How Obvious is the NY Times anti-Jewish Bias? Two Views
The New York Times has become famous over the years for a number of things. One of those things is its anti-Israel animus, or is it anti-Jewish? Looking at its reporting on Israel and the anti-Semitic political cartoons they've recently run, one can no longer make excuses. Their Judeophobia is showing.
From David Harsanyi at The Federalist:
This “novel” move by the Trump administration, we’re told, “prompted alarm among American military, intelligence and diplomatic professionals.” After eight years of institutional coddling the Islamic Republic—and cheerleading from the Times opinion and news pages—the Trump administration moved to designate the Revolutionary Guard, which runs the nation’s ballistic missile program, military aspects of its (supposedly nonexistent) nuclear program, and large parts of its statist economy, to make it easier to implement more sanctions. Yet here’s what the Times deems the problem with this arrangement:
The potential problems included creating a need to grant huge numbers of visa waivers for Iraqi officials who interact with the Iranian military agency; raising the question of whether American officials should start denying visas to members of other countries’ intelligence services that use violence, including Israel, Pakistan and Russia; and risking retaliation against American troops and intelligence officials.
(Incredulous bolding mine.)
Who raised these questions? They don’t say. One wonders what kind of “American official” would make a moral equivalence between Israeli intelligence, an American ally who has engaged in a war against terrorism and existential threats for 70 years, with a military dictatorship and quasi-authoritarian—“democratically elected”!—foe of the United States?
For that matter, what kind of American official would liken the work of Israeli intelligence to that of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, a group that has helped carry out terror attacks against civilians on every continent, funded and trained terrorist proxies that destabilize entire regions, and acted as the Stasi against its own people? (Well, like the Stasi if the Stasi had been run by a fanatical religious Mafia family.)
And from Phyllis Chesler:
Once, I, too, swore by every line the New York Times printed. Once, I was glad to appear in their pages in interview after interview. My books were routinely reviewed there, twice on the front page of their Book Review. Over the years, I published numerous op-ed pieces and letters—and once, my face actually appeared on the cover of their Sunday magazine. And then, it all went south when Arafat launched his well planned Intifada of 2000 and even further south on 9/11. I had been dealing with anti-Semitism among leftists, feminists, academics, and the glitterati since the early 1970s but the 21st century hit me hard. I began reading my home town newspaper very carefully. Daily, I was mortified, outraged, and deeply puzzled. How could the media that I was taught to trust—to swear by—be so consistently wrong about Israel? And about Islam? In article after article, which I began documenting as did CAMERA and HONESTREPORTING, I was astounded by how their headlines were always—not sometimes but always—diabolically deceiving; how the context, if any, was always—not sometimes but always—diametrically opposed to the truth; by how much space they allotted to demonizing Israel for daring to defend itself and by how little space they allowed for what I know to be the facts, and what others might mistakenly refer to as “my narrative.” Photos of suffering Palestinians (who were sometimes Iraqis or Syrians) dominated the issue. Photos of Israeli dead, dismembered, shell-shocked, evacuated, did not appear at all or very often. “Gunmen” or “insurgents” were how the NYT’s referred to Arab Muslim terrorists, at least until the facts fully unfolded elsewhere and forced them to describe reality, however reluctantly, however late in the day; these corrections were always—not sometimes—buried in the back pages or in small print. On my watch, almost every single day, year after year, for almost nineteen years now, a single issue of the Gray Lady might feature anywhere from two to eight articles damning Israel. False maps, interviews with biased “experts” in so-called new stories, Op-Ed’s, Editorials by the staff, all appeared in the same issue. Every so often, a one-off piece might appear by Israel’s Ambassador, or Matti Friedman or Yossi Klein Halevi or Ruth Wisse. But such pieces did not appear every day or every week year after year as the poisoned propaganda did.
These are two heavyweight journalists. We should listen. The New York Times should listen. They won't, but they should.