Subtle NY Times bias against Israel

Subtle NY Times bias against Israel

The Times headline is “Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu.” The article discussed which leader dominated the agenda of their recent meeting, by putting his demands over on the other (Marc Landler and Helene Cooper, NY Times, 5/21, A14).



The article emphasizes the leaders’ differences. It seems designed to get people thinking of those leaders and their countries as opponents. The Times does not have such articles about Obama meetings with Arab leaders, though some of those leaders foster bigotry and war, a war on civilization. This article is an example of subtle NY Times bias against Israel. It is as subtle as subliminal advertising, its objective almost completely hidden. I think New York deserves a more objective newspaper than that one.

from Liberal NY Times verges on antisemitism

“Israel has been rattled by signs that the Obama administration has sworn off the unstinting support of Israel that was a hallmark of the Bush years…” (Mark Landler, NY Times, 5/15, A8.) It was an editorial statement in a news report.

“Unstinting” support? Myths arise even while events remain fresh. People are poorly informed, even in this “information age.” The NY Times, enmeshed in the Presidential campaign, made many statements that after the election it reversed, though without acknowledging its original misstatements. I remarked on several.

The myth that the US government was very pro-Israel obscured media recognition of Pres. Bush’s later, harder line against Israel. When he switched from consulting Vice-Pres. Cheney about foreign policy, to consulting Sec. of State Rice, his anti-Israel stance became patent.

What were some of his policy changes? Sometimes he changed emphasis, and sometimes he changed directions. For one thing, he or Rice insistently demanded of Israel that it dismantle roadblocks and checkpoints. Often when Israel accommodated the demands, terrorists got through and murdered Israelis.

The Oslo accords permitted Israeli construction in the Territories, though, I forget, perhaps on Israel not to expand beyond community bounds. Bush’s Road Map, however, called for not building out from settled areas, though still within community bounds. Bush’s regime came to call for not building in empty lots within settled neighborhoods. Increasingly restrictive. Unstinting acceptance was given to illegal Arab building. Double standard!

Remember US insistence that Israel not sell AWACS or other weapons to certain countries? Some of those customers would not be expected to threaten US security. However, Israeli arms manufacturing competes with US ones. The US government pretended to be protecting security when it was protecting trade. That puts a moral pretext on superpower pressure.

The Bush administration adopted as its foreign policy priority the establishment of another Arab state within the core Jewish homeland. It would deprive Israel of strategic depth, secure borders, and much water, and give terrorists a base.

The Road Map expects the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to eradicate terrorism before getting further Israeli concessions. The Administration reneged on that. Also, it gave funds to the P.A., and trained their troops. The P.A. freed terrorists.

The notion that the US gave unstinting support to Israel veers on traditional antisemitism, which holds that the Jews control world policy. Unfortunately, that notion now permeates the foreign policy establishment, of which the NY Times is a pillar.