel has an analyst of Arab affairs, but they are Jews, he added, “sending a message that in fact the Arabs are foreigners, this is why we need a mediator between us and them.”
Yes, there is job discrimination against Arabs and everyone here knows it. But there is also
job discrimination here against anyone who is not from Ashkenazi (Western) background and often also against anyone who is not secular Ashkenazi and against anyone who hasn't served in the army. It's not just the Arabs.
Second, yes there are jobs here from which Arabs are generally systematically excluded. Anything remotely connected to national security, for example (does anyone wonder why?).
Third, the Arab affairs analysts are meant to explain the Arab viewpoint to Jews - not to propagandize. The only Arab I can think of in this country who could be entrusted to do that is Khaled Abu Toameh, and I suspect that he had wished to do so, he could have been an Arab affairs analyst for one of the television stations a long, long time ago.
Fourth, how many Arabs have the advanced university degrees that are required for many civil service jobs?
Fifth, when have the 'Israeli Arab' parties shown an interest in this sort of thing? What percentage of 'Israeli Arabs' vote in any Israeli election (hint: much lower than the percentage of Jews who vote).
By the way, how many Jews are there in civil service jobs in any Arab country? How many Jewish professors are there in any Arab universities? (How many universities are there in the Arab world anywhere outside the 'Palestinian Authority')? How many Arab countries even have Jewish affairs analysts at all? How many Arab countries have given up hope of extirpating the Jewish state?
Sorry, Jodi, this story is way out of line.
Labels: discrimination, Israeli Arab, Israeli Arabs are a fifth column, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Palestinians
What to do when the media isn't interested in the truth
Caroline Glick thinks out of the box and writes about how to deal with the reality that the international media is not interested in the truth about our conflict with the 'Palestinians.' She argues that we need to create
stories on which they will be forced to report.
Given this situation, it is clear that Israel’s public diplomacy efforts are directed toward the wrong goal.
The goal of hasbara cannot be to educate the likes of The New York
Times’ bureau chief Jodi Rudoren about the truth because the problem
isn’t one of ignorance. The problem is that they consider the truth an
impediment to their goal of reporting the narrative of Israeli
criminality.
Rather than striving to educate, we must work to manipulate the Rudorens of the world into covering the truth.
For instance, there is no reason to provide reporters clearly dedicated
to hiding the truth with access to national leaders and military
commanders. Let them find their own sources. Israel is a free country.
There is no reason for The New York Times to be invited to a press
briefing by IDF commanders.
Another critical element of a strategy for forcing hostile media and
international agencies to contend with the truth is to create events
that they can’t ignore.
For instance, the chief military prosecutor together with the state
prosecution should indict Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah leaders on war
crimes charges and the relevant Israeli courts should begin adjudicating
the cases.
The Knesset should begin deliberations on a bill to strip UNRWA of its
legal immunity as a first step towards bringing its personnel up on
charges of providing material support for terrorism.
True, such actions will be met with howls of condemnation and hysterical reproaches from all the usual suspects.
But at least they will be talking about Palestinian war crimes. At least
they will be forced to acknowledge that UNRWA is a force of
destabilization and radicalization, not of stabilization and moderation
in the Arab conflict with Israel.
Our leaders and spokespeople cannot win the information war by devoting
themselves to pointing out the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, or
the rank mendaciousness and bigotry that stands at the core of their
approach to Israel. No one ever won a war by only playing defense. And
we won’t win this one by explaining why we aren’t war criminals.
We will only begin to make progress when we define the goal of our
hasbara as forcing an unwilling media and international community to
discuss the truth by taking deliberate actions that will make it
impossible for them to ignore it.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Barack Hussein Obama, civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Operation Protective Edge, UNRWA
Flashback: When the New York Times admitted that Hamas harasses journalists
You will recall that just this past week, New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren termed '
nonsense' an accusation by the Foreign Press Association (FPA) that Hamas harasses journalists, despite the fact that
her own deputy was signed on the FPA complaint. A little bit of digging in the Times' archives by a friend came up with this Steve Erlanager piece complaining about
Hamas harassment of journalists. Of course, that happened before Hamas was really ensconced in power.
The next night, at about 10 p.m., Hamas police officers entered
Sakher Abu El Oun’s courtyard, preparing to arrest him. Mr. Abu El Oun, a
reporter for Agence France-Presse and head of the union here,
telephoned a colleague.
“I called one journalist who sent out an
SMS,” he said, referring to a text message, “and within minutes, about
70 journalists and some human rights activists came to my house and
prevented them from taking me away. My kids were crying. It was a very
ugly picture.”
The police told him, he said, “that they had
instructions to arrest me, I had refused, and I would be responsible”
for any consequences.
Hamas seems confused about how to quash
Fatah protests and simultaneously deal with the news media. Trying to
nurture a reputation for honesty and legal behavior since they conquered
Gaza in bloody fighting in June, Hamas’s leaders promise journalists
freedom of action while the police intimidate them.
One result
is a kind of self-censorship, local journalists say, that goes beyond
what they traditionally practiced under Fatah, which also tried to
pressure, manipulate or own the Palestinian press.
Mr. Abu El Oun,
42, is a good case in point. The immediate crisis for him ended when a
Hamas government spokesman, Taher el-Nounou, a former journalist,
arrived at his house with a message from the former Hamas prime
minister, Ismail Haniya, telling the police to leave.
