Raymond Ibrahim: The New York Times Defends Al-Qaeda

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

The New York Times Defends Al-Qaeda

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
June 11, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/4722/the-new-york-times-defends-al-qaeda

Why are some of the biggest Western mainstream media outlets—especially the New York Times (NYT)—often apologetic, not only for radical Islamists, but for al-Qaeda, an organization responsible for, among other atrocities, killing nearly 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001?

A recent NYT report titled "Abduction of Girls an Act Not Even Al Qaeda Can Condone" tries to exonerate al-Qaeda of the actions of another jihadi organization, Nigeria's Boko Haram—when both groups are not only affiliated but remarkably similar in outlook and method. The report's opening sentence summarizes its thesis: "As word spread like wildfire on Twitter and Facebook that Nigerian militants were preparing to auction off more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls in the name of Islam, a very different Internet network started quietly buzzing too," one which, according to the NYT, reflects "the dismay of fellow jihadists at the innocent targets of Boko Haram's violence":

Mideast Media Sampler 1/17/14: Media Still Insists On Distorting Facts on Ariel Sharon

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Ariel Sharon Misconstrued

Ariel Sharon: The Media still insists his visit to Kotel started
intifada -- despite Palestinian admissions to the contrary
Credit: Legal Insurrection / Photo:  Government Press Office / Flickr ]

I never expected Ariel Sharon to be treated fairly by the mainstream media. I’d like to reiterate one point made by Prof. Jacobson in his post memorializing Sharon: Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was not the cause of the so-called Second Intifada.

The New York Times obituary of Ariel Sharon gets it wrong:

Mideast Media Sampler 01/07/2014: Media Covers For Abbas' Glorification of Murdering Jews

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The Unreal Mideast of American Editorials

Kerry and Netanyahu. Credit: Legal Insurrection,
Photo: U.S. Department of State / YouTube

The New York Times and Washington Post have both recently weighed in with editorials about John Kerry’s peace process.

First the New York Times ran The Ticking Mideast Clock.

Signs of failure are everywhere. On Thursday, standing beside Mr. Kerry, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a harsh assessment of his Palestinian counterpart, President Mahmoud Abbas, and, implicitly, the prospect of a Middle East peace agreement. Days earlier, Israel let it be known that it would build more settlements in the West Bank, further poisoning the political atmosphere while shrinking the territorial space for a deal. Hard-liners in Mr. Netanyahu’s government are pushing a bill that would annex settlements in the Jordan Valley area of the West Bank, where about 6,000 Israeli settlers and 10 times as many Palestinians live.

So what did Netanyahu say?

Mideast Media Sampler 1/2/14: 2014 Ushers In More Sloppy New York Times Reporting On Peace Process

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The Perils of Peacemaking

Israel releases Palestinian Terrorists. Credit: Legal Insurrection,
Photo: JewishNewsOne / YouTube

John Kerry is returning to the Middle East to present his peace plan.

Two recent articles show the way the peace process is misrepresented in the media.

Mideast Media Sampler 12/18/13: Sloppy Media Ignores Fact Israeli "Occupation" Is Over

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Why Israel’s Democracy is not Endangered by the Lack of Peace

Eugene Kontorovich, professor of international law.
Credit: Legal Insurrection, Photo: mos225 / YouTube

Eugene Kontorovich wrote an important essay for Commentary, Israel, Palestine, and Democracy. Here are three critical paragraphs from the middle of the essay:

CAMERA Video: New York Times Anti-Israel Bias: Editorializing

From CAMERA:

Anti-Israel bias at The New York Times increased in late 2013, with news reporters shunning impartiality and, by expressing hostile opinions, making the supposedly objective news pages increasingly resemble the newspaper's opinion pages.

See more at New York Times Increasingly Resembles Glenn Greenwald's Advocacy Journalism

Here is the video:

Mideast Media Sampler 11/3/13: Media Perpetuates Myth of Israeli Settlements Blocking Peace

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

 – The focus on settlements as obstacles to peace is a recent invention

Israel sign for entry to Area A in Palestinian control. Credit: Legal Insurrection

To read through recent news reports one could assume that the biggest obstacle to Palestinian Israeli peace are “settlements.”

To cement that impression the New York Times published an article, 1,500 Units to Be Added in Settlement, Israel Says. The caption of a photograph directly beneath the headline reads:

A Palestinian construction worker at a building site on Wednesday in the Ramat Shlomo settlement in East Jerusalem.

If there is an official “East Jerusalem,” I am unaware of it, but perhaps the paper meant “east Jerusalem.” However if you read down a few paragraphs you learn:

Mideast Media Sampler 10/15/13: The New York Times' War Against Binyamin Netanyahu

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The New York Times' War Against Binyamin Netanyahu

Last week in an article On Iran Talks, Congress Could Play ‘Bad Cop’, the New York Times quoted an “expert” named Cliff Kupchan:

It is a role that Congress shares with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who warned the United Nations that Mr. Rouhani was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and urged the United States to ignore his conciliatory words and redouble the pressure on Iran.

