Tabitha Korol
Times unSquare*
By Tabitha Korol
The New York Times encourages its writers' lies about Israel, changing data to conform to Islamic propaganda. This continuing politicized coverage of the Middle East, inconsistent with American values and journalism ethics and an assault on Israel by disreputable writers, is designed to undermine public policy and change our value system, damage our ethics and destroy our morality. Our republic can only thrive in an educated electorate.
Jodi Rudoren used an old, hostile opinion piece to serve as a political message, to rile the uninformed reader and breathe new life into an old conflict. Already cited as a lazy journalist with a poor performance record, she confessed to her anti-Israel bias, to using "imprecise language," and admitted to not using a map for accuracy. Why, then, was this new Jerusalem Bureau Chief chosen for Middle East coverage?
Placing the blame of friction on 44 apartment units, Rudoren calls Israelis "colonizers," while that term, along with "squatters," more aptly suit the Palestinians. Why didn't this slothful reporter contact Jerusalem's city planner about the legitimacy of the housing or cite the 2500 apartments recently built in one city area and 19,000 in another, all for Arabs? Obviously, the apartments are a ploy, not a threat. Israel's many offers to negotiate a peace were rejected long before there was housing.
As often as Israel has offered to negotiate a peace agreement, the Palestinians refused. The opposition to peace comes from the Arabs who, from the onset, declined the major Mandate offered while the Jews reluctantly accepted the smaller land proposal. Resistance to peace comes from Islamic hate, taught and encouraged from infancy, and from the continued support by complicit journalism.
Why not remind the Times readership that the end of the Ottoman Empire brought the British-endorsed Balfour Declaration (1917) that mandated Palestine's new boundaries to re-establish the Jewish homeland, that was then twice followed by Britain's violations of the Mandate, once granting 77% of the land to what became Jordan and granting the Golan Heights to what became Syria? Twenty-two Muslim countries with 400 million warring Arabs surrounding one tiny Jewish state containing about 6 million Jews and Rudorun and her ilk demand more land for yet another Muslim state! Overlooking the Jews' historical 3,000-year claim to the land; their formal, legal statehood in 1948; their majority in Jerusalem since the 1860s; their industry and democracy granted to Jew and Arab alike (exceeding anything the Arabs experience in their original homelands); their medical and scientific contributions to the world, Rudoren champions those who never had a state in Palestine or a capital in Jerusalem, who only named themselves Palestinians as a war tack in 1967, and who never proved themselves capable of self-governance and peace. Rather than inform, her purpose is to propagandize. This is neither sloth nor incompetence, but malice with intent to incite, to fabricate and give strength to tyranny in the Middle East and in the US.
When will the New York Times offer fair and balanced journalism and stop encouraging the continued Islamic encroachment on Western civilization? Are the deaths of 270 million people over 1400 years, and the current, growing Islamic chaos on every continent, not enough to awaken their conscience?
The second of the NY Times' double whammy was the Sunday Magazine's feature, Ben Ehrenreich's "Is this where the third Intifada will start?" Ehrenreich cited Israel's construction plans of 3,400 homes for Israelis as the cause of spreading Arab protests, but no word of the 11,500 homes built for Arabs, against which neither the Israelis nor Ehrenreich protested. Rioting has always been an Arab conquest tactic, and if they could not gain Western interest with housing, they would find another equally innocent issue. In this case, the author finds the housing ruse appealing.
Ehrenreich visited the Tamimi family, when the elder Bassem, responsible for the weekly protests against Israelis since 2009, was due to return home from another stint in prison. Bassem, an activist who promotes hate and violent protests on Fridays, had been found guilty of incitement, organizing unauthorized processions, and soliciting children to pelt Jewish citizens. Supported by the Koran and the Palestinian Authority (PA), he indoctrinates the town's youth to participate in killing Jews by attacking vehicles with deadly missiles, resulting in crashes and passengers killed. Thus the young rock throwers of today are cultivated to be the violent terrorists of tomorrow, to continue their psychological warfare against civilians in the Jewish State – 1500 rockets fired in November, 2012 alone; more than 13,000 rockets, mortars, and missiles fired into civilian neighborhoods since 2001.
We learn that a brother-in-law died after he was hit by a tear-gas canister, indicating the Israelis' moral choice of safer methods of trying to keep the ferocious Palestinians at bay. When Ehrenreich recounts a Palestinian clash with the army, noting more than half of the 432 injured were minors, he should have recognized the Palestinian use of their own children as weapons and human shields. Hamas Member of Parliament, Fathi Hammad, had boasted of using civilians for warfare – We desire death as you desire life – to increase the body count and elicit the West's sympathy for their cause of the land grab. Ehrenreich admits the Israelis try to contain the jihadists, activists and black-booted anarchists, with tear gas, rubber-coated bullets, water-cannon blasts of noxious liquids, and resort to live fire occasionally, only as needed (more cautious than their parents about the childrens' welfare.)
