Seems like a better idea for a cartoon: Hillary Clinton and her lapdogs. cc: Washington Post The New York Times
Posted by Ted Cruz on Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Labels: Hillary Clinton, liberal media bias, New York Times, Ted Cruz, US presidential campaign 2016, Washington Post
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:05 PM
1 comments
Unqualified use of the term terror is right on. Let's see CNN be consistent whenever terror strikes. pic.twitter.com/eGd5TsnNEt
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 15, 2015
A good morning to all of you from Boston Logan Airport where today is a travel day for me. I won't tell you yet where I'm going, but I'm going to be spending much of today over 'flyover country' and I am not heading to the West Coast. Hmmm. PS I should have WiFi.Labels: anti-Israel media bias, CNN lies, Islamic terrorism, liberal media bias, Palestinian terrorism
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:42 PM
0 comments
The Times’ “Jew tracker” was described as anti-Semitic and offensive by pro-Israel officials who slammed the paper for feeding into stereotypes about Jewish power and money.
The controversial chart listed all lawmakers who voted against the nuclear deal and highlighted in yellow whether or not that person was Jewish. The chart also included the number of Jewish persons living in each lawmaker’s district.
Following a report by the Free Beacon on the tracker, the New York Times altered the site by removing the column identifying members as Jewish. The paper also edited the report to remove overt references to the relationship between each lawmaker’s religion and his position on the Iran deal.
Despite altering the website to address the material critics viewed as offensive, a senior New York Times editor praised the tracker and fought back against one Jewish critic who had written to express outrage over the post.
“Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand the historical significance of what you’re doing? Are you so tone deaf? Why don’t you include addresses so that people’s homes can be attacked?” wrote the reader, who requested anonymity, to Greg Brock, a senior Times editor.
“My parents were Holocaust survivors and the first thing the Nazis wanted to know is: where are the Jews? This merely furthers the classic anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty,” the reader added.
In a response, Brock defended and praised the tracker, saying he wished the Times has published it “sooner.”
“I’m not going to get into the gutter with you with name calling and saying your email is ‘stupid’—as you said of us,” Brock wrote. “But it would be helpful if you did your homework. You’ll find that we are in excellent journalistic company. I just wish the Times had thought of it sooner so we do not appear to be copying others.”
Brock maintained that Jewish publications, which are written for local Jewish communities, have run similar reports detailing which lawmakers voting for and against the deal are Jewish.
“Do you ever read the Jewish press—some of the finest journalism around, in my humble opinion,” the editor argued. “If you search online right now, you will see that these publications have been keeping a running count of the voting position of Jewish senators and representatives for weeks.”
Labels: anti-Semitism, liberal media bias, New York Times
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:57 PM
2 comments
The National Jewish Democratic Council immediately called on members of the Republican Party to denounce Huckabee’s comments, saying it is “not only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.”
“It may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory,” the organization added in a statement.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights antisemitism, said that while they are wary of the deal, Huckabee’s comments are “completely out of line and unacceptable.”
“To hear Mr. Huckabee invoke the Holocaust when America is Israel’s greatest ally and when Israel is a strong nation capable of defending itself is disheartening,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in a statement.The NJDC is an organization of the Democratic party that has come out in favor of the Iranian nuclear sellout. It exists to promote the Democratic party (and Jewish donations to it) and is definitely not Jewish. The ADL is a group of paranoid liberals that is too busy finding anti-Semitism on every street corner to think about what it means to be Jewish. In fact, I am surprised that they did not accuse Huckabee of being an anti-Semite.
"Look, we have a very serious disagreement with the administration on a very serious issue," Ambassador Ron Dermer told Capital Download. "But what I don't doubt is the sincerity of the president or his team when they say they believe this deal not only makes America safe but makes Israel safe. Where we disagree is the judgment of actually what this deal is going to do."
On Huckabee's comments, he said: "These are not words that I would use or that I think are appropriate."But what did you expect him to say while he's the Ambassador? That Obama is at best indifferent and at worst hostile to Israel's existence as a state? Consider what Dermer's predecessor wrote once he was out of office (from a review by John Podhoretz):
It’s not that there’s lots of breaking news in “Ally” that will startle people. Rather, it makes news on almost every page with its incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama administration toward the Jewish state.