Later,
speaking for the union, Mr. Abu El Oun talked about the broader problems
journalists were facing. “We are asking for the freedom to cover the
protests,” he said. “They can prevent the demonstrations, but not the
right of journalists to cover them. We are under self-censorship because
we don’t know what is allowed, what isn’t. There is no clear policy.
All the journalists are worried, scared.”
He has since been asked by his employer not to speak to journalists.
And one more thing:
Similarly, Hamas at first said the prayer protests were fine if
peaceful, but then decided to ban them, causing further clashes. As some
protesters were beaten, some more journalists were beaten and arrested,
too, before being released. One policeman told reporters, according to
The Associated Press, “If a single shot is on TV, you know what will
happen,” then drew a finger across his throat.
Read the whole thing. Sounds a lot like today, doesn't it? In fact, if anything it's worse - I doubt 70 journalists would respond to such an SMS today. So why does Jodi think otherwise?
Labels: freedom of the press, Gaza, Hamas, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times
Rudoren's deputy signed Hamas harassment protest
In an earlier post, I discussed New York Times bureau chief Jodi Rudoren's tweet claiming that
journalists were not harassed by Hamas in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. Haaretz reports that the tweet led to a lot of back and forth between Rudoren (who was not in Gaza until after most of the fighting ended) and the Foreign Press Association (FPA). It also turns out that Rudoren's deputy, Isabel Kirshner, is a board member of the FPA and
voted in favor of issuing the protest.
Rudoren’s Tweet was followed by a furious email exchange with the FPA, in which Rudoren denounced the statement as “dangerous.”
Crispian
Balmer, last year’s FPA chairman and former Jerusalem bureau chief for
Reuters, told Haaretz the FPA was not in the habit of issuing such
protests without very good reason.
“When I was on the FPA board,
we took our statements very seriously,” said Crispian Balmer. “They were
never written on a whim and were only issued after broad consultation –
either face-to-face at a board meeting or via a stream of email
exchanges. Our prime concern was always the well-being of the foreign
press pack and we would not pull our punches if we thought our members
needed vocal support. We would certainly never issue broad statements
condemning the behavior of one side or the other if we did not feel that
a good number of our members had been impacted.”
Even more
intriguing, Rudoren’s deputy at the NYT, Isabel Kershner, was one of the
FPA board members who approved the statement. How could two colleagues
from the same newspaper observing the same sequence of events come to
such different conclusions?
“I was not in Gaza during the height
of the hostilities, I have only been here a week,” Rudoren told me. “But
in conversations with many colleagues, those who were here from NYT and
other major news organizations who I trust, I have not heard about
harassment, intimidation, censorship or threats. There have been a few
anecdotes re Hamas people shooing photographers away from fighters'
faces at the hospitals, asking people not to shoot this or that, and
yes, names and phone numbers were taken down in a spiral notebook of who
was here, but nothing that these veteran war correspondents consider
unusual.”
“I am confident the FPA based its statement on detailed
reports from members regarding their experiences on the ground, and only
had the best intention of protecting journalists and journalism, as it
always does. But I found the wording of the statement overly broad, and,
especially given the narrative playing out in some social media circles
regarding foreign correspondents being taken in by the Hamas narrative
and not reporting on the war fully or fairly, I was concerned that it
undermined what I consider to have been brave and excellent work by very
talented people,” she said.
Rudoren wasn’t actually there. Her
conclusions are based on talking to colleagues. But several other
reporters who spoke to Haaretz agreed with her. British freelancer Harry
Fear was reporting for Russia Today TV when he was asked to leave Gaza
by three plainclothes Hamas officials at Al-Shifa Hospital, apparently
for referring to rocket launches near his hotel. But Fear said he did
not feel he had been subjected to intimidation or interference for the
four weeks he reported from Gaza, where he has worked intermittently
since 2012.
“It’s a totally free playing field,” said Fear. “I
feel somewhat aggrieved that there were no guidelines that I broke,
because there are no guidelines. If they had asked me not to do it
again, which is what’s happened to dozens of other visiting journalists
over the last several years with respect to rocket locations, I would
have respected that, because professionally you have to respect such
things.”
Fear and other reporters who spoke to Haaretz on
condition of anonymity insist that they did not experience or hear of
the kind of Hamas actions described in the FPA statement. Anecdotal
evidence suggests they may well be in the majority.
But other
reporters did experience threats and intimidation from Hamas – enough to
convince the FPA that they were not isolated incidents. Unfortunately
for Hamas, they included prominent FPA members. So many of them
complained that when the board met in Jerusalem on Monday and looked at
confirmed information about a series of troubling incidents there wasn’t
a single dissenting voice – only a discussion about just how fierce the
protest should be.
...
The
FPA worked tirelessly through the conflict to get journalists in and
out of Gaza on a specially-chartered bus via a safe passage. Haaretz has
learned that Hamas repeatedly demanded a list of the names of
correspondents using the FPA bus in order to draw up a blacklist of
individuals and networks.
“We do not take or give out lists to
anyone and certainly not for the purpose of blacklisting people going
into or out of Gaza,” said Glenys Sugarman, the FPA executive secretary.
Some
reporters received death threats. Sometimes, cameras were smashed.
Reporters were prevented from filming anti-Hamas demonstrations where
more than 20 Palestinians were shot dead by Hamas gunmen.