How do Ehrenreich and similar reporters envision peace with non-moderate Arabs who cannot live in peace even among themselves, engaging in violence at every turn? They nurture their young to use deadly large rocks, Molotov cocktails, improvised grenades and burning tires against civilians and the security forces, and celebrate severe injuries and death. Neither is there peace within the unstable Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan; or in any European, African, or Asian country where Muslims have immigrated. These are an inherently aggressive, brutal people, who have lived in a constant state of war since Muhammad first set out to spread Islam in the 600s.
Ehrenreich noted, "Little was resolved in Oslo," blatantly blaming the failure on Zionism, an unsympathetic accusation. Under the Oslo Accord, Yasser Arafat seemed to capitulate to Israeli demands of recognition of Israel, renunciation of terrorism, and a promise to revoke his covenantal call for the destruction of the Jewish State, undoubtedly because of the withdrawn financial support from the collapsed Soviet Union and the growing Islamist presence. Israel's Yitzak Rabin agreed to legitimize the PLO based on a statement and a handshake. Thus were created Palestinian authorities for internal development and trade, supported by pledges of billions for development from 43 countries (Europe, Japan, Scandinavia, the US and Israel). Nevertheless, the Palestinians broke their promises, escalated the violence against Israel, and Arafat unreasonably promised his people statehood – a mortal danger to Israel's existence (whereas Israel and Jordan have been at peace since 1967).
Bassem seemed to grasp that the heavy wave of suicide bombings was a strategic (and moral) error as is the persistent rocket fire. The second intifada again brought the death – 5,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. The Oslo Accord could well have ushered in harmony, a better life for all, with no refugees on either side, but one outstretched Israeli hand does not an agreement make.
Does The New York Times grasp that its deeply inflammatory and offensive articles thwart the efforts of peace, encouraging that third intifada? I have seen nothing to suggest the contrary. How long will it be before your readers can count on unbiased, fair, balanced reporting?
And the next Intifada? Have you considered the possibility of Madison Avenue, Manhattan?
*Referencing the following definitions of Square: Balance; just, equitable: a square deal; honest; direct.
© Tabitha Korol
April 5, 2013
The New York Times encourages its writers' lies about Israel, changing data to conform to Islamic propaganda. This continuing politicized coverage of the Middle East, inconsistent with American values and journalism ethics and an assault on Israel by disreputable writers, is designed to undermine public policy and change our value system, damage our ethics and destroy our morality. Our republic can only thrive in an educated electorate.
Jodi Rudoren used an old, hostile opinion piece to serve as a political message, to rile the uninformed reader and breathe new life into an old conflict. Already cited as a lazy journalist with a poor performance record, she confessed to her anti-Israel bias, to using "imprecise language," and admitted to not using a map for accuracy. Why, then, was this new Jerusalem Bureau Chief chosen for Middle East coverage?
Placing the blame of friction on 44 apartment units, Rudoren calls Israelis "colonizers," while that term, along with "squatters," more aptly suit the Palestinians. Why didn't this slothful reporter contact Jerusalem's city planner about the legitimacy of the housing or cite the 2500 apartments recently built in one city area and 19,000 in another, all for Arabs? Obviously, the apartments are a ploy, not a threat. Israel's many offers to negotiate a peace were rejected long before there was housing.
As often as Israel has offered to negotiate a peace agreement, the Palestinians refused. The opposition to peace comes from the Arabs who, from the onset, declined the major Mandate offered while the Jews reluctantly accepted the smaller land proposal. Resistance to peace comes from Islamic hate, taught and encouraged from infancy, and from the continued support by complicit journalism.
Why not remind the Times readership that the end of the Ottoman Empire brought the British-endorsed Balfour Declaration (1917) that mandated Palestine's new boundaries to re-establish the Jewish homeland, that was then twice followed by Britain's violations of the Mandate, once granting 77% of the land to what became Jordan and granting the Golan Heights to what became Syria? Twenty-two Muslim countries with 400 million warring Arabs surrounding one tiny Jewish state containing about 6 million Jews and Rudorun and her ilk demand more land for yet another Muslim state! Overlooking the Jews' historical 3,000-year claim to the land; their formal, legal statehood in 1948; their majority in Jerusalem since the 1860s; their industry and democracy granted to Jew and Arab alike (exceeding anything the Arabs experience in their original homelands); their medical and scientific contributions to the world, Rudoren champions those who never had a state in Palestine or a capital in Jerusalem, who only named themselves Palestinians as a war tack in 1967, and who never proved themselves capable of self-governance and peace. Rather than inform, her purpose is to propagandize. This is neither sloth nor incompetence, but malice with intent to incite, to fabricate and give strength to tyranny in the Middle East and in the US.