What makes the details especially credible is that Oren is no flame-breathing Israeli right-winger but very much (and at times distressingly) an Establishment creature and one, moreover, who makes it clear he drank the Obama hope-and-change Kool-Aid in 2008. (Indeed, he now serves in Israel’s Knesset not as a member of Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud but of the new centrist Kulanu party.)
On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with.
Example: The Palestinian Authority made moves toward seeking a declaration of statehood at the United Nations in 2011, which would’ve triggered a law shutting down their US mission and suspending all aid to the PA and to UN agencies that recognized Palestine.
In response, Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides called Oren into his fancy Foggy Bottom office and screamed at him: “You don’t want the f - - - ing UN to collapse because of your f - - - - ing conflict with the Palestinians, and you don’t want the f - - - king Palestinian Authority to fall apart either.”
To which Oren replied that Israel didn’t want the United Nations to collapse “but there are plenty of Tea Party types who would, and no shortage of Congress members who are wondering why they have to keep paying Palestinians who spit in the president’s eye.” He reports that Nides “slumped into his Louis XVth chair.”
Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the president was angry about something having to do with the peace process.
Even when the administration is acting friendly, Oren senses it is doing so not out of genuine fellow feeling but to keep Israel close — hugging it to prevent it from acting, especially when it came to Iran’s nuclear program.Dermer is (a) still in office and (b) a 'flame-breathing Israeli right winger.' He is also a Republican at heart and therefore cannot agree with Huckabee and still keep his position in Washington. Obama is already obsessed with removing Dermer.
Labels: ADL, Barack Hussein Obama, Holocaust, Iranian nuclear threat, liberal media bias, Michael Oren, MSNBC, National Jewish Democratic Council, Ron Dermer
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:20 PM
1 comments
As outlined on Monday by Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, the Israelis are now insisting that Iran end all research and development on advanced centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium; reduce the number of operating centrifuges at its Natanz plant beyond what was agreed to in the framework; and close its underground enrichment facility at Fordo. Also, Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses.Funny, but every one of those demands, which the Times now calls 'unreasonable,' was part of the original Western negotiating position at the beginning of the JCPOA talks.
In any negotiation, there could never be a deal without compromise. It would be preferable if every vestige of Iran’s nuclear program were eradicated. But that was never going to happen, not least because Iran’s know-how could never be erased.What a load of bunk. The know-how may always exist but if you can't fire up a centrifuge, you can't enrich uranium. It's that simple.
Iran’s leaders would not accept a deal in which they did not maintain some elements of a nuclear program tailored for energy and medical purposes — not weapons.But Iran's program is not 'tailored for energy and medical purposes.' For example, consider this regarding Fordo:
Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, a clandestine underground site near the city of Qom, is “unnecessary for its civilian nuclear program” and unneeded unless Iran wants nuclear weapons, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).Now, how exactly is that tailored for 'energy and medical purposes'?
“Iran’s decision to build a relatively small, deeply buried enrichment facility without first informing the IAEA suggests that Fordow was intended to be used to make weapon-grade uranium (enriched to over 90 percent) for nuclear weapons, or to provide Iran with that option,” the Fordow report said, citing International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) evidence.
Since the plant was discovered in 2009, Iran has changed its stated purpose multiple times in official IAEA documents and correspondence, adding “credence to the assessment that after realizing it was caught in 2009 building the facility in secret, Iran rushed to proclaim a civilian purpose for it with the IAEA.”
While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site.Given Iran's history of hiding its nuclear activities, how 'tough' could any inspection regime that requires giving notice to Iran be?
It allows research on advanced centrifuges, but the machines can’t be used for enrichment for 10 years.Why would they 'research' them if they weren't planning to use them? 10 years is not a long time - it's less than the age of Iran's nuclear program and less than the amount of time since the IAEA caught on to it. Do you have a reasonable expectation of being alive in ten years? All this deal does is kick the can down the road and leave us to face a much stronger Iran with a more advanced nuclear weapons program ten years hence. Some accomplishment.
There is confusion about how the deal addresses Iran’s willingness to come clean on its past military activities, but experts have said that a final agreement would require Iran to answer all questions before sanctions are lifted.Who are those 'experts' and what is the basis for their opinion?