In
perhaps the most serious incidents considered by the FPA, Hamas began
firing mortars right next to the location of foreign reporters, in what
may have been an effort to draw Israeli retaliatory fire.
Several
foreign correspondents said the FPA had been right to issue the
statement. One European reporter told Haaretz how Hamas officials
prevented photographs being taken of any wounded or dead fighters at
Al-Shifa hospital, even though their presence there was common
knowledge. Only images of wounded or dead civilians were permitted. The
journalist said Hamas repeatedly issued warnings to local translators
that blatantly interfered with reporting. Other correspondents had
similar experiences.
As we say in Hebrew, Fear is כשמו כן הוא like his name. I find it incredible that a journalist who was expelled from Gaza for his work would then claim he was not harassed (probably because he wants to be able to work there again) and that his only gripe was that the rules were not told to him in advance. Does he expect Hamas to hand out a press guide (that would then be broadcast all over the world if the IDF ever found it) saying what reporters can and cannot do?
I'm also still waiting to hear from Reporters without Borders about this. Ah, I hear them now....
UPDATE 2:29 PM
You will note that Rudoren denounced the FPA statement as 'dangerous.' This is what I think she meant by that. I think she implied what she meant by 'dangerous' here:
“I am confident the FPA based its statement on detailed
reports from members regarding their experiences on the ground, and only
had the best intention of protecting journalists and journalism, as it
always does. But I found the wording of the statement overly broad, and,
especially given the narrative playing out in some social media circles
regarding foreign correspondents being taken in by the Hamas narrative
and not reporting on the war fully or fairly, I was concerned that it
undermined what I consider to have been brave and excellent work by very
talented people,” she said.
In other words, there's a danger that someone might decide that pro-Hamas reporting like that of the Times was a result of duress.
Labels: crickets, Foreign Press Association, freedom of the press, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Operation Protective Edge, Reporters without Borders
Times' Rudoren: Hamas didn't harass anyone
The New York Times' Jodi Rudoren claims that the Foreign Press Association narrative about reporters being harassed by Hamas is 'nonsense.'
Rudoren goes on to claim that the reports that the FPA got were 'anomalous.'
But what Rudoren says us 'anomalous' seems to be Hamas policy.
Maybe Rudoren only knows 'Palestinian' reporters?
Labels: Foreign Press Association, freedom of the press, Government Press Office, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Reporters without Borders
Don't cry for us - we're living
For those who don't recognize it, the picture is Dresden February 1, 1945.
Here's a great piece from author
Naomi Ragen, who lives here in Jerusalem.
All this criticism comes mainly from the European press: The
Guardian, the BBC, papers in Italy, Norway, France, and don’t forget
America: The New York Times, CNN. And I’m thinking: Gee, the British
should understand. After all, they lived through the blitz, Nazis
raining bombs indiscriminately down on them, the way Hamas is raining
bombs down on us. And when the brave pilots of the RAF aimed their bombs
at Dresden and killed 300,000 men, women and children, they didn’t
throw down leaflets telling people to politely evacuate; didn’t send
their soldiers to knock on doors to see if they’d followed the leaflets
instructions ( as CNN complained Israel failed to do at an UNRWA school,
which was probably hit by a Hamas bomb anyway.)
And I think of the rest of Europe, who rounded up our grandparents
and great-grandparents, and relatives —men, women and children—and sent
them off to be gassed, no questions asked. And I think: They are now the
moral arbiters of the free world? They are telling the descendants of
the people they murdered how to behave when other anti-Semites want to
kill them?
As for Americans, represented by the New York Times, that bastion of
high-minded hypocrisy and mediocre journalism parading as the “newspaper
of record,” one has only to read the article by Professor Auerbach in
the New York Observer (“Two Weeks of Shallow, Facile Moral Equivalency From the New York Times“)
to see how Jodi Rudoren and other Times apparatchiks have learned to
close their minds and love Hamas. After all, there are CHILDREN DYING.
It doesn’t matter that the Palestinians have educated an entire
generation to be little Nazi-wannabes, who worship death and hate Jews,
murdering their souls, and are now callously putting their bodies in
harm’s way to use for touching photo ops. We shouldn’t be shocked by
this omission by the Times. After all, The New York Times was one of the
last news outlets to bring to the attention of the reading public the
Nazi atrocities in Europe. Read the Times during the nightmare years,
and see if you can’t find a pattern here.
And so, as an Israeli, brought up with Jewish values, and an
American, taught to love freedom, justice, democracy and fair play, I
have to tell all of you – Europeans, Americans, and last of all Muslim
terrorist sympathizers and barbarians, that what you are saying no
longer moves anyone of good moral judgment and intelligence. The current
crisis in Gaza is so morally clear-cut, so absolutely a case of
self-defense, that I must say to you, as someone finally said to Senator
McCarthy: “Sir, have you no shame?”
I prefer that you – writers of these lies and libels - hate me and my
country, if it means that you can save your tears for other peoples’
dead. We aren’t greedy for sympathy. After all, we got so much after the
Holocaust, we prefer other people to have their share now. These days,
we prefer to live, rather than have people cry over us and the
injustices done to us.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: al-Guardian, anti-Israel media bias, BBC, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Operation Protective Edge
And again: Times' Rudoren compares mother of Israeli terror victim to mother of 'Palestinian' terrorist
In Monday's New York Times, Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren once again puts her foot in her mouth,
comparing the mothers of terror victim Naftali Frenkel HY"D (May God Avenge his blood) and of 'Palestinian' Mohammed Abdul Aziz Dudeen, who was killed trying to stop the IDF from searching for Frenkel and his fellow victims.