When will the New York Times offer fair and balanced journalism and stop encouraging the continued Islamic encroachment on Western civilization? Are the deaths of 270 million people over 1400 years, and the current, growing Islamic chaos on every continent, not enough to awaken their conscience?
The second of the NY Times' double whammy was the Sunday Magazine's feature, Ben Ehrenreich's "Is this where the third Intifada will start?" Ehrenreich cited Israel's construction plans of 3,400 homes for Israelis as the cause of spreading Arab protests, but no word of the 11,500 homes built for Arabs, against which neither the Israelis nor Ehrenreich protested. Rioting has always been an Arab conquest tactic, and if they could not gain Western interest with housing, they would find another equally innocent issue. In this case, the author finds the housing ruse appealing.
Ehrenreich visited the Tamimi family, when the elder Bassem, responsible for the weekly protests against Israelis since 2009, was due to return home from another stint in prison. Bassem, an activist who promotes hate and violent protests on Fridays, had been found guilty of incitement, organizing unauthorized processions, and soliciting children to pelt Jewish citizens. Supported by the Koran and the Palestinian Authority (PA), he indoctrinates the town's youth to participate in killing Jews by attacking vehicles with deadly missiles, resulting in crashes and passengers killed. Thus the young rock throwers of today are cultivated to be the violent terrorists of tomorrow, to continue their psychological warfare against civilians in the Jewish State – 1500 rockets fired in November, 2012 alone; more than 13,000 rockets, mortars, and missiles fired into civilian neighborhoods since 2001.
We learn that a brother-in-law died after he was hit by a tear-gas canister, indicating the Israelis' moral choice of safer methods of trying to keep the ferocious Palestinians at bay. When Ehrenreich recounts a Palestinian clash with the army, noting more than half of the 432 injured were minors, he should have recognized the Palestinian use of their own children as weapons and human shields. Hamas Member of Parliament, Fathi Hammad, had boasted of using civilians for warfare – We desire death as you desire life – to increase the body count and elicit the West's sympathy for their cause of the land grab. Ehrenreich admits the Israelis try to contain the jihadists, activists and black-booted anarchists, with tear gas, rubber-coated bullets, water-cannon blasts of noxious liquids, and resort to live fire occasionally, only as needed (more cautious than their parents about the childrens' welfare.)
How do Ehrenreich and similar reporters envision peace with non-moderate Arabs who cannot live in peace even among themselves, engaging in violence at every turn? They nurture their young to use deadly large rocks, Molotov cocktails, improvised grenades and burning tires against civilians and the security forces, and celebrate severe injuries and death. Neither is there peace within the unstable Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan; or in any European, African, or Asian country where Muslims have immigrated. These are an inherently aggressive, brutal people, who have lived in a constant state of war since Muhammad first set out to spread Islam in the 600s.
Ehrenreich noted, "Little was resolved in Oslo," blatantly blaming the failure on Zionism, an unsympathetic accusation. Under the Oslo Accord, Yasser Arafat seemed to capitulate to Israeli demands of recognition of Israel, renunciation of terrorism, and a promise to revoke his covenantal call for the destruction of the Jewish State, undoubtedly because of the withdrawn financial support from the collapsed Soviet Union and the growing Islamist presence. Israel's Yitzak Rabin agreed to legitimize the PLO based on a statement and a handshake. Thus were created Palestinian authorities for internal development and trade, supported by pledges of billions for development from 43 countries (Europe, Japan, Scandinavia, the US and Israel). Nevertheless, the Palestinians broke their promises, escalated the violence against Israel, and Arafat unreasonably promised his people statehood – a mortal danger to Israel's existence (whereas Israel and Jordan have been at peace since 1967).
Bassem seemed to grasp that the heavy wave of suicide bombings was a strategic (and moral) error as is the persistent rocket fire. The second intifada again brought the death – 5,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. The Oslo Accord could well have ushered in harmony, a better life for all, with no refugees on either side, but one outstretched Israeli hand does not an agreement make.
Does The New York Times grasp that its deeply inflammatory and offensive articles thwart the efforts of peace, encouraging that third intifada? I have seen nothing to suggest the contrary. How long will it be before your readers can count on unbiased, fair, balanced reporting?
And the next Intifada? Have you considered the possibility of Madison Avenue, Manhattan?
*Referencing the following definitions of Square: Balance; just, equitable: a square deal; honest; direct.
© Tabitha Korol
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