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Barack Hussein Obama, centrifuges, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, liberal media bias, New York Times, P 5+1, uranium enrichment
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:50 PM
2 comments
WH congressional campaign to boycott Bibi speech culminates undramatically in letter signed by 23 far-left members pic.twitter.com/1R1mIpGyuZ
— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) February 19, 2015
On Wednesday, the Algemeiner reported that even fewer Representatives and Senators have actually committed to boycott the speech.A grand total of two Senators and 12 Representatives have publicly announced that they are boycotting Israel’s prime minister. Assuming that those figures change only marginally in the days ahead, it will mean that 98% of the Senate and 95% of the House of Representatives will be in attendance.
Even the most vocal critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are not united against the Israeli leader. Emerging from a meeting with President Obama last week, Caucus chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield told reporters, that the subject of Netanyahu’s speech “didn’t come up” during their 90-minute meeting with the President. But he then proceeded to chastise Israel’s prime minister for supposedly being “disrespectful” to the president, and Congressman Hank Johnson said it was “about President Barack Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader.”
But not all the African-American congress members joined the anti-Netanyahu chorus. U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who is the only senator in the Congressional Black Caucus, refused to toe the line. The Politico reports that when his colleagues began lambasting Prime Minister Netanyahu, reporters asked Booker where he stood, and he pointedly dissented, saying “I’ve been asked that a number of times–I’m not commenting.”
Knowing of Senator Booker’s longtime support for Israel and close relationship with many American Jewish leaders, we find it difficult that he will go along with an insulting and disrespectful boycott of Israel’s prime minister.
Another major crack in the anti-Netanyahu boycott effort appeared this weekend in the form of a message from Elie Wiesel in a full page advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post, sponsored by “This World: The Values Network.”
The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has always been something of a moral compass for the Jewish people – certainly far more than the two or three Jewish organizational leaders who have been quoted as opposing Netanyahu’s visit. We all remember Wiesel bravely confronting President Reagan over his visit to the Bitburg cemetery, not to mention his speaking out on so many other important issues over the years. So Wiesel’s words in the Times and Post ads carry particular weight.
Wiesel announced that he will personally attend Netanyahu’s speech. He appealed to President Obama and Vice President Biden to “put aside the politics” and hear what Israel’s prime minister has to say. He pointed out that Netanyahu will speak to Congress the day before Purim – the day when, in ancient times, “a wicked man in Persia named Haman” sought to destroy the Jews… Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy,” Wiesel wrote. “The Ayatollah Khomeini has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: ‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.”But the Obama administration continues to attack the Prime Minister, having its proxies at NBC news issue this slick anti-Netanyahu campaign video.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, liberal media bias
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:04 PM
2 comments
The event gathered nearly four million people, but seeing in it a mobilization against terrorism, jihad and anti-Semitism would be a mistake. Leaders of "anti-Zionist" left-wing organizations that support Hamas were present. Ministers of states financing jihadist terrorism, and even genocide, were also there.
The Ambassador of Saudi Arabia attended, shortly after his nation had just finished flogging Raif Badawi, a young Saudi blogger accused of "insulting Islam," with the first fifty lashes of his sentence of 1000 lashes plus 10 years in prison, for practicing the most gentle free speech. Badawi is now being flayed alive -- "very severely," the lashing order said. He has 950 lashes to go.
Turkey, which hosts part of the leadership of the genocidal Hamas organization, was there. Turkey has also jailed more journalists than any other country, including Iran and China.
Mahmoud Abbas, the president of a Palestinian unity government, which includes Hamas and directly supports jihadist terrorism as well as genocide, was at the forefront -- smiling. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, was initially not invited. He came anyhow. French officials let him know that he was not welcome and not to speak. He spoke anyhow. As a sign of disapproval, French officials left the Grand Synagogue of Paris during the ceremony for the dead Jews, before Netanyahu's speech.
The President of the populist National Front, Marine Le Pen, was also not included. She is silent. She is sure a coming explosion will happen, and that she will receive more votes.
The slogans in the demonstration spoke of "free speech" and the need to "live together." Signs saying "I am Charlie" were everywhere. Signs saying "I am a Jew" ["Je suis Juif"] were rare.
