Trey Yingst seems to be following in the not very illustrious footsteps of some of his Fox Jerusalem predecessors like Reena Ninan or Conor Powell, for whom the Palestinian narrative always took center stage.
After President Trump announced his controversial decision to pull some US troops from Northern Syria, placing the Kurds at risk, Brooke Baldwin tried to drag Israel into the discussion. She should first brush up on the history of the Jewish Brigade's support for the Allies during WWII, and the collaboration between Palestinian leaders and the Nazis.
For AP or other reporters to ask Palestinians about rejection of peace proposals would require them to act like real journalists, rather than pro-Palestinian activists. Any reporter who fails to ask such questions is either unaware of the basic facts, or is a propagandist. Either way it is inexcusable.
Politico is hunting Israeli spies, part of an unfortunate Washington reality that stories about US intelligence breaches are often exploited to charge Israel with spying on the United States. The Politico story charges – without any obvious evidence – that Israel was responsible for planting cell site simulators to eavesdrop on US officials, including President Trump.
A dog with a Jewish star around its neck and the face of a Jewish leader, guiding a blind, yarmulke-wearing U.S. President would be standard fare for the notorious Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer, and for its modern descendants. Unfortunately the New York Times must now be counted among those descendants.
That the New York Times chose to publish Nathan Thrall’s "How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics" is not surprising: Thrall can be counted on to produce, on demand, the usual anti-Israel screed that has long been norm at the Times. But Thrall outdoes himself this time.
First term Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is obsessed with Israel, Tweeting such gems as “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel” and charging AIPAC buys US support for Israel. Besides being offensive she's dead wrong, and here's the proof.
"The Jerusalem Issue, Explained" by Max Fisher exposes once again the Times' own bias and ignorance when it comes to Israel.
Criticism of President Obama's decision to allow a UN resolution harshly critical of Israel triggered Secretary of State John F. Kerry to launch an elaborate defense. Did he make his case?
Thanks to a US abstention the UN Security Council has passed Resolution 2334, asserting that Israeli settlements have "no legal validity" and are a "flagrant violation under international law." Will the resolution be counterproductive, like the settlement freeze President Obama imposed on Israel