New York Times Has Gone Anti-Israel

New York Times Unleashes Onslaught of Five Op-Eds Hostile to Israel

by Ira Stoll

The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

When the New York Times opinion page hired Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, two outspoken

 Zionist veterans of the Wall Street Journal, a friend of mine warned me that the hires could

 be a mixed blessing from a pro-Israel perspective.

Now all the anti-Israel editors already at the Times will feel like they can let loose with

 impunity, because the hiring of Stephens and Weiss provides a ready response to 

accusations of “bias.” So said my friend.

Or, as I put it back on April 13, writing about Stephens: “Anyone who thinks the Times

 hiring of him was motivated primarily by a desire to respond to the paper’s pro-Israel 

critics might want to think again.”

MAY 29, 2017 10:41 AM

0

Jewish Voice for Peace’s Hidden Agenda

A Jewish Voice for Peace demonstration. Photo: Twitter.When starting a political movement, choosing the right name is perhaps the most...

My friend’s warning turned out to be prophetic.

In the weeks since the news of the Stephens and Weiss hires broke, the Times has — as if compensating — unleashed a barrage of

 op-eds savagely hostile to Israel and Jewish interests. Among 

them:

• An op-ed by a Palestinian terrorist, Marwan Barghouti,
•  complaining about conditions in Israeli prisons and likening 
• Israel to South Africa under apartheid. Even the New York Times’
•  own public editor, Liz Spayd, publicly faulted the Times for initially identifying the author as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian” rather than as a convicted terrorist and murderer.
• An op-ed piece by a Palestinian lawyer, Raja Shehadeh, complaining about the Israeli checkpoints he must pass through between Ramallah and Ben-Gurion International Airport. “We cannot afford to abandon the struggle and must do what we can to end this occupation,” declared the Times article. It was adapted from Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, a book that already has also been the basis of both a New York Times magazine article and a long essay in the New York Times Book Review. (The book review essay itself was the subject of a Times correction after it falsely accused Israel’s consul general in New York, Dani Dayan, of publicly calling for Palestinians to be deported to Jordan.)
• An op-ed by the president of the National Iranian American Council, Trita Parsi, claiming, falsely, that the Iranian nuclear deal has “restrained” Iranian policy on Israel. “Iran’s actions and rhetoric on the Jewish state have shifted remarkably ever since nuclear negotiations began,” the article claimed, inaccurately.
• An op-ed by the foreign minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, claiming, falsely, that Iran “has been aiding the victims of extremism in Iraq and Syria,” and offering advice to America on how “to avoid the spread of terrorism and militant extremism.” It is breathtaking, coming from the representative of a country that is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Mr. Zarif has had at least seven New York Times op-ed pieces since 2003, four of them since April 2015, prompting at least some wry speculation that the Times editors will make him their next op-ed page columnist hire after Stephens.
• An op-ed by another Palestinian lawyer, Diana Buttu, calling for the disbandment of the Palestinian Authority on the grounds that it “served as a subcontractor for the occupying Israeli military…. to keep Palestinians silent and quash dissent while Israel steals land, demolishes Palestinian homes, and builds and expands settlements.” The op-ed instead calls for a Palestinian leadership that includes Hamas, which she conveniently refers to as a political party rather than a terrorist group. The op-ed calls for Palestinians to “press for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, like those that helped to end apartheid in South Africa.”

Any single one of these op-eds, taken alone, would be totally outrageous and indefensible. The onslaught of all five of them, in six weeks, constitutes an outbreak of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility at the Times on a level with the Jewish cemetery desecrations and bomb threat calls against Jewish institutions that the Times blamed on President Donald Trump and treated as front-page news a few months back.

Writing in Vox, David Roberts denounced Stephens as a “cosmopolitan, well-educated, reflexively pro-Israel war hawk.” The Times Cairo bureau chief, Declan Walsh, publicly denounced Stephens on Twitter as “not cool,” falsely accusing him of “ascribing a pathological condition to an entire race of people.”