It was about 4 a.m. on a Friday when the police banged on Rachel Fraenkel’s door in this Jerusalem suburb looking for her 16-year-old son, Naftali, and a friend he studies with at a yeshiva in the West Bank. The night before, Naftali had texted his parents saying he was going to hitchhike back home. They had no idea he had never arrived.
“I was praying maybe he did something stupid and irresponsible,” Ms. Fraenkel recalled, “but I know my boy isn’t stupid, and he isn’t irresponsible.”
It was almost exactly a week later, just past 5 a.m., that Aida Abdel Aziz Dudeen was startled awake by a gunshot, then banging on her own door in the West Bank town of Dura. Her family had locked the door the night before to keep her 15-year-old son, Mohammed, from confronting the Israeli Army after days of house-to-house searches and arrest raids. The key was still under Ms. Dudeen’s pillow.
“I didn’t imagine he would jump out the window,” she said. “I saw a cousin at the door shouting, ‘Mohammed is a martyr!’ I said, ‘Mohammed who?’ He said, ‘Your son.’ He showed me a shirt with blood. I wanted to know who died because I still believed my son was inside the house.”
It goes downhill from there.
Breitbart's Thomas Rose
takes Rudoren to task (Hat Tip:
Leah P).
The inch-deep moralizing that oozes throughout Rudoren’s piece is made even more pronounced following revelations that the kidnapped Israeli teens were in fact brutally murdered. The truth, which is ever harder to find in The New York Times’s coverage of anything to do with Israel, is that there is nothing at all to compare about the two mothers, their suffering, or the moral validity of their claims.
The comparisons between Fraenkel and Dudeen begin and end with the fact that both now have dead sons. One son was murdered, the other killed while hoping to murder. The Israeli mother said she was sorry to see any Palestinian suffer. The Palestinian mother proudly called her dead son a “martyr” and praised his “sacrifice” for Palestine. While claiming she was sorry to see her son join a terrorist band, she is proud now because Israelis are, after all, “colonizing” her land. In other words, the Jews of Israel deserve to be murdered, and those who do the killing are often lionized on the front pages of The New York Times.
One boy was murdered in cold blood while attempting to hitch a ride home from school. The other was killed after he made the conscious choice to ambush forces working to find the missing boys. Shooting back at those staging an ambush is usually called self defense.
Unless of course you are an Israeli, and those ambushing you are Palestinians. Then, The New York Times equates you with those who kidnap and murder unarmed Israeli teenagers.
Something tells me you won't see that sort of criticism in the New York Times anytime soon.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Jodi Rudoren, kidnapping, liberal media bias, media bias, murder, New York Times, Palestinian terrorism
Gee, thanks Jodi
In a profile of Sherri Mandell, whose son was murdered by 'Palestinian' terrorists 13 years ago, this is the most pity the New York Times'
Jodi Rudoren can bring herself to have for the mothers of the three kidnapped teenagers.
There were so many connections. Like Koby, one of the three missing now is a citizen of both Israel and the United States.
Ms. Mandell’s second son graduated from the prestigious Mekor Haim
yeshiva, where two of the three were students; her future son-in-law
teaches there. If only these three boys had not hitchhiked in occupied
Palestinian territory — if only Koby and his friend, Yosef Ishran, had
not ditched school to go hiking in the canyon behind their West Bank
homes.
If only that woman had worn her blonde hair in a bun, she might not have been raped.
Gee, thanks, Jodi. I know you're not blonde. What difference does it make?
Labels: Jodi Rudoren, kidnapping, New York Times, Palestinian terrorism
There's a pattern here
Caroline Glick connects the media's blame game involving the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers, the celebration of that kidnapping by the 'moderate' 'Palestinians,' the 'international community's support for the Hamas-Fatah 'unity government,' anti-Semitism in Europe and the decision of the United States' premier opera company to stage (and until
today's cancellation to simulcast) an
opera glorifying a 'Palestinian' terror attack.
As for Fatah, since Frankel, Shaer and Yifrach were taken on Thursday
night, Fatah has glorified and celebrated their capture on its official
Facebook page and its official newspaper. Fatah’s Facebook page
depicted the boys as rats, reeled in by a fishing pole.
The Palestinian Authority’s daily newspaper Al Hayat al Jadida published a mock World Cup logo in which three hands held three people who held their hands up in surrender.
And Fatah activists posted a revealing directive on Facebook after the boys were abducted.
No, Abbas’s “moderate” faction of the Palestinian unity government,
so energetically supported by the US, the EU and the western media, did
not call for the public to quit celebrating the abduction. Nor did it
condemn the brutal assault.
The Fatah activists called for shopkeepers in the vicinity of the
kidnapping to destroy any footage their security cameras filmed in the
24 hours following the operation to prevent the IDF from seizing the
footage and using it in its efforts to locate the boys.
That makes Fatah an accessory after the fact to the attack. And yes,
that means that the PA – which is comprised of Fatah and Hamas – is in
fact one great big terrorist organization.