No signs or slogans mentioned jihad or the need to combat jihad or terrorism: the watchword was that these subjects should be shunned. No signs or slogan mentioned anti-Semitism or the real cause of jihadist attacks: caricatures of Mohammed, considered by Koranic law to be blasphemous. Those subjects had to be abandoned.
Few French Muslims came -- the tiniest drop in a huge ocean -- and the television cameras immediately homed in on them. They were interviewed and stated their only concern: "Avoid stigmatization of the Muslim community!"
Prime Minister Manuel Valls had told journalists he was "afraid" for Muslims. Two days later -- and only two days later -- on January 13, he said that "France is at war against terrorism, jihadism and radical Islam." He added immediately that one of his priorities was to fight mercilessly against "Islamophobia."This reminds me of George Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 saying that 'you're either with the terrorists or against them,' while insisting that Islam is a 'religion of peace.' It muddles (and muddies) reality. For those of you who don't get it yet, here's a dose of reality.
Anyone who watches television and sees what is happening in many Muslim countries has to be doubting that Islam is peaceful. Most Muslim "experts" invited to speak are familiar with Islam, familiar with the internet and familiar with what is going on in many Muslim countries -- but they lie. Almost all of them are militants, imams, Muslim scholars. Most of them are members of Islamic organizations. Many belong to the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the French have just obligingly given them a platform.
The idea that Muslims have to be integrated was discussed many times -- in vain. The absence of integration has worsened decade after decade. "Experts" invited to speak about integration were forcefully lying too. Those who knew the truth and could tell it were kept away.
More than 750 no-go zones exist in the country, all under the sway of gang leaders and radical imams.
More than 60% percent of inmates in French prisons are Muslim. And future Amedy Coulibalys, Cherif Kouachis, Mohamed Merahs and Mehdi Nemmouches are radicalized every year before going off to train for jihad in Syria or Yemen.
Terrorism experts say that dozens of jihadists are preparing attacks in France alone, and that more deadly attacks will take place. They stress that many terrorist sleeper cells exist in the country. France is a country where gun ownership by ordinary citizens is forbidden. So most people are powerless against aggressors, as tens of thousands of guns are hidden in basements.But to the New York Times, the fact that 60% of the prison population is Muslim has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam. They're blaming France.
The profiles of the three attackers — Amedy Coulibaly and the brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi — are an indictment of the decades-long failure of France to address long-festering alienation and exclusion among too many Muslim immigrants and their French-born children. Unemployment is as high as 40 percent among youths in France’s disadvantaged neighborhoods. All three attackers grew up in poverty. Chérif Kouachi and Mr. Coulibaly spent time in prison. All ultimately found deadly purpose in Islamist terrorism.
Prison was the crucible of their radicalization. There are five million to six million Muslims in France, less than 10 percent of the total population, but 60 percent of France’s prison inmates are of “Muslim culture or religion,” according to a report presented to France’s National Assembly. It was in prison that Mr. Kouachi and Mr. Coulibaly met the Qaeda recruiter Djamel Beghal. To stem recruiting by Islamist extremists in prisons, the government of President François Hollande has announced it will seek to isolate identified Islamist proselytizers from other prisoners.
The New York Times objects to blasphemy? That's a good laugh. Too bad they don't object to it when the targets are Jews or Christians - only when they're Muslims.There is also the problem of France’s secularism. A ban on head scarves in public schools and on full-face veils feels to many Muslims like an unfair constraint on their religious freedom. Some also find it hard to accept that blasphemy is not a crime in France, and that Charlie Hebdo and other publications have a right to satirize religious leaders. Some students in French schools with large immigrant and Muslim populations refused to participate in the national minute of silence following the Charlie Hebdo attack because they objected to what they had heard about the magazine’s depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
French Jews could see on January 11 that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not welcome, while Abbas and other supporters of jihad were celebrated. They see how speaking ill of Israel blows through the mainstream media and feeds increasing Jew-hate. They see the French parliament vote for the creation of an admittedly genocidal "Palestinian State."
They see that they are unarmed and that the soldiers in the streets will not be there forever. They see that jihadists are preparing more attacks. They see no-go zones grow increasingly turbulent. They see what is happening in prisons. They see that the French justice system gives short terms to jihadists and releases them quickly. They see that the government cannot stop mass riots and has no way to prevent more attacks. They see that if just Jews had been targeted in recent attacks, no protests would have taken place. Each year they see more Jews leave the country. Seven thousand left for Israel in 2014, and the Jewish Agency for Israel expects 15,000 this year.
The Muslim population is largely silent, except in the heavily-Muslim suburbs, where those who support Coulibaly and the Kouachi brothers can speak without risking arrest. Those who speak officially in the name of the French Muslim community explain that Islam is not the threat, that the real culprits are those who "insult Islam," and that "the main victims" are Muslims.
The rest of the French population is not convinced. Several polls show that more that 70% of the French think Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization; those polls predate the recent attacks.The only thing everyone agrees on is that this month's terror attacks in France are only the start, and much bigger explosions are coming.
Labels: Charlie Hebdo, France, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Jews, liberal media bias, New York Times
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:33 PM
0 comments
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks last week, the New York Times is understandably interested in hearing about the experiences of minorities in Europe these days. That is commendable. It’s just the kind of journalism that sheds light on everyday life of people facing adversity the world over. It’s important and informative and insightful, and we applaud it, and look forward to reading it.
Scratch that. Actually, the Times is obsessively interested in the experiences of only one minority group in Europe: Muslims.
To that end, the paper has issued a call to its Muslim readers abroad to share their experiences.
“The deadly attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French newspaper that lampooned Islam, and a kosher grocery store heightened tensions in Europe, where the increasing radicalization of young Muslims appears to coincide with a growing anti-Islamic sentiment.”
It’s hard to understand the paper’s continuing obsession, in their surveys and on their editorial page, with the mortal threat of “Islamophobia”—a dubious term that lumps together actual crimes with thought-crimes, like reprinting the cover of Charlie Hebdo—when the people being harassed, beaten, and murdered in Europe these days are Jews. This is especially true when the people doing the harassing, beating and killing are Islamists.The Times changed its headline during the day on Thursday. But the bottom line is that they're really only interested in hearing from Muslims. And the stupid Jews keep reading that rag and trusting it as a news source.
Labels: France, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, Jews, liberal media bias, Muslims, New York Times, pandering to Muslims, Paris
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:30 PM
0 comments
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, CNN lies, France, liberal media bias, Paris
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:44 AM
4 comments
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR (in a broadcast on the day of the massacre, perhaps even shortly after it took place, given that CNN considered it “Breaking News”): On this day, these activists found their targets, and their targets were journalists. This was a clear attack on the freedom of expression, on the press, and on satire.This is exactly how the Obama administration wants Americans to think about terrorism. Notice two words missing: Islamic terrorists.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Christiane Amanpour, CNN lies, Islamic terrorism, liberal media bias, political correctness
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:07 PM
2 comments
As there is much, much more in this vein coming, I offer you 10 truths that ought to be self-evident.Read it all. (There's much more).
- A religion is not a race. Sometimes, not always, it is a system of violent beliefs that claims the right to subjugate others – most notably its ‘own’ coerced adherents.
- Undoubtedly there are white racists and Hindu nationalists who treat religion as a race and hate Muslims because they are Muslims. Their existence ought to present no problem to principled people, who should fight, criticise and satirise them with the same force and for the same reasons they fight religious obscurantism.
- Criticism of religion – including bawdy irreverent criticism— is a defence against oppressive power.
- In our time, the most oppressive religious movements are variants on radical Islam. That may change. You only have to look at Hindu fundamentalism in India or anti-Muslim Buddhist fundamentalism in Burma to see how. But for the present we must fight the enemies in front of us. What other choice do we have?
- It is not ‘Islamophobic’ to satirise radical Islamists and their beliefs – the main targets of radical Islamists include other Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Yazidis and secularists.
- Even if in your confused liberal mind you think that it is, no one has the right to stop satire or criticism because they are offended.
- No one has the right to kill those who offend them.
- If they claim that right, they are the most deserving targets of satire and criticism imaginable.
