THE NEW
YORK TIMES (NYT) is our Guardian newspapers
very own sister paper from across the pond. Between them they share, almost
every dot and comma in fact, of whatever the other is thinking and printing. No
matter what the subject; they are as entwined as two twins, each being the
perfect replica of the other.
So
when the website Newsmax drew my
attention to a printed report by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA) of anti-Israeli bias within the NYT, the
results would probably follow the same result if the Guardian were subjected to CAMERA’s glaze.
CAMERA
exposed the following regarding the NYT anti-Israeli bias, and thanks to Newsmax and no other source on the internet; the CAMERA report is being shown and
bulleted:
Among the findings of the CAMERA[1] study:
· The [New York] Times presents
criticism of Israel more than twice as often as it criticizes the Palestinians.
Of 275 passages in the news pages classified as criticism, 187 were critical of
Israel while 88 criticized the Palestinians.
· Of 37 articles mentioning Israel’s
border policies and naval blockade of Gaza, just six cited Israel’s goal of
preventing weapons from entering Gaza and even fewer noted that weapons in Gaza
often are fired into Israel.
· When the Times reported on the
Israeli military boarding a Turkish ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists,
only eight of 37 articles mentioned the activists’ violence that precipitated
the use of firearms by the Israelis.
· Twelve headlines mentioned
Palestinian fatalities in the conflict, while none explicitly mentioned Israeli
deaths, even though 14 Israelis were killed during the study period.
· Israeli actions frequently were cited
as obstacles to peace, but the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize a
Jewish state was never described as an obstacle.
These
findings should blow away the liberal
panache for ‘progressive’ politics and their
‘objectivity’. The whole body of liberal impartiality has fallen foul of the
Palestinian cause which has heaped destruction upon the liberals lack of
prejudice: to such an extent that they are fully prepared to see the state of
Israel brought to its end.
The liberal lack of
prejudice takes its final bow when it allows the Israeli state to become the
property of the Palestinians, which they seek to do by trying to declare
Israel, an apartheid state. Israeli bias exists not only in the Western liberal
media, but also among the ever increasing doubts of the conservative media.
But at the moment the
liberal press and television media are anti-Israel; which of course includes
the BBC. Like the NYT and the Guardian ; the BBC are all too ready to
promote the Palestinians over the state of Israel. The BBC, unlike the Guardian or the NYT, is guaranteed a
yearly income from the taxpayer; millions of whom, like myself who values a
nation state as much as does Israel itself, resent the BBC’s bias toward a
United States of Europe.
The BBC must change its liberal culture, employing not only readers of the Guardian as seems to be the case, but also providing a better understanding of what they mean as being objective. The BBC tilt is liberal; while the whole country is not. Yet the whole country has to pay a license fee. Should this not be a warning to the BBC to change its liberal dominance. After all those millions like myself who are forced to pay a licence fee should see it placed in better hands than those who are currently disposing of it.
The age of liberalism in the form of political correctness has been upon us for over 20 years. It has dominated our culture. Today our liberal culture is being dictated to by their seeking of a Palestinian homeland; by seeing that the Palestinians have a state of their own.
But the Palestinian state can only be at the expense of the Israeli state. The Jewish state must survive at all cost. To seek to eliminate Israel as the liberal ‘progressives’ seek in order to bring Palestinian tranquillity to the region, will do no such thing. The Jewish state of Israel must continue and override the trespasses of Palestinians.
ADDENDUM Tuesday,
29 January 2013
RUPERT MURDOCK has issued an apology to the Israeli people after the Sunday Times published a cartoon by
Gerald Scarf depicting Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, as a stereotypical
Jew of anti-Semitic creation, building a
wall whose bricks are cemented together with Palestinian blood, while the arms
and faces of Palestinians are seen protruding through the brick work.
The 27th of January is Holocaust memorial day and the cartoon was timed to make some kind of comparison between what the Nazis did to the Jews, and what is happening to the Palestinians. It is an unworthy comparison; one which you could only normally find in an Islamasist or extreme Right-wing publication in Europe.
That a serious liberal left of centre news paper could publish such a hideous piece of anti-Semitism and see it as legitimate astounds common reason. If Gerald Scarf believes the point he is making is a worthy and true representation of history, then he has little knowledge, but a whole stored up resentment for Israel; and has coupled this with anti-Semitic resentment that goes beyond the trouble between the Jews and the Palestinians.
