NY Times' Nick Kristof retweets message comparing pro-Israel group to apes and pigs
New York Times columnist Nick Kristof retweeted an anti-Semitic tweet by self-hating Jew MJ Rosenberg on Tuesday afternoon. The tweet, taken from Kristof's Twitter page
(yes, it's still up), is pictured above. Adam Kredo
reports:
Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped
by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline
anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday
afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian
President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as “pigs.”
“OBAMA told the 2 most pig like lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to drop
dead in same month. Next: Chamber of Commerce,” Rosenberg wrote.
The missive was then retweeted by Kristof and a slew of others.
Rosenberg regularly engages in anti-Israel activism on Twitter and
has repeatedly used the term “Israel firster,” a phrase with origins in
the white supremacist movement that many consider anti-Semitic.
One official with a Jewish organization told the Free Beacon that Kristof’s repetition of such rhetoric is surprising given that it occurred on the same day that the New York Times ran an editorial in its print edition against Morsi’s anti-Semitic remarks.
“It is quite extraordinary that on the same day the Times
decries Morsi’s description of Jews as pigs, one of their premier
columnists invokes the same language about a Jewish organization,” the
activist told the Free Beacon.
I don't think that's extraordinary at all. Kristof has a history of
anti-Israel pronouncements. The line between criticizing the government of Israel is a very thin one, as
Martin Luther King pointed out.
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate anti-Semitism. I know you
feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and revulsion for
racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled
-- as others have been -- into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and
yet remain true to those heartfelt principles that you and I share. Let
my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize
Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about it."
It almost goes without saying that Kristof and the Times have declined comment.
Labels: AIPAC, anti-Semitism, New York Times, Nicolas Kristof
How about a little more media bias?
Well, we all knew that Nick Kristof and the New York Times hate Israel anyway. But look at what Kirstof posted on his Twitter account Wednesday morning.
Much more
here.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, liberal media bias, Nicolas Kristof
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, October 7.
1) Countering Kristof
The New York Times published two letters objecting to Nicholas Kristof's stupid column yesterday. I want to highlight Michael Brenner's argument for its elegant simplicity. The Israeli public elected Benjamin Netanyahu to be prime minister, and Mr. Netanyahu is simply trying to follow the will of the majority of Israelis, who do not want a dysfunctional terrorist state on their border.
2) Syria's reach
The Lede at the New York Times reports Syrians Abroad Report Harassment and Intimidation. The report tells of incidents where relatives of Syrians currently living abroad were attacked within Syria. There was also an incident in France: Rabee al-Hayek, a 35-year-old software engineer and French resident for seven years, said he and a group of demonstrators were set upon by a small group of men and women carrying pro-Assad banners. “Three of us were hurt, including a young woman,” he said. Amnesty International said its report showed the need for Western countries to look into whether such instances are being orchestrated by the Syrian government in order to stop Syrians living abroad from supporting activists at home. A spokeswoman for the State Department called the Syrian ambassador, Imad Mustapha, in early July to express concern over such activities.
According to Jennifer Rubin the Syrian embassy sent a rather thuggish letter to the editorial page editor of the Washington Post. Later on she quotes Syrian ex-pat Zhudi Jasser: Zhudi Jasser, an American of Syrian descent who co-founded Save Syria Now! to press for the democratization of Syria, is well aware of this routine. He told me last night, “Does the Syrian embassy take us Americans for fools? Their fictional press releases and denials do not change the facts on the ground in Syria and wherever Syrian expatriates live. Our communities have been living in a very real and deeply intimidating culture of fear and reprisals against any human being who even whispers a word against the evil that is perpetrated by the regime of Bashar Assad and his mukhabarat (Intelligence services) around the world.” He explains, “The truth is that the Assad regime has insidious tentacles of intimidation into almost every Syrian community, neighborhood, family, organization, and activists inside and outside Syria. As an American of Syrian descent, it remains unfathomable to me how suffocating to our community this intense culture of fear is that is systematically sown by the Assad regime. Every Syrian with even remote family living inside the ‘prison’ which is the nation of Syria knows that their relatives will likely pay a high price for any criticism waged against the barbarism of Assad’s thugs. Amnesty International has now finally weighed in on what every honest Syrian has known to be the realities of the regime’s intimidation techniques of reprisals for almost a half a century against our families.” While this behavior has gone on for decades, Jasser tells me, “With the recent demonstrations for freedom, the chatter among Syrians about the activities of embassy agents has risen to a level I have never personally seen or experienced in my lifetime.” It is not surprising, then, that the regime would lash out.
In a recent short "World Briefing" report, the New York Times reports: The United Nations human rights office said in a report issued on Thursday that at least 2,900 people have been killed in Syria since pro-democracy protests began there in mid-March. The announcement came as activists in Syria said that at least 12 people were killed during clashes between armed men loyal to the government of President Bashar al-Assad and soldiers who deserted their ranks, in the northern province of Idlib, near the Turkish border.