When Rudoren and her colleagues in the media look in the mirror, they
don’t see themselves as enablers of murderers and champions of
terrorists.
...
Rather than demand that Abbas take the responsibility he claims to
carry, and convince his coalition partner to return the children they
stole, the two-stater peaceniks blame Israel. And the kidnapped boys.
Maybe there is something else going on here.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps the media and the
governments championing Palestinian unity are less motivated by
geopolitical concerns than they would have us believe?
In one of those ironic coincidences that happens every so often when
events converge to expose patterns and relations between seemingly
unrelated events, in the two weeks before the Palestinians abducted
Yifrach, Shaer and Frankel, the American Jewish community discovered
that the object of the largesse of many an American Jewish patron of the
arts – New York’s Metropolitan Opera – has gone full-on anti-Semitic.
In its fall line-up, the Met will produce the acclaimed-by- anti-Semites opera, The Death of Klinghoffer.
Not only will they stage the show at Lincoln Center, the Met is going
to broadcast it through its HD broadcast program to 2,000 theaters in 66
countries reaching a potential audience of millions.*
The Death of Klinghoffer romanticizes the lives and times of the PLO terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise liner in 1985 and murdered wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish American.
...
Jewish teenagers are kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists in Israel, and it’s their fault.
A old, handicapped Jewish man was thrown over the deck of a cruise ship, and America’s premier opera house says it’s art.
Jewish teenagers are violently assaulted on the streets of Europe, and Europe yawns.
There is a pattern here. And it has nothing to do with peace.
Read the whole thing. Labels: American Left, Caroline Glick, European anti-Semitism, Jodi Rudoren, kidnapping, New York City, Palestinian terrorism
Jodi loves terrorists
Jodi Rudoren writes an incredible puff piece
humanizing a 'Palestinian' murderer who was released as part of the 'peace talks.' The terrorist murdered a 72-year old Holocaust survivor in cold blood in 1993. A few highlights and comments.
Demonized
as terrorists by Israelis and lionized as freedom fighters by
Palestinians, prisoners like Mr. Salah have become a flash point in the
troubled peace talks, whose continuation hinges on whether a promised fourth group is let go in the coming days. Amid the charged debate,
these middle-aged men — 69 of them convicted of murder, 54 escaping
life sentences — have begun to rebuild disrupted lives. They are earning
their first driver’s licenses, leveraging $50,000 grants from the
Palestinian Authority to build apartments or start businesses, searching
for wives and struggling to start families.
Mr.
Salah was flush with more than $100,000 saved from the Palestinian
Authority’s monthly payments to prisoners’ families. He remodeled and
refurnished his mother’s home. He bulldozed the rocky slope out back and
built a 2,400-square-foot pen for livestock. He invested in a Nablus
money-changing storefront in December, and, last month, bought his first
car, a silver 2007 Kia Pride.
But
he still wakes at 5 a.m., as he had to for the prison count. He makes
coffee in an electric kettle like the one he had in his cell. The day
before his wedding, Mr. Salah and one of his brothers got threatening
phone calls from a man who gave his name as Moshe and spoke in Hebrew.
“He
told me, ‘I will kill him, kill his wife, and shoot you and all his
family,’ ” said the brother, Muhammad. “He told me, ‘I know where you
live, in Burqa, and Burqa is next to Sebastia.’ ”
If
Charles Manson is ever released from prison, will the Times do a story about his difficulties in adjusting to life outside prison? With the Times, one can never be 100% sure, but somehow I doubt it.
Hearing
about Mr. Salah’s new life was unsettling for Ms. Harris [the daughter of Salah's victim, 72-year old Israel Tenenbaum HY"D - May God Avenge his blood. CiJ], who is 56 and
works as a special-education teacher. “If he was an anonymous
character, it would be easier,” she said.
But
while most Israelis — and certainly most victims’ relatives — oppose
the prisoner releases, Ms. Harris said of her family, “If it advances
the peace process, we all support even the release of this murderer.”
And it's this kind of insanity that drives just enough of a wedge in Israeli society to allow terrorists to be released. You're willing to let your father's murderer be released if it 'advances the peace process' - whatever that means. I haven't seen anything that advanced the 'peace process' - certainly not in the last 20 years. Why do we continue to fool ourselves?
The only good news here is that Salah - who is still only 47 - says he won't participate in the next intifada.
“I’m away from the conflict now,” he said. “I’ve paid the tax in full.
If tomorrow there is a third intifada, I’ll sit on this couch, and watch
it on TV.”
Let's see if he sticks to that one.
Releasing terrorists from prison is insane. Even if they don't go back to their former lives, the message being sent to future generations of terrorists is not one that Israel can abide.
And as to the Times, it's long past time for them to stop lionizing murderers.
Labels: gestures, Jodi Rudoren, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, unilateral concessions
Harvard students told Arafat's grave to be moved to Jerusalem
In an earlier post, I reported on a pilgrimage by Harvard University students to Yasser Arafat's grave, which was financed by the Boston Combined Jewish Philanthropies. A couple of the students have posted blogs about the trip, which make clear some of the things the students 'learned' in Ramallah. Here's the
first one (both blogs came from
Truth Revolt).