It was, you may remember, that Israel was forced to build such a wall separating the Palestinians from gaining easy access to Israel, because of the Palestinian suicide bombers raiding parts of Israel and killing 1,000 Jews in a decade. It was a purely defensive measure, perhaps likened to the walls separating the two communities in Northern Ireland which we Brits built for same reason of protecting one community against the terrorism of the other.
The editor of the Sunday Times should speak out, either in support of Scarf, or do the decent thing and do what the paper’s owner has done, freely, and without pressure. Murdock is a businessman first. He will not do what liberal prejudice expects him to do; he will not make demands of the paper’s editor. Murdock knows the commercial and political demographic of the Sunday Times readership and would not risk losing it by interfering in editorial decisions. But whether, at some point in the future he decides to ditch this title (after all, it is being kept afloat financially by profits from the more commercially successful Sun) is also commercial decision.
WHATEVER ACTION is undertaken by the state of Israel; it is to keep a
Jewish state in existence. She is surrounded and is far outnumbered by her enemies,
as were parts of Europe when Hitler’s blitzkrieg got under way. Hitler wanted a
Greater Germany that encompassed the whole of Europe; while Islamists want to
create a Greater Islam by encompassing the whole of the Arab world, and as far
into the Christian one as they are able to reach… while Israel only wants to
exist as a nation.
Yet Israel is seen as the villain in the liberal West. Gerald Scarf is a cartoonist whose instincts are, as an artist of sorts, to create controversy. So his depiction of Netanyahu as a greedy, miserly clawed nosed Fagin or Shylock, was guaranteed to do the job. But like all liberal creative types, Scarf picks easy targets. Usually they take a swipe at Christianity, but Israel is similarly obliged to take it on the chin. Islam, on the other hand, is a wholly different computation. Scarf would never depict Mohammad in any way, let alone in anyway critical of what is happening in his name; which Israel, in terms of cruelty and torture, would never want to match, after its own history of persecution and the Holocaust.
I fear for the state of Israel. I do so because it is not only the historical anti-Semites with their blood libels who are now threatening the Jews. But now we have the Left joining in; but doing so hypocritically, as is their nature. They declare themselves anti-Zionist and not anti-Semites. Fearful of being regarded in the same breath as the Nazis, the Left are weaselling their way to a principled liberal position that is politically correct, and anti-Zionism is the fig-leaf.
THIS PIECE BEGAN by trying to draw the attention of the many thousands
of my blog readers to the bias of the liberal press toward Israel. The New York Times, the Guardian, and now the Sunday
Times, have all succumbed to wearing the great anti-Zionist fig-leaf in
order to defend the Palestinians.
Far more Palestinians have been killed at the hands of fellow Arabs than were ever killed by the state of Israel. Some 20,000 were slaughtered in the 1960s-1970s while in exile in Jordan: followed by more within Lebanon. They have been considered a source of trouble for whatever Arab nation whose boarders they sought exile within. Why, up to recently, those Middle East nations which are demanding Israel’s compliance with a two state solution, were in fact glad to see the back of them. They were trouble and wanted to pass the trouble on to the hated Jew in Israel.
The liberal media in the West will go to any length to report on Palestinian oppression by Israel… and here I now include the BBC, who once had, would you believe it a, Gazan correspondent, who was briefly taken captive by the forces the BBC were helping.
THE BBC is the primary visual source of support for the Palestinians in
this country; as well as the Guardian, much
of whose daily circulation is bought up by the BBC. This institution is
paramount in its support for the Palestinians. It should not of course give support
to any faction; but it does. It cannot help itself as a liberal institution
paid for by the taxpayer; the majority of whom hold no such liberal remit. But
the BBC has created a liberal conclave drawn from the Guardian jobs pages.
It is my bet that the majority of the British people support Benjamin Netanyahu in his attempt to hang on to an Israeli state. I believe that once the British people understand the Jews need for a nation state; it will fit neatly into their own need to hang on to their own nation state, which the EU seeks to take from them.
Israel, like Great
Britain, is facing its loss of nationhood. Britain, through its relationship
with the EU: Israel through its relationship with the Palestinians: and neither
should fall foul of either pressure. Each nation state should be allowed to
remain a nation. India and China would never tolerate their own demise under
such circumstance.
No comments:
Post a Comment