The editors of the Washington Post lament a failed attempt to condemn Syria in the Security Council. THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM in Syria took a blow Tuesday when Russia and China vetoed a watered-down U.N. Security Council resolution on the slaughter of peaceful protesters by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. But there was a silver lining: The governments of Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao finally were held accountable before the people of Syria and the larger Middle East for their cynical and self-interested obstructionism. For months the two governments have prevented Security Council action on Syria, even though the United Nations’ human rights commission has reported at least 2,700 people killed and warned that the regime’s actions may constitute crimes against humanity. With its 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown still in mind, Beijing routinely opposes what it regards as “interference in the internal affairs” of other dictatorships. But China might have allowed the European-drafted resolution on Syria to pass had it not been for the resolute stance of Russia, which has sold billions in weapons to Mr. Assad. The Kremlin might have been expected to show the same sagacity as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who formerly cultivated the Assad regime but now, recognizing that it is probably doomed, has turned against it. To his credit Mr. Erdogan on Wednesday brushed off the U.N. vote and reiterated that Turkey will soon adopt sanctions. But Mr. Putin, unlike the politically skilled Turkish president, has little interest in how Russia is perceived by the people of Syria or the Middle East. He is also likely bound by the corruption networks in his government that increasingly drive official policy — and feast on arms sales.
Honest Reporting noted that the editors of the Wall Street Journal felt that the vote was mostly for show. A lot of Israel's critics bemoan the fact that the United States will veto a Palestinian statehood resolution in the Security Council. Does it bother them as much that China and Russia vetoed an attempt to condemn a tyrant? Or are they only bothered by the United States standing up for an ally?
3) They Really Mean it
Glenn Kessler the "fact checker" at the Washington Post bizarrely looks into the claim as to whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually promised to wipe Israel of the map. Since he was trying to minimize the impact of the statement, Kessler relied upon ideologue Juan Cole. Elder of Ziyon critiqued Kessler's effort. If I understood Kessler, he argued that Ahmadinejad did indeed say it, but he meant it in the nicest way possible. But how would Kessler interpret this: Imagine the scandal if an Israeli diplomat said: “The Palestinian Authority should disappear.” On Friday, Alzeben Ibrahim, the Palestinian ambassador in Brazil, told a group of university students that “Israel should disappear.” “And this is not the ambassador of Iran or President Ahmadinejad who is speaking.” Thus it was evident that he did not mean Israel must disappear from the West Bank, but wiped off the map as Ahmadinejad preached. Hamas also believes that Israel must disappear.
(Translated from the Portuguese by the Daily Alert.)
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nicolas Kristof
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
I had a study partner when I was in yeshiva who used to say that oversleeping is a good thing, because it means that you needed the sleep and at least you weren't wasting the time. Today, his wife is a prominent Israeli blogger, whose blog I am sure many of you read. I think of his words to salve my guilt every time I oversleep.
The entire week of starting slichoth at 4:15 am (4:05 on Sunday and 4:30 tomorrow) caught up with me this morning, and I crashed and burned after working (real work - not the blog) for a couple of hours this morning.
I will have more later today, but here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, October 6. I've had the Kristof piece open all day and may have more to say about it later.
1) Ignorance is no excuse
Nicholas Kristof asks Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? Given the author and the question you know his answer is "yes." It's hard to imagine a more fact free article than this one. For decades, Palestinian leaders sometimes seemed to be their own people’s worst enemies. Palestinian radicals antagonized the West, and, when militant leaders turned to hijackings and rockets, they undermined the Palestinian cause around the world. They empowered Israeli settlers and hard-liners, while eviscerating Israeli doves. These days, the world has been turned upside down. Now it is Israel that is endangered most by its leaders and maximalist stance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy.
