Blatant Anti-Israel Bias at The New York Times
The anti-Israel prejudice at The New York Times is so extensive and persistent that the paper's partiality is now undeniable and well documented.
(See the endless archive of NYT bias reports at two media watchdogs: CAMERA and Honest Reporting).
Here are just four egregious examples from the last few weeks.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
1. On September 10, the NYT singled out Jewish lawmakers on the Iran deal.
2. On September 15, the NYT suggested that the Israeli who was murdered by rock-throwing Palestinians had died of a "self-inflicted accident" after the attackers had merely "pelted the road" (rather than his car). The National Review provided a detailed critique of this farcical "reporting."
Unbelievably, Diaa Hadid, a NYT "journalist" responsible for reporting on Israel, used to work for an anti-Israel hate group, so it's no surprise that she authored an article suggesting that Palestinian attackers pelted a road with stones on which an Israeli's self-inflicted car accident caused him to die.
3. On September 29, Hadid used an anonymous European advocate of Palestinian rights as a witness to contradict Israeli army claims that a Palestinian woman shot at an IDF checkpoint was armed with a knife, but then omitted confirmatory reports from another witness mentioned in the article, a Palestinian named Fawaz Abu Aisheh, who said the woman had dropped her knife after being shot (even though Amnesty International mentioned Aisheh's corroborating testimony about the knife).
4. On September 30, the NYT struck again with false historical information and tendentious coverage of Abbas' UN speech.
The article, by Rick Gladstone and Jodi Rudoren, noted that "Mr. Abbas accused Israel of having systematically violated these pacts" without mentioning the many violations of the Oslo Peace Accords by Palestinians.
In an article exceeding 1,000 words, the reporters made not even one reference to Palestinian terrorism, a basic historical fact that is essential to any fair and balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, since the Oslo Peace Accords, there have been 22 years of Palestinian terrorist attacks — including 140 suicide bombings — which have murdered over 1,500 Israelis (in U.S. population terms, about 60,000 people killed) and made Israeli compliance with a complex and risky "peace" agreement even harder.
The paper's token attempt at balance was to quote some perfunctory response to Abbas' speech from Israel's foreign ministry ("Israel does uphold its agreements"), as if anyone could — in a quotable soundbite — possibly provide sufficient details to refute the sweeping accusations that Abbas made in his speech.
The article editorializes by noting that "Mr. Abbas delivered the speech ... against a backdrop of growing frustration among many Palestinians over the paralysis in peace negotiations with Israel," as if the Israelis aren't equally frustrated, and as if the Palestinians aren't largely responsible for the lack of peace progress.
Gladstone and Rudoren then combine outrageously skewed reporting with blatantly false historical claims: "Compounded by new strife over contested religious sites in Jerusalem and other festering issues, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most protracted dispute vexing the United Nations since the organization's founding 70 years ago."
The reporters shamelessly failed to note that the "new strife over contested religious sites in Jerusalem" was produced by Palestinian incitement, anti-Jewish harassment, and violence.
Equally egregious is their patently false claim that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most protracted dispute vexing the United Nations since the organization's founding 70 years ago."
A basic search reveals that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1948 and has produced about 24,000 fatalities since then, while the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan began in 1947 and has produced about 47,000 fatalities, and the conflict over Kurdish separatism in Iran began in 1946 and has caused at least 30,000 fatalities.
So Gladstone and Rudoren have twisted history to suggest that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world's most pressing issue. When combined with Abbas' quotes (left unbalanced by any other perspective or facts), their article implies that Israel is to blame for lack of peace after 70 years — as if Israel hadn't participated in numerous peace efforts and withdrawn from conquered territories (for peace with Egypt and for rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon).
The reporters then suggest that Abbas has unilaterally pursued Palestinian statehood out of frustration with Israel but conspicuously fail to inform readers that such Palestinian unilateralism is itself a violation of the Oslo accords.
The consistent and blatant anti-Israel bias at the NYT should cause anyone who cares about Israel to stop trusting the paper for Israel-related news, and — more generally — to stop supporting the newspaper, because every NYT issue purchased or article viewed online only supports more defamatory reporting on Israel.
And any NYT readers who want facts and unbiased reporting should find another source of information because the NYT's anti-Israel bias calls the entire newspaper into question. After all, if the NYT can't be trusted to report fairly and accurately on a conflict that is closely watched by millions of people — which interest level should create a strong incentive to achieve fair, balanced, and precise reporting — then why can it be trusted to provide reliable information on any other topic? What other latent agendas or biases skew the news produced by the NYT? Indeed, the severity of the NYT's anti-Israel bias should defrock the newspaper of its status as the "paper of record."
The NYT might be appallingly biased only when it comes to Israel (in which case the paper's prejudice becomes even more damning). But it's more likely that the newspaper allows its political leanings to color its reporting on many other topics, even if they are less monitored for unfairness. Either way, the NYT simply can't be trusted any more.