- And if you do not then satirise and criticise them because you are frightened of ending up like Charlie Hebdo’s dead journalists, or of taking a whipping in a PC backlash, how can you in conscience satirise left or right wing politicians you despise, or the evangelical Christians, Jewish fundamentalists, Catholic reactionaries, Russian orthodox Putinists you deplore?
- Are you not saying, if only when you are by yourself and think no one is listening: ‘I will only take on targets that won’t kill me, but steer clear of those who just might?’
Labels: Charlie Hebdo, Europe, France, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, liberal media bias, liberal media censorship, Paris, satire
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:22 AM
0 comments
Some "liberals" just won't let the plain truth stand on their way. pic.twitter.com/i3mysfbrcP
— Tzippy Yarom (@zpyarom) September 4, 2014
For the record, Tzippy Yarom is also a journalist (writes for Mishpacha) and is my cousin. Labels: liberal media bias, liberal media censorship, Twitter
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:35 PM
1 comments
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.It goes downhill from there.
“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.”
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.Something tells me you won't see that sort of criticism in the New York Times anytime soon.
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.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Jodi Rudoren, kidnapping, liberal media bias, media bias, murder, New York Times, Palestinian terrorism
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:22 PM
3 comments
Mr. Netanyahu is correct that Hamas, the Iran-backed group that took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, is a violent, extremist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. Gaza militants regularly fire rockets into Israel; in 2012, Hamas fought an eight-day war with Israel.
It is also true that Fatah has renounced violence, recognized Israel and cooperated for years in administering the West Bank through the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Abbas has promised that the new government will abide by those principles, set out in 2006 by the United States and other major powers. To make it more palatable to Israel and the West, the new government, which is supposed to organize elections within six months, is composed of technocrats not affiliated with Hamas or other partisans.
Mr. Netanyahu has scoffed at that distinction — and some skepticism is warranted. While Hamas cannot simply be wished away, the United States and other countries that consider Hamas a terrorist group may find it impossible to continue aiding the Palestinians if Hamas plays a more pronounced role.
...
The places I highlighted in bold don't sound like much (and they're not), but compared to past treatment of Netanyahu by the Times, they're a potentially huge change.Many experts say that if there is ever to be an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, admittedly a distant dream at this point, the Palestinians must be united. But the United States has to be careful to somehow distinguish between its support for the new government and an endorsement of Hamas and its violent, hateful behavior. To have some hope of doing that, the United States and Europe must continue to insist that Mr. Abbas stick to his promises and not allow Hamas to get the upper hand.
The editorial marked a significant if temporary change from the paper’s often harshly critical tone of Netanyahu and his government.
In October, the paper criticized the prime minister’s “aggressive speech” at the UN General Assembly, saying he used “sarcasm and combative words” in an attempt to show that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is in truth a “smooth-talking charlatan… determined to continue building a nuclear weapons arsenal.”
The paper took Netanyahu and his allies in the US Congress to task for being “so blinded by distrust of Iran that they exaggerate the threat” and could prevent President Barack Obama from “taking advantage of new diplomatic openings and sabotage the best chance to establish a new relationship since the 1979 Iranian revolution.”
In his UN speech, Netanyahu quoted from, and derided, a New York Times editorial from 2005 that erroneously hailed the success of diplomacy in thwarting North Korea’s drive to the bomb. A year after that editorial was published, he pointed out, “North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device.”
In 2011, the paper invited Netanyahu to write an op-ed – an invitation firmly rebuffed by his then adviser Ron Dermer, now the Israeli ambassador to the US.
In his rejection letter, Dermer accused the New York Times of failing to “heed the late Senator Moynihan’s admonition that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own facts.”
Dermer further said that the paper’s columnists consistently “distort the positions of our government and ignore the steps it has taken to advance peace.”
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Israel obsession, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, liberal media bias, New York Times
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:48 AM
0 comments
The video shows two Border Policemen arresting a rioter and attempting to put him in their jeep. However, he resists the arrest, and a group of his comrades presses up against the policemen, confident in the knowledge that they chance they will be fire upon is next to nil.
The Border Police struggle valiantly with their captive as they are surrounded by the mob and eventually have no choice but to let him escape. Toward the end of the video, one of them expresses anger toward a third policeman, who appears to have been nearby the whole time but preferred to stay out of the confrontation.And what has made the 'Palestinians' fearless?