It’s one thing to see the Stephens hire triggering antisemitic or anti-Israel tropes in other publications. It’s another to see them erupting in the columns of the Times itself. That’s not to blame Stephens, or Weiss, for the reaction. It’s not their fault. Their presence at the Times probably almost certainly nets out positively for the pro-Israel side. But the backlash can’t be ignored. It must be taken into account. Precisely as my friend predicted, it sure has been brutal.

More of Ira Stoll’s media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here. 

Let's Hope That Trump Is 1000% Better Than Obama. At Least Netanyahu Can Come Through The Front Door! Heck, That's A Big Improvement Already!

TRUMP COULD BECOME MORE PRO-ISRAEL US PRESIDENT THAN OBAMA 

SPUTNIKNEWS.COM, PHIL BUTLER

 December 13, 2016   0 Comment

US President-elect Donald Trump could adopt a more pro-Israel position than the policy of incumbent US leader Barack Obama, for example in his stance as for relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem and in regard to the decades-long conflict between the Jewish state and the Palestinians, the experts told Sputnik.

Trump, who was criticized for incoherent rhetoric and constantly evolving views, however, was solid on accusations against Obama’s approach toward Israel, promising during his election campaign a very different relationship between the two countries. He described Obama as the “worst thing to ever happen to Israel.”

Zeev Hanin, a professor at the Bar-Ilan University in Israel, believes that Trump’s administration would be a strict adherent of what earlier called the A.B.C — Anything But Clinton — approach by former US President Gorge W. Bush, which in the case of Trump would be A.B.O – Anything But Obama – way when dealing with Israel.

“Trump will be leaning towards Bush’s policy that somebody once defined as ‘Anything But Clinton.’ I believe it will be ‘Anything But Obama.’ We will see that in half a year,” he told Sputnik pointing, however, that major changes are likely to come during his second term if he reelected. Ksenia Svetlova, an opposition member of the Israeli parliament, Knesset, also doubts that during his first year Trump will pursue independent foreign policy. “At this point, no one can say what would be his steps in the Middle East or global politics, because he wasn’t holding any positions in the US administration before,” she told Sputnik. Therefore, according to the experts, it makes more sense to look at the platform from the Republican Party that was presented on the Republican convention before the elections, rather than at Trump’s political declarations.

FIRST THING FIRST – MOVING US EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM Trump was not the first and, may be, will not be the last president who during his election campaign promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the experts told Sputnik. “Trump was not the first US President who promised to move embassy to Jerusalem. There is the US law in this regard. However, the US Congress each time votes for the delay in its implementation,” Svetlova said. In September, Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that under his administration the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. After Trump’s election victory on Tuesday, Israeli officials publicly called on Trump to follow through on this promise.

Last week, US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the Obama administration would ensure Trump’s transition team understands the rationale behind not moving the US embassy from to Jerusalem.

Toner explained that since Israel’s founding the US administrations have maintained a consistent policy of recognizing no state as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. Besides, a number of nations believe that Jerusalem’s status should be determined in the course of the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. “A pre-election promise is one thing, a real life — is another. There are few obstacles such as international agreements and a reaction to such move of regional powers, which are considered to be US allies, such as the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. The chance still exists, but it is narrow,” Svetlova added.

Hanin, in his turn, linked the move of the US mission to the developments in the Middle East. “It very much depends on the developments in the Middle East. If Trump’s administration once again shifts its interest towards pro-western Sunni regimes as its major allies in the Middle East, the president will not be in a hurry to make such demonstrative steps as his allies will be very much against it,” the expert noted.

He believes that Trump instead will give more authority to the US consulate in the Eastern Jerusalem. Yakov Kedmi, a retired high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, noted that the move of the embassy can serve as an indicator how far Trump can go in supporting Israel in the Middle East peace settlement with Palestinians. “The question remains whether Trump will choose not to interfere and not to exert pressure on Israel, opposite of what Obama’s administration did before or whether he will go even further and back Israel up in the UN should European countries propose a resolution against Israel’s settlement policy,” Kedmi told Sputnik.

Israel has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the 1967 Middle East war. Palestinians want those territories along with the Gaza Strip for a state but peace talks have stalled since 2014. NEUTRAL TO ISRAEL-PALESTINE PROBLEM Throughout his bid for the Oval Office, Trump promised to give “a shot” and try to broker a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.