“Netanyahu’s speech was widely ridiculed in this town,” Mr. Kupchan said, “but it largely reflects the views of many members of Congress.”

I’m sure that in some Washington circles – those who believe words and meaningless agreements are more important than actions – Netanyahu’s speech was ridiculed. But I’m not convinced that it was widely ridiculed.

Mideast Media Sample 10/14/13: New York Times Thinks Palestinian Murderers of Civilians Qualify As "Freedom Fighters"?

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The New York Times on Sunday featured an article, Behind Flurry of Killing, Potency of Hate, which focuses on how dehumanizing an enemy makes it easier to kill. The article focuses on a convicted, jailed and released IRA terrorist and how he could be conditioned to kill. Then the article continues:

Historical parallels are inevitably flawed. But a recent flurry of horrific bloodletting — the attack in Nairobi that left 60 dead, the execution by Syrian jihadis of bound and blindfolded prisoners, an Egyptian soldier peering through his rifle sight and firing on the teenage daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood leader — raises a question as old as Cain and Abel: Do we all have it in us?

Many experts think we do. For Mr. O’Callaghan, it was a matter of focus.

“What you’re seeing in that moment,” he said in an interview last week, “is not a human being.”

The article also mentions how Nazis could be brought to slaughter Jews (and describes the murderers in oddly sympathetic terms!). But it left out the most systematic delegitimization campaign going on now: the one by Palestinians that targets Israel.

Mideast Media Sampler 10/8/13: Media Accepts Iran's Distortions, Attacks Netanyahu

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Where’s the scrutiny of Iran’s blatant lie about its nuclear program?


After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly last week, a number of op-eds in both the New York Times and Washington Post criticized him.

A reading of the speech shows that it was quite skilled. Netanyahu explained how Iran is ruled by a regime that is currently destabilizing the Middle East and exporting terror globally. He also explained how, in the past, Iran used the illusion of moderation and negotiations to advance its nuclear program. (This is something that then candidate Hassan Rouhani boasted about in a recently reported video.)

But Netanyahu wasn’t arguing to attack Iran. He was arguing to keep sanctions in place, and strengthen them if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. (In fact the public statements of the Obama administration don’t sound that different from what Netanyahu said about sanctions.) The threat of military force was meant as a last resort.

Still it didn’t stop journalists from mocking Netanyahu.

Mideast Media Sampler 10/7/13: Media Chooses To Trust Rouhani More Than It Trusts Netanyahu

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The Columnists who Cried “Sheep”

There has been a steady campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu in the media.

Last week the Washington Post featured a column by David Ignatius arguing that Israel should let the United States give negotiations a chance. Ignatius used 1973 Yom Kippur War as a lesson for Israel, but he probably would have done better to use the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a lesson.

TWS Blog—Iran and the Western media's magical thinking http://t.co/DBL4T6bGxW
— Lee Smith (@stronghorsebook) October 3, 2013

New York Times, Like Iran's Rouhani, Dilutes Jewish History for Its Readers

...however much mullahs or media may seek to distort inconvenient historical facts, people devoted to truth will continue to know better.
Rabbi Avi Shafran

Rabbi Avi Shafran writes that The New York Times, like Iran's Rouhani, tries its hand at Defining History Down.

At a time that Rouhani sidestepped on the Holocaust, the New York Times for its part also watered down the history of the Jews. Last week, Jodi Rudoren of The New York Times wrote Jews Challenge Rules to Claim Heart of Jerusalem.

Shafran takes issue with matters of emphasis in the article. The real issue, however, is the video that accompanies the article:

Mideast Media Sampler 9/30/13: Media Doesn't Notice Rouhani Continues To Manipulate The West

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Even if Rouhani is a nuclear moderate, he is not rolling back Iran’s war against the West

In his column yesterday, Hassan does Manhattan, Thomas Friedman wrote about Iran’s new President Hassan Rouhani:

1) He’s not here by accident. That is, this Iranian charm offensive is not because Rouhani, unlike his predecessor, went to charm school. Powerful domestic pressures have driven him here. 2) We are finally going to see a serious, face-to-face negotiation between top Iranian and American diplomats over Iran’s nuclear program. 3) I have no clue and would not dare predict whether these negotiations will lead to a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis. 4) The fact that we’re now going to see serious negotiations raises the stakes considerably. It means that if talks fail, President Obama will face a real choice between military action and permanent sanctions that could help turn Iran into a giant failed state. 5) Pray that option 2 succeeds.

While there are no doubt domestic considerations that drove Rouhani to appear conciliatory, there’s one reason that Friedman left out.

Mideast Media Sampler 9/23/13: How Far Will New York Times Go To Support Rouhani?

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Iran Continues to Support Assad's Savagery under "Moderate" Rouhani

In recent weeks, the New York Times has been playing up the moderation of Iran’s new government, especially that of its new president Hassan Rouhani.