The Israel-Palestine conflict is urgent for my green-sweatered friend in
Ramallah whose house had been destroyed twice. Ambassador Dore Gold and
Col. (res) Dr. Eran Lerman spoke to us about security at the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs. One map after another filled the screen in
front of us as our speakers turned geographic boundaries into calculated
threats, like the range of rockets, or the time needed to mobilize
troops from A to B. For them, Israel’s fight is urgent. The man who
spoke to us at Yasser Arafat’s grave emphasized the grave’s temporary
location, to be moved to Jerusalem when (not if) Palestine
reclaims the city. The conflict, for him, is urgent.
Here's the
second blog.
The amazing organizers of this trek are all Israelis. Five of them are
Jewish and one of the is Arab Israeli. Was it easy for them to see the
grave of Arafat, who is responsible of the death of so many Israeli
civilians, their beloved ones specifically? But does that dispute the
fact that the same person is also the founder of the PLO, hero of so
many Palestinians symbolizing their fight for independence?
It is not at all easy to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That is exactly why we listened to speeches at Harvard by Ari Shavit,
the author of the book ‘The Triumph and Tragedy of My Promised Land’ and
Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israeli National Security
Agency, who was appointed to the position right after the assassination
of the Prime Minister Ytzhak Rabin. Then, during our tour in Israel, we
were lucky enough to hear from Jodi Rudoren, the editor in chief of New
York Times Jerusalem, Danny Siedemann, an attorney very much involved
with the negotiations process, Dore Gold, foreign policy advisor to the
Prime Minister Netanyahu, Nadav Tamir, senior policy advisor to the
President of Israel Simon Peres, Eran Lerman, Deputy National Security
Advisor for Foreign Policy and International Affairs, Dr. Rachel
Korazim, a Holocaust educator, a Rabbi from Jewish settlements in West
Bank and an Israel Defense Force officer along with those two
Palestinian leaders.
Actually, out of the named speakers, there are a lot more people of the Left than of the Right. I've added some links that explain why.
Was there an agenda here? Did the pilgrimage to Arafat's mausoleum fit in with that agenda? I leave that to the reader to decide.
Labels: Ami Ayalon, Ari Shavit, Dore Gold, Harvard University, Jewish Federations of North America, Jewish philanthropy, Jodi Rudoren, liberal Jews, Nadav Tamir, Palestinian incitement, Palestinians, Yasser Arafat
Meanwhile, at the New York Times...
Meanwhile, at the New York Times, this week's worry is the '
massive' number of Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount. This is Leo Rennert.
What does concern the Times
and warrants an alarming two-page spread in the Sept. 22 edition is
Jewish presence on Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Jerusalem
bureau chief Jodi Rudoren pulls out all the stops in warning that any
increase in Jewish visitors is bound to be seen as a provocation by
Palestinians -- with God knows what consequences. The headlines set the
tone: "Claiming the Heart of Jerusalem" and "Jews Increasingly Challenge Rules to Claim Heart of Jerusalem."
...
[Jodi Rudoren's] agenda instead is to depict Jewish visitors to Temple Mount as a major
source of friction and a threat to peace negotiations.
So
how massive is this Jewish invasion of Temple Mount? Rudoren has to
acknowledge that in all of 2011 there was a mere pittance of 8,247 Jews
on Temple Mount, and the numbers "dipped slightly last year." And even
she concedes that "the numbers remain tiny compared with the 10 million
annual visitors to the Western Wall below."
So
why such great alarm about peaceful Jewish visits to Temple Mount? What
counts for Rudoren is that "Palestinian officials say what used to be a
trickle of individuals has given way to "groups of 40, 60, 90." And for
this, Rudoren and the Times pump up a kind of breathless warning a la The Jews Are Coming, the Jews Are Coming.
Jonathan Tobin adds:
But however dangerous any idea of endangering the Dome of the Rock or
the Al Aqsa Mosque might be to world peace, the Jews are not the
problem in Jerusalem. That’s because the dispute in the city isn’t
really so much about who controls the Temple Mount but the Muslim effort
to deny the Jewish history that is literally under their feet. Were it
just a question of sharing sacred space, reasonable compromises that
would give full Muslim autonomy over their holy sites while allowing
Jewish prayer at the spiritual center of Judaism would be possible since
Jewish extremists who want to evict Islam from the place are a tiny
minority. Yet as long as the official position of both the Muslim Wakf
religious authority, which has been allowed by Israel to govern the
place since the 1967 Six-Day War, and the Palestinian Authority is that
the Temples never existed and that Jews have no rights to their ancient
capital, that will constitute the real obstacle to peace.
At the heart of this conundrum is an error in Times
Jerusalem Bureau chief Jodi Rudoren’s story. In an effort to give some
historical background to the dispute, she writes the following:
In 2000, a visit by Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s opposition leader,
accompanied by 1,000 police officers, prompted a violent outbreak and,
many argue, set off the second intifada.
Many may argue that, but it is a flat-out lie. As figures within the
Palestinian Authority have long since publicly admitted, the intifada
was planned by then leader Yasir Arafat long before Sharon took a stroll
on the site of the Temples around the Jewish New Year. The intifada was
a deliberate strategy in which Arafat answered Israel’s offer of an
independent Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and a
share of Jerusalem that would have included the Temple Mount. The
terrorist war of attrition was intended to beat down the Israelis and
force them and the United States to offer even more concessions without
forcing the Palestinians to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state
no matter where its borders were drawn. Sharon’s visit was merely a
pretext that has long since been debunked.