In a video, published on his website, the president-elect is saying that he wants “to remain as neutral as possible because, if you’re not somewhat neutral, the other side is never going to do it.” “By saying that he is going to be a neutral guy he means that he views as a neutrality a significant improvement over Obama’ administration that has been pro-Palestinian. The declaration that he is going to be neutral is a step forward towards Israel,” Hanin said. Many in Israel believe that Trump will pursue more favorable US policy toward Israel. Svetlova, however, cautioned that his stance on the problem remains unclear due to the controversial statements he had made in a bid for US presidency.

Trump’s surprising US presidential victory last week, led to an upsurge of the right rhetoric in Israel as right-wing politicians tried to use his win calling the idea of a two-state solution with the Palestinians “dead.” Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett said last week “the era of a Palestinian state is over.” Netanyahu called Sunday on the Israeli cabinet to refrain from comments on Trump's presidency, “allowing the incoming administration to formulate together with us its policy vis-a-vis Israel and the region, through accepted and quiet channels, and not via interviews and statements.” The question remains whether he has an alternative to the “two-state solution” to solve this decades-long dispute.

Hanin reminded that one of Trump’s advisers David Friedman, who is likely to be appointed as the next US ambassador to Israel, said that “a two-state solution is not a priority.” According to his advisers, Trump has not yet decided exactly how he would go about handling the conflict, but would be open to new ideas.

The outgoing administration of Obama has been highly critical of Israel's settlement policies and supportive of “a two-state solution” in the Middle East. The Palestinians, who see Israeli settlements as a major obstacle to reaching a peace agreement, want them dismantled referring to the international agreements. On Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated Palestine’s readiness for a peace deal with Israel given compliance with all international agreements and its support to the idea of a Paris-based peace conference, aimed at reviving the reconciliation process. The conference is supposed to be held before the end of the year.

On November 7, Netanyahu ruled out Israel’s participation in the French-led gathering refusing to meet France’s Special Envoy Pierre Vimont, who travelled to the region to meet Israeli and Palestinian officials in a bid to promote the idea of the conference. On June 3, 2016, an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian settlement took place in Paris. Both Russia and the United States took part in the event as part of the Middle East Quartet, which also includes the European Union and the United Nations.

The sides called on Israel and Palestine to engage in direct negotiations on the basis of the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions. NO DEAL FOR IRAN MEANS NEW US ARMS FOR ISRAEL Trump decried the nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated with Iran saying that Iran “should write us a letter of thank you” for “the stupidest deal of all time.” He also stressed that this deal threatens Israel, making him less safe.

Kedmi told Sputnik that in the light of the possible escalation between Washington and Tehran, the military aid agreement between the United States and Israel, will be respected. “Israel will be receiving arms according to 10-year $38 million military aid deal signed recently,” he said.

Speaking after Trump’s victory speech in New York, Friedman, who was also a co-chair of the president-elect’s Israel Advisory Committee, went even further hinting at the possible removal of the restriction on Israel not to ask the United States for additional money, as stipulated in the military aid deal between countries. Israel has repeatedly sought financial assistance from the United States to offset Iran’s nuclear capabilities, following the lifting of sanctions against Tehran last July.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201611141047434920-trump-israel-president/

Michigan Governor Feels Sting Of Moderate Muslims For Expressing His Support For Israel.

'Moderate Islamists' Turn on MI Gov. for Pro-Israel Comment

Mich. Gov. Snyder is getting an up-close look at the extremism of the Islamic Society of North America, an group that purports to be moderate.

BY RYAN MAURO

Tue, September 2, 2014

• Print
• Email

Clockwise: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, Hatem Bazian,Omar Suleiman and Zahra Billoo.

