One view of the NY Times
One would have thought that the New York Times could not possibly descend any lower, with regular columnists like Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristoff — and then they strike the semi-solid layer of excrement at the bottom of the bubbling pool of filth in which they live and feed, and give a platform to Ali Abunimah.
Market forces will soon flush away this shitty little newspaper, as it well deserves. It can’t happen too soon.
Abunimah’s arguments are barely worth discussing. He draws an analogy between Hamas and Sinn Fein, suggesting that the initial refusal of the British to negotiate with the latter can be compared with Israel’s shunning of the former.
Of course Catholic nationalists did not intend to rid Northern Ireland of Protestants, nor did they believe that God commanded them to murder Protestants wherever they could be found. They did not believe that Ireland was a Catholic waqf and that the only solution to the presence of any Protestants on Irish soil was violent jihad (Hamas says all this and more about Jews and Israel).
It is one thing to enter negotiations with a group that has committed terrorist acts. It’s another entirely to talk to one that believes that it is their religious duty to kill you, all of you.
It was possible to get the IRA to declare a cease-fire and to “permit Sinn Fein to enter into inclusive political negotiations” because there was an intersection between outcomes acceptable to Sinn Fein and the British government. There is no such intersection possible between Israel and Hamas, whose bottom line is simply that there must be no Jewish state — indeed, no non-subjected Jews — in ‘Palestine’.
He writes:
Why should Hamas or any Palestinian accept Israel’s political demands, like recognition, when Israel refuses to recognize basic Palestinian demands like the right of return for refugees?
You must give Abumimah and his friends credit for chutzpah: first, they invent a ‘right’ — the repatriation of the descendants of refugees from a war that their own leaders caused — that has never existed in history, then they breed a whole population in misery for years to make a demographic weapon of mass destruction out of them, and finally they demand that they be allowed to use it to end the Jewish state. What will remain for them to ‘recognize’?
Naturally, he believes that the reason the US was tough on the British but will not get tough on Israel is the nefarious Jewish (OK, he says ‘Israel’) Lobby. Hamas knew about the Jewish Lobby all along. Here’s what they wrote in their charter:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained … With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
…They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it…
Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zionâ€, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. — Hamas Covenant, sections 22, 28, 32
Abunimah, like Hamas, knows what he wants: no more Israel. Israel, one hopes, knows how to deal with Hamas.
But what does the New York Times want?
Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, Ali Abunimah, New York Times
I agree with your view of the NYTimes position on the ‘Middle East’. But the problem is that they are not so insignificant minor media but the most important and respected newspaper in the world. One reason for this is the outstanding features they have in many non- political areas.
In any case however infuriating and immoral they are on Mideast politics, I don’t think it makes sense to underestimate them.
The Irish Catholics never called for the extermination of the Protestants. The Hamas Islamists believe in killing every last Jew in Israel. On what basis is there peace to be had with them? We’re talking about a terrorist group with a revolutionary, genocidal and anti-Semitic ideology. Every one humorously ignores the Hamas elephant in the room. That is why the entire peace process is a farce.
The Irish comparison may not be so bad. The negotiations didn’t start until the IRA ADMITTED DEFEAT and gave up all their weapons. And the British are still in Northern Ireland.
Shalom Freedman:
No, the NYT is not ‘the most important and influential newspaper in the world’. It is in dire financial straits, and that probably explains why they have likely sold out completely to the petrodollar prostitution machine long ago. That is what likely keeps them afloat.
The largest circulation print daily in the U.S. is now the Wall Street Journal. Their straight news reporting on Israel is not much better than the NYT (or Al Jazeera, for that matter), but at least their editorial page is largely pro-Israel.
I give you that the NYT is still heavily read by the “elites”, such as they are, but they play little role in forming national-level public opinion. Like many other elements of the major print and broadcast media that are either whores to the Arab line (i.e., get paid for it under the table), or merely sluts (i.e., appeasement cowards who give it away for free), they are mostly talking to themselves.
The Republicans here, for what they are worth, are poised to take back the House of Representatives this November (this is virtually a sure thing), and G-d willing, even the Senate. If the NYT had that much sway, we wouldn’t be seeing this development.
As for broadcast media, FOX is by far the largest at the national level. Their cable news beats all other competitors – ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN – combined. They have the three most watched opinion commentators – O’Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. Beck is the third most watched cable TV program, PERIOD, right now. Their share continues to grow. All of these commentators have nothing but contempt for the NYT, and make no secret of this.
For their part, I read an editorial in the NYT a few weeks ago, that someone left lying around at work (I’m sure not giving them my money), in which some columnist accused FOX of engaging in “blatant racism 24/7”, among other charges. They are becoming desperate, they are living in fantasy land…and clearly, no one is listening, given FOX’s continuing climb in popularity.
Like Moslem SW Asia, the “liberal media” is a “dying civilization”, if you will. We need to keep hitting them and their acolytes. We are starting to win. Hopefully, we can turn this around in time. Given the damage Obama has done in less than two years, and given that he has more than that to go, I don’t know if we can. I guess for now we have to keep trying….
For Robman:
Thanks for the corrections. I am not unhappy to learn that the NYTimes is not as influential among the general American public as I thought.
Shalom Freedman,
Robman has it exactly right. The NYT is a rag (not even good enough to line the cat litter box). Fox is the most popular news channel. There is good reason for that; CNN has been caught time and time again in their “half-truths”. For instance, the stabbing of the Muslim cab driver. CNN reported it as a “hate crime” against Muslims because of the Mosque. Fox then, reported the whole story. It turns out the drunk man who stabbed the cabbie was actually in favor of the Mosque. The man was actually volunteering for a group in favor of the Mosque at GZ. He was so drunk, he doesn’t even remember why he stabbed the cabbie.
CNN should be fined or penalized in some way, for trying to “incite a hate crime”. We really have to be discerning when it comes to our media today.