Yesterday’s editorial, President Rouhani Comes to Town ahead of Rouhani’s speech before the U.N. later this week, is one more element of that campaign.

Mideast Media Sampler 9/15/13: New York Times Opinion -- End Of Israel Would Be Paradise

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Ian Lustick has graced the op-ed page of the New York Times with Two State Illusion. Here’s the thrust of his argument:

All sides have reasons to cling to this illusion. The Palestinian Authority needs its people to believe that progress is being made toward a two-state solution so it can continue to get the economic aid and diplomatic support that subsidize the lifestyles of its leaders, the jobs of tens of thousands of soldiers, spies, police officers and civil servants, and the authority’s prominence in a Palestinian society that views it as corrupt and incompetent.

Israeli governments cling to the two-state notion because it seems to reflect the sentiments of the Jewish Israeli majority and it shields the country from international opprobrium, even as it camouflages relentless efforts to expand Israel’s territory into the West Bank.

American politicians need the two-state slogan to show they are working toward a diplomatic solution, to keep the pro-Israel lobby from turning against them and to disguise their humiliating inability to allow any daylight between Washington and the Israeli government.

Mideast Media Sampler 9/9/13: The Secret of John Kerry's "Success": He Relies on Thomas Friedman!

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

Friedman has made a career of being wrong.

John Kerry’s testimony last week before Congress does not give confidence in the wisdom of his understanding.

In response to a question about a Thomas Friedman column – in which Friedman wrote that all Assad needed was a really good talking to and not any physical attack – Secretary of State John Kerry stated that Thomas Friedman “… is most often correct…”



I am a long time Friedman aficionado, and Kerry’s assertiont is untrue. Friedman has made a career of being wrong.

I could spend the next weeks cataloging those mistakes. But I don’t have the time. Instead let me treat to you to five or six of his greatest hits, errr, I mean misses.

Mideast Media Sampler 9/04/13: Oslo Anniversary -- Another Chance For New York Times To Blame Israel

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The New York Times kicks off its 20th Anniversary celebration of the Oslo Accords, by blaming Israel

Last week, the New York Times kicked off its twentieth anniversary celebration of the Oslo Accords with an op-ed, Oslo, 20 years later by Uri Savir. I didn’t have to read far to learn the premise of of Savir’s argument. (Actually, I didn’t have to read it any of it to know the premise. This is the New York Times. Obviously, Israel was going to be substantially responsible for the failure of Oslo.) In the third paragraph, Savir wrote:

Mideast Media Sampler 8/24/13: Three Examples of New York Times "Standards" When Reporting on Israel

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

In the little town of Candor in the last year of my youth I learned the final lesson of the levels to the truth – The Mayor of Candor Lied
– Harry Chapin

There was a line in a recent New York Times report that made me think about how the New York Times shades the truth. The report was about the increasingly contentious relationship between Egypt’s interim government and the international media.

Officials now charge, without evidence, that many protesters are Syrian or Palestinian.

Apparently that’s the standard of the New York Times. To be true, an assertion must be supported with evidence. Or does it?

Egyptian Head of Muslim Brotherhood is Arrested -- Obedient New York Times Cries Foul

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

A Terror Leader Behind Bars in Egypt

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
August 20, 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3589/muhammad-badie-egypt

Raymond Ibrahim

The supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the head of the Islamist snake, Muhammad Badie—who had slipped security forces by traveling in and out of the Brotherhood torture camps (known as "peaceful sits ins" by the mainstream media")—has finally been arrested in Egypt and is awaiting trial. Not only was he the leader of the Brotherhood, but, according to Brotherhood members themselves, he was giving orders to his underling, Muhammad Morsi, the now ousted Egyptian president.

Among other serious accusations, Badie is being charged with inciting widespread terrorism and murder and playing a key role in the current violence and unrest in Egypt—also known as "the jihad"—which has led to the destruction of some 80 Christian churches and monasteries, the violent slaughters of Egyptian police, and any number of other criminal activities.

If Badie, as a Brotherhood member on live TV slipped into saying, used to order president Morsi around, surely his authority over the average Brotherhood member—the very fellows now burning and slaughtering—was ironclad.

Mideast Media Sampler 8/19/13: New York Times Blames Israel For Obama's Wavering on Egypt

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection

The New York Times faults Israel for looking out for its own interests

It wasn’t just one article over the weekend. No fewer than four articles in the New York Times over the past few days have made the case that Israel values its security more than it does freedom for Egyptians. While any country would reasonably put the safety of its own citizens ahead of other concerns, the New York Times makes it appear unseemly. At a time when the United States is uncertain what approach to take, the reports present a selfish Israel attempting to impose its preferences on those who are struggling to do the right thing.

Israel Escalating Efforts re Egypt, unlike Obama, does not have "any illusions" about democracy in Egypt http://t.co/MpWGUOJcXj
— David D. Kirkpatrick (@ddknyt) August 19, 2013