Related Stories

• Prominent U.S. Muslim Group Sheds Moderate Image
• Beheading of Second Journalist Strengthens U.S. Resolve
• Islamist Conference Speakers Compare Israel to ISIS
• Minnesota: Keeping Somali Youth From Terror Recruiters

Headlines

• Prominent U.S. Muslim Group Sheds Moderate Image
• Beheading of Second Journalist Strengthens U.S. Resolve
• Islamist Conference Speakers Compare Israel to ISIS
• Europe Cannot Be Trusted to Monitor Disarming of Hamas

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is getting an up-close look at the extremism of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). AfterClarion Project brought attention to his speaking engagement at ISNA’s conference, his spokesperson defended ISNA. Now, he is facing an Islamist backlash merely for stating his support of Israel’s right to exist.

ISNA has a moderate presentation but an extremist history. ISNA was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in 2007 during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Justice Department said ISNA is an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, a determination supported by the Brotherhood’s own documents.

Our article mentioned these facts and reviewed the speaker lineup for ISNA’s conference, which consists largely of Islamist radicals. Significant media coverage followed our report. We provided this information to Governor Snyder’s office and asked for a response.

Press Secretary Sara Wurfel responded by defending ISNA as a moderate organization. The official statement read in part:

“ISNA has been consistent in rejecting all acts of terrorism and violence, and Congressional investigations and inquiries have resulted in no ties to terrorism, and the organization has as its mission ‘to foster the development of the Muslim community, interfaith relations, civic engagement, and better understanding of Islam.

“ISNA has advocated for a ‘just and fair settlement of disputes between Israel, the Palestinians, and their neighbors through diplomacy and other peaceful means.’ ”

Snyder personally complimented ISNA during his remarks.  He said,“Thank you for your interfaith efforts with Christian and Jewish organizations.” He even endorsed ISNA’s Islamist-filled schedule,stating, “The tracks of your program are well-selected and meaningful to all of us.”

But then he uttered one line that has raised the ire of Islamists who also spoke at the event: “I’m a strong supporter of Israel and believe in its right to exist.”

The Islamists say the comment is offensive and anti-Muslim. Of course, nowhere did he actually attack Muslims or Palestinians. All Snyder did was state his opposition to the Islamist goal of destroying Israel.

Now some of ISNA’s top speakers are vowing to punish him politically.

Hatem Bazian, the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, is the loudest voice. He spoke twice at the ISNA conference, once on “Islamophobia” and once on the Muslim-American identity. He is also a founder of the Islamist-led Zaytuna College, which led another ISNA session.

His organization hosts radical speakers and has strong U.S. Muslim Brotherhood links. He recently posted an article on his Facebook page that refers to Hamas and Hezbollah as “the resistance” and proudly proclaims, “One of the strongest armies in the world could not accomplish its goal of disarming and defeating the unified Palestinian resistance in Gaza.”

Bazian wrote on August 30 that Gov. Snyder was “insulting and demonstrated a lack of basic political respect to the community” and showed a “complete disregard of our community.” He pledged, “Governor Rick has lost our vote and if he runs for President then count on me to call and organize Muslims across the country to oppose his candidacy.”

Imam Omar Suleiman, who spoke five times at the ISNA conference,joined Bazian's call on Facebook. He is an instructor at the radical Al-Maghrib Institute and member of the Shariah Council of the Islamic Circle of North America, another group with an extensive history of extremism.

Suleiman said, “I'm shocked and appalled and hope the community mobilizes to make these politicians pay for insulting us on our stage.”

Zahra Billoo, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, spoke six times at the ISNA conference. She was featured as “one of the most remarkable young Muslim leaders and activists who are elevating Muslim American culture in the new millennium.”

Her extremist history includes justifying the terrorism of Hamas, promoting anti-American themes and offending fellow Muslims by questioning whether slain U.S. soldiers should be honored on Memorial Day. On Twitter, she agreed agreed with others who are bashing Snyder’s comments as offensive.

Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also responded on Facebook.He described Snyder’s comments as an “ill-advised slap in the face to our community.”

The hysterical reaction to Snyder’s comments should show him why the concerns about ISNA are legitimate.

Snyder endorsed ISNA’s Islamist-friendly program and is now facing the wrath of its speakers for a quick statement of support for Israel’s right to exist. Only radicals who believe Israel should be eliminated would find that offensive.

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on Fox News.