Rudoren deserves to be roasted for passing along this piece of
propaganda without even noting the proof to the contrary. But the
problem here is more than just an error that shows the way she tends to
swallow Palestinian lies hook, line, and sinker. That’s because the
significance of the Sharon story lies in the way, Palestinian leaders
have used the Temple Mount for generations to gin up hate against
Israelis.
...
Thus while many friends of Israel will read Rudoren’s article and shake
their heads about Israeli foolishness, the real story in Jerusalem
remains the Palestinians’ unshakable determination to extinguish Jewish
history as part of their effort to delegitimize the Jewish state. In the
face of their intransigence and the fact that such intolerance is
mainstream Palestinian opinion rather than the view of a few extremists,
the desire of many Jews to visit a place that is the historic center of
their faith (the Western Wall is, after all, merely the vestige of the
Temple’s outer enclosure) doesn’t seem quite so crazy.
And perhaps this is the place to pass on
The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Temple Mount
Israel pushing United States to back Egyptian army?
In an earlier post, I reported that 'out friends the Saudis' were pushing the United States to continue to support the Egyptian army and that Israel was trying to
stay out of the picture. Now, the New York Times reports that Israel is getting into the picture, and may begin
openly pressing the United States to support the Egyptian army.
With the European Union planning an urgent review of its relations with
Egypt in a meeting Monday, the message, in part, is that concerns about
democracy and human rights should take a back seat to stability and
security because of Egypt’s size and strategic importance.
“We’re trying to talk to key actors, key countries, and share our view
that you may not like what you see, but what’s the alternative?” the
official explained. “If you insist on big principles, then you will miss
the essential — the essential being putting Egypt back on track at
whatever cost. First, save what you can, and then deal with democracy
and freedom and so on.
“At this point,” the official added, “it’s army or anarchy.”
Israeli leaders have made no public statements and have refused
interviews since Wednesday’s brutal clearing of two Muslim Brotherhood
protest encampments. But even as the death toll climbed in ensuing
gunfights in mosques and on streets, officials spoke frequently to
members of Congress, officials at the Pentagon and State Department, and
European diplomats.
While Israel's concerns are obvious, not everyone in Israel agrees with the idea of openly supporting the Egyptian army.
“This is a very big mistake to interfere in what happens in Egypt,” said
Mordechai Kedar, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and director of its
new Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam.
Dr. Kedar invoked an old joke about a lifeguard kicking a boy out of a
pool for urinating — from the diving board. “You can do things, but do
them under the water,” he said. “Israel, by supporting explicitly the
army, exposes itself to retaliation. Israel should have done things
behind the scenes, under the surface, without being associated with any
side of the Egyptian problem.”
But Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, praised Mr.
Netanyahu’s government for “acting very discreetly,” and Yitzhak
Levanon, Israel’s ambassador to Egypt until 2011, said the lobbying had
not been aggressive.
“We are talking to a lot of friends,” said Mr. Levanon, who teaches a
course on Egypt at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. “Pushing? I
don’t think that this is the word. We are expressing what we believe is
best for the region.”
Mr. Shaked said that unlike the Obama administration and the European
Union, Israel did “not have any illusions about the possibility of a
democracy in Egypt.”
“I understand Washington and Europe with their criticism, but there is
no alternative to letting the army in Egypt try by force,” he said. “We
have to choose here not between the good guys and the bad guys — we
don’t have good guys. It is a situation where you have to choose who is
less harmful.”
Read the whole thing.
That Israel would support the Egyptian army in this case seems obvious. I'm not sure it needed to be said.
Haaretz's Barak Ravid tweets that the source for both Rudoren's story and for another one by
Herb Keinon in Monday's JPost
is Prime Minister Netanyahu's close adviser and future ambassador to the United States,
Ron Dermer. Maybe Ravid is jealous that Dermer didn't call him, but I disagree with Ravid's assertion. Given past Obama administration efforts to expose things Israel does quietly (see Syria), I suspect the source is someone in Washington.
Labels: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Binyamin Netanyahu, Egypt, Egyptian army, Egyptian democracy, Jodi Rudoren, Mohammed Morsy, Muslim Brotherhood, our friends the Saudis, Ron Dermer
The New York Times corrects Jodi Rudoren
Recall Jodi Rudoren's column calling stone throwing by 'Palestinians' a '
hobby.' Recall also that as an aside in that column, Jodi asserted that the 'settlements' are currently deemed '
illegal' by the United States, a position that was only taken during the Carter administration over the 46 years since Judea and Samaria were liberated. As
Adam Kredo noted:
The United States considers Israeli settlements illegal, Rudoren stated in her article.
“The United States, along with most of the world, considers these
settlements illegal, and some of them sit in the heart of the area
imagined as a future Palestinian state,” wrote Rudoren.
However, this statement is factually inaccurate, according to Middle East experts and an analysis of official U.S. policy on Israeli settlements since 1949.
“This is not the declared policy of the United States,” Steven Rosen,
a former top official at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), wrote in a 2012 analysis of U.S. policy.
“Successive U.S. administrations have deplored settlement activity as
an obstacle to peace, but no American president—except Jimmy Carter—has
taken the view that building Jewish homes in Jerusalem constitutes a
violation of the Geneva conventions,” wrote Rosen, currently director of
the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.