Kristof is of course parroting Thomas Friedman's "I've never been more worried about Israel's future" plaint. Now of course those Palestinian radicals got their cause on the map. I don't recall folks like Kristof saying, "If they have to turn to terror their cause is illegitimate," the reaction was more like "if they have turn to terror their plight really must be awful." In other words, people like Kristof legitimized Palestinian terror. Netanyahu is, of course, nothing like Kristof's (or Friedman's) ignorant caricature. The man, who in his first term as Prime Minister withdrew from most of Hebron is not, by definition, maximalist. Since the intellectually lazy Kristof simply repeats the idea that Israel is isolated, perhaps it's worth checking out a different view. In Loner, Lee Smith argues that it is the United States that is becoming isolated. After arguing that Israel's position is actually somewhat improved because of the Arab spring, Smith writes: In Syria, the Obama Administration has disdained to play any hand at all. The administration has hesitated to throw its weight behind the opposition movement, and U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford has warned that if Assad’s opponents take up arms they will lose whatever international support they have. In other words, as Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all make contingency plans for Syria, the White House announces it is out of the picture. Net American gain: zero. By withdrawing from Iraq, the White House has effectively abandoned a vital U.S. interest to Iran. President Barack Obama sought meaningful engagement with the Iranians, but Tehran rebuffed even the administration’s offer to establish a hotline to prevent some minor event from turning into a major conflagration. The Iranian message is clear: There is no reason to talk, since our intent to drive you from the region couldn’t be clearer. Another zero. The White House has shown it will not take the Iranian nuclear issue seriously. Clandestine operations and cyber-warfare are not serious actions taken by a superpower against a state threatening a nuclear breakout: They are sideshows meant to assuage Israel and distract our Arab allies in the Gulf. Accordingly, the Saudis have warned they will go their own way by building their own coalitions against Iran. Even the Palestinian Authority, which exists solely at the pleasure of the U.S. government, and thanks to the munificence of American taxpayers, has decided to strike out on its own at the United Nations.
Take you pick: Kristof whose analysis consists of cutting and pasting tired cliches, or Lee Smith who actually looks at evidence before drawing conclusions. Then think about this: Which one writes for the publication often called "the paper of record?"
2) Moderate is a relative term
Elliott Abrams writes about Sari Nusseibeh and Palestinian Moderation: Nusseibeh, the man of “humane understanding,” a philosopher by training, ends by saying that calling Israel a “Jewish State” would necessarily “arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine.” One may assume that in that phrase he refers to Israeli Arabs as well as those of the West Bank and Gaza, so he is not only warning of “ethnic cleansing” but engaging in some linguistic ethnic cleaning of his own here: he is referring to Israel as part of “Palestine.” Now, one can argue as Nusseibeh does that Israel should not seek to be a “Jewish State” and should call itself a democratic state with a Jewish majority. What is shocking about Nusseibeh’s view is not that conclusion but the arguments he makes to support it, which proceed from polemics and straw men through double standards and finally reach the accusation that a Jewish State would be a murderous state, ethnically cleansing and eliminating its non-Jewish citizens. This is perilously close to the accusation, made by the kind of Palestinian that Nusseibeh is supposed to loathe, that Israel is a Nazi state. Thus the state of the “peace process” in October 2011. A leader of the Palestinian “moderates” writes articles that make him sound like Khaled Meshal, Hassan Nasrallah, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his description of Israel.
Now that's maximalist. Elder of Ziyon has also critiqued Nusseibeh.
3) Oh to be a nation
The Palestinians are going about getting support for their statehood bid. The New York Times reports, Palestinians Win a Vote on Bid to Join Unesco: The initial approval came in a vote by Unesco’s 58-nation executive board. Full membership would have to be approved by the 193-nation General Conference, which meets later this month. The Palestinians submitted their bid for full recognition to the United Nations Security Council on Sept. 24, while international political leaders continue work to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. “We need the issue of the state of Palestine to be resolved in the U.N. system,” said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations. Unesco, Mr. Mansour said, “is one place where we can acquire our rightful place among the community of nations as a full member.” Membership would allow Palestinian officials to seek the protection of Palestinian historical sites by the cultural organization, other officials noted. That would create further conflict with Israel. For instance, some of those sites are in east Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed.
Interesting take on UNESCO, which has been actively denying Jewish historical sites. Asaf Romirowsky argues that the effort may backfire: Geographically and demographically, the so-called Palestinian state, which includes Gaza and the West Bank, does not exist. It is divided between Fatah and Hamas, Gazans and West Bankers, so the dream of the contiguous Palestinian state is a farce. Pragmatically, Palestinian statehood would force Palestinians to give up the victimhood status they have been carrying as a "badge of honor" for over 60 years. Then, world public opinion would be forced to judge them as a state and not as the "underdog." It remains politically correct to call for a two-state solution, as the very concept sounds idyllic: Two states living side-by-side in peace and harmony with free trade and a free market of ideas. However, in the real world, we are talking about an environment where on the part of one side there is no recognition of the other's right to exist in the region, period. The majority of Palestinian society remains unwilling to accept Israel's right and today openly call for a one-state solution, a de facto final solution for the state of Israel.
Will losing victim status hurt the Palestinian cause? Maybe in the West, but not among the OIC members. Clearly upgrading membership in the UN is another step in the war against Israel, as Mahmoud Abbas himself boasted in an op-ed in the New York Times last May.
I'm not even sure that Romirowsky is right. So long as they don't actually have a state (as opposed to membership in the UN), I believe that the 'Palestinians' will be able to maintain victimhood status everywhere except the Republican side of the United States.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Elliott Abrams, Lee Smith, Middle East Media Sampler, Nicolas Kristof, Sari Nusseibeh, Soccer Dad, UNESCO
Nick Kristof shills for J Street
Nick Kristof doesn't write as often about Israel as do Thomas Friedman or Roger Cohen. But he's no less anti-Israel than they are. In the face of a
407-6 vote in the US House, urging the Obama administration to block the 'Palestinian' attempt at the UN next month to escape the negotiating table, Kristof is calling Congress 'obstructionist.' Instead, he urges Americans to join with
the Saudis, the Iranians and
George Soros to
support J Street.
In the last few years, a former government official named Jeremy Ben-Ami has been trying to change the political dynamic in Washington with a new organization — J Street — that presses Congress and the White House to show more balance. Ben-Ami has just published a book, “A New Voice for Israel,” that is a clarion call for American reasonableness in the Middle East.
“If things don’t change pretty soon, chances are that the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will slip through our fingers,” Ben-Ami writes. “As that happens, the dream of the Jewish people to be a free people in their own land also slowly disappears.”
In fact, not only has the 'two-state solution' already slipped through our fingers - it was never there. The proof is in Yasser Arafat's response to Ehud Barak's overly generous offer of statehood, and Mahmoud Abbas' response to Ehud Olmert's overly generous offer of statehood. Both offers and the responses to them prove that this conflict is not about land or occupation, but about Israel's very existence as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
The 'Palestinians' will not agree to the two most basic points necessary to resolve the conflict: waiver of the claimed right to flood any remaining Jewish state with Arab Muslims, and agreement that any settlement reached will constitute the end of the conflict. Without those two elements, there is nothing else that can be accomplished.
American Jews have long trended liberal, and President Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. Yet major Jewish organizations, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, embrace hawkish positions.
AIPAC - to use Kristof's example - doesn't 'embrace hawkish positions.' It supports whatever positions are embraced by the Israeli government, which in a democracy ought to be the positions embraced by the voters. We Israelis live in a democracy, we live much closer to the conflict than Kristof does and we obviously see the conflict differently than he (and J Street, which has been castigated here in just about every possible public forum) does. Are we suddenly supposed to change into a dictatorship to adopt 'solutions' that we don't want because Kristof wants them? Are we supposed to risk our lives because yet another pompously detached writer for the New York Times thinks it's the right thing to do?
That’s because those Jews who vote and donate based on Israel are disproportionately conservative (the same is true of Christians who are most passionate about Israel issues). Ben-Ami argues that “the loudest eight percent” have hijacked Jewish groups to press for policies that represent neither the Jewish mainstream nor the best interests of Israel.
No, if anything, AIPAC is taking the positions of the democratically elected government of Israel. And the loudest eight percent isn't the Jews who support Israel - it's the wealthy Reform and non-affiliated Jews who donate 60% of the budget of the Democratic party. Sadly, it's not the Jews who support Israel, it's the Christians (I wish the Jews did too).
In the case of Israel, American Jewish opinion isn’t the monolith that many assume. A 2008 survey by the American Jewish Committee asked Jews what issue they most wanted presidential candidates to discuss. Most cited the economy; only 3 percent said Israel.
If anything, American Jewish opinion is a monolith - in favor of a 'Palestinian state.' That's because most American Jews don't understand that demand is a Trojan horse.
“What happens as Israel continues to become more religious and conservative, more isolated internationally and less democratic domestically?” Ben-Ami writes. “What happens to the relationship between American Jews and Israel as the face of Israel shifts from that of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to that of the national religious settlers and the ultra-Orthodox rabbis?”
Is Ben Ami suggesting that God forbid we kill all the religious Jews? That we not allow religious Jews to make aliya? If Ben Ami - who was born in Israel - truly cares about Israel - why did he leave? Why does he not return? Why should he have any voice in Israel? And by the way, in Yitzchak Rabin's last Knesset speech in 1995, he vowed there would be no 'Palestinian state.'
To put it another way: When Glenn Beck becomes the best friend of Israel’s government and is invited to speak to the Knesset, what do liberals do? Some withdraw. Others join leftist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment campaigns against companies profiting from the occupation of Palestinian territories.
That's pretty disingenuous. J Street supports boycotting the Jewish towns of Judea and Samaria too. They just don't support boycotting the entire country although they 'understand' people who do and feel that they are still 'pro-Israel.'
(Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard — just as I do the U.S.)
Really, Nick? Do you make the same demands on Egypt? Lebanon? The 'Palestinians'? Name one other democratic ally that you hold to the same standards that you hold Israel. Name one Nick. You can't, can you?
Damned hypocrite.
I posted excerpts of Ben Ami's book with comments
here. Please DON'T put money in his pocket by buying it.
Labels: J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami, Nicolas Kristof, pro-Israel pro-peace