Leftist infiltration of Israel's court system has led to a situation in which even firing rubber bullets requires permission from high-ranking officers, and the slightest use of force is pounced upon by the media, which demands that the soldier involved be punished.This leads to what's called Rosh Katan (literally, small head) syndrome in which everyone wants to put their head down and finish their service without getting into trouble.
Labels: IDF, Israeli border police, Israeli media bias, liberal media bias, open fire rules, Palestinian rioters
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:49 AM
2 comments
Labels: Dry Bones, George Soros, liberal media bias, Sheldon Adelson
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:23 PM
0 comments
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, liberal media bias, Palestinian elections 2012, US foreign aid
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:42 AM
1 comments
Labels: al-Qaeda, Barack Hussein Obama, George W. Bush, Iraq, liberal media bias, Osama Bin Laden
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:52 AM
0 comments
Israel's mainstream media conducted an unofficial boycott of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit to Israel last week. The leading nationwide television channel, Channel 2, devoted only a single minute of coverage to Harper's address to the Knesset, and did so only in the second half of the evening news program, according to Maariv's Kalman Libeskind, who analyzed the shameful phenomenon in his latest column. Half of that minute covered hostile Arab MK Ahmed Tibi's heckling of Harper.
Channel 10, the second nationwide commercial channel, completely blacked out the visit. Its news show did not cover the speech with even a single second of airtime.And you can probably guess why. But of course, there was no way Israel's Leftist media was going to cover the visit of a pro-Israel foreign leader who came here with his foreign minister and five other cabinet members. But Harper took it straight to the media.
Harper was quick to understand how things work in Israel, added Libeskind. In a news conference on the day after his Knesset speech, he berated Israeli reporters, who kept on asking him about Israeli “settlements.”
"Yesterday in the Palestinian Authority,” Harper said, “no one asked me to criticize the Palestinian Authority on matters of governance, human rights or any other subject. When I am in Israel I'm asked to criticize Israel, and when I am in the Palestinian Authority I am asked to criticize Israel.”We really are our own worst enemy.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Israeli Israelis, Israeli media bias, Kalman Liebskind, liberal media bias, Stephen Harper
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:51 PM
3 comments
The degree to which Israel's mainstream media openly identifies with leftist politics was displayed Wednesday morning in an opinion piece by Dror Zaresky, the editor of Channel 10 television's London and Kirshenbaum, a daily news interview show.
The article in Maariv-NRG, where Zaresky is a frequent contributor, is devoted to Zaresky's confession that he was happy to see young Jews badly beaten by Arab villagers at Kusra, in Samaria, last week.
"The reports in the media and around some of the water coolers,” he wrote, “ran the gamut from just-the-facts to awarding a prize for courage to the Palestinian residents of the village near Shechem who settled a long debt with the youths of the right wing specifically, and with Israel the occupier in general.”
"I will admit the truth: I, too, had to fight the smile that spread on my face when I heard the reports from the village,” Zaresky added. “When I first heard about the 'price tag' action gone bad in the wadis of Samaria, I could not hide my smile. Unlike many of my friends in the media, I do not see these actions as disastrous for the country; proportionality was abandoned long ago, in the way we report these incidents of graffiti and flat tires. And yet, there is no doubt in my mind that the right wing criminals are trying to disrupt the lives of many Palestinians – and on the way, they may just succeed in setting fir to our calm neighborhood in the Middle East.”
Zaresky went on to compare the event to a group of thugs from an organized crime gang who come to collect protection money from shop owners, somewhere in the desert – and instead are ambushed by their victims, who beat them up. “I imagine that you get my point. The schadenfreude toward those who came to hurt is natural and understandable and has nothing to do with political views of one kind or another,” he opined, adding that he “understands” people who say it is wrong to take the law into one's own hands, but wishes to “confer a blessing” on those who “teach criminals a lesson” regardless.As I have reported previously, the teenagers and young adults involved in the incident were not trying to carry out a 'price tag' attack.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Israel's suicidal Left, Israeli media bias, liberal media bias, media bias, Palestinian terrorism, price tag attacks
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:04 AM
2 comments
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