While Carter stated in 1980 that he considered the settlements
illegal, every presidential administration of the last 30 years—as well
as those before Carter’s—has refused to state this as U.S. policy.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly declined to declare settlements illegal despite pressure for him to do so.
The United States in 2011 vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution that would have labeled Israeli settlements illegal.
“If an American president were to take the position that all Israeli
construction outside the former 1967 line is illegal, it would have the
effect of criminalizing the Jewish communities of the eastern sector of
Jerusalem, where 40 percent of the Jews in that city live,” Rosen wrote
in his policy analysis.
If you go back to Rudoren's
original New York Times article, you will now find the following paragraph:
The cabinet decision added a number of Jewish settlements in the West
Bank territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war to a “national
priority list” of communities eligible for extra subsidies for
education, housing, infrastructure projects, cultural programs and
sports, along with better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners.
Most of the world considers these settlements illegal, and some of them
sit in the heart of the area imagined as a future Palestinian state. The
United States has not taken a position on the settlements’ legality for
several decades, saying instead, according to the State Department, “We
do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”
And at the bottom you will find the following correction:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 8, 2013
An
article on Monday about a decision by the Israeli cabinet to add
several Jewish settlements in the West Bank territory seized by Israel
in the 1967 war to a list of communities eligible for extra subsidies
and better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners misstated the
United States’ view of such settlements. While much of the rest of the
world considers them illegal, as the article noted, the United States
has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they
are legal or illegal. (In a statement on Tuesday, the State Department
said, “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement
activity.” )
As usual, the problem is that most of the people who read the original article will never see the correction.
For those who are interested in seeing a fascinating lecture on why 'settlements' are in fact both legal and legitimate, regardless of what the anti-Semites of the world say, please go
here.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, international law, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 338
Stone throwing is not a 'hobby'
How bad was that
puff piece Jodi Rudoren wrote about 'Palestinian' stone throwers? Here's Israel's
Ambassador to the US responding in a letter to the editor. I am guessing that he really want to respond via an op-ed and the Times wouldn't publish it.
While Palestinian protagonists are described in detail, their Israeli
victims are largely dehumanized “settlers” — no name, age or gender. And
for the record, all Israelis, irrespective of residence and ethnicity,
Jews and Arabs, drive with yellow plates.
The article could have added another chart: the names of Israelis who
have been killed or permanently maimed by rock throwers and the time
they have spent hospitalized. One of the names would be Adele Biton, a
2-year-old seriously wounded by a stone in March.
The article notes that Palestinian youths attack Israelis “because their
brothers and fathers did.” By breaking that pattern, Palestinian
leaders can prepare their people for peace.
You really think Jodi didn't try to slant that article? Come on...
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Jodi Rudoren, Michael Oren, New York Times
Adam Kredo destroys Jodi Rudoren
Earlier this week, I reported on a New York Times article by Jodi Rudoren in which 'Palestinian' stone throwing was lionized as a '
hobby.' In response, Adam Kredo looks into some of the influences on Rudoren's writing and presents a portrayal that clearly shows her to be
anti-Israel pro-'Palestinian.'
Pro-Israel officials say Rudoren’s most recent inaccurate statements should prompt readers to question her objectivity.
“This is an ongoing problem with Rudoren,” said Noah Pollak,
executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel. “Not only is
she stunningly ignorant of her beat, but her knowledge vacuum is filled
every time by the same kind of ‘mistake’—namely, substituting what the
anti-Israel left wishes was true for what is actually true.”
Some insiders allege that Rudoren’s writing has been influenced by
Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, a website that has
come under fire for what critics describe as its anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic bias.
Abunimah, who has referred to Zionism as “one of the worst forms of
anti-Semitism in existence today,” chastised Rudoren in a July 16
article.
“Why can’t Rudoren just say clearly that the settlements have been
declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, the U.N.
Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and almost every government
in the world, repeatedly and consistently, for decades?”
Abunimah wrote in an article headlined, “Why is New York Times reporting on Israeli settlements so timid?”
Rudoren acknowledged to the Free Beacon that she has seen Abunimah’s article but that it did not factor into her Sunday dispatch.
Rudoren has written in past articles that “most” of the international community views “the settlements as a violation of international law.”
Rudoren’s reporting “is the result of sending a journalist to the
Middle East who doesn’t know anything about the Middle East,” one senior
official with a pro-Israel organization told the Free Beacon.
“This is why journalists shouldn’t take their cues from random fringe
blog sites,” the official said. “They stop producing accurate copy and
instead start misleading their readers. Sad for her and sad for the
Times.”
Rudoren forwarded to the Free Beacon a response that Times’s standards
editor Philip Corbett has been sending to readers who have “expressed
concern” over her article on Palestinian stone throwers.
“We understand the sensitivity of these issues and the complexity of
the ongoing conflict,” Corbett wrote. “But I respectfully disagree with
the idea that our story was biased or in any way supported or glamorized
the stone-throwers.”
“The purpose of the piece was to give a close-up, detailed look, to
help readers better understand this ongoing element of the conflict,” he
wrote, adding that “it included the justifications offered by some
youths and others in the town, but it also very clearly showed the
corrosive and negative effects.”
“I think few readers would feel that our story glorified the practice or its consequences,” Corbett concluded.
Funny. I've spoken to dozens of people who read the article and every one of them thinks that the article glorifies stone throwing and implicitly glorifies its consequences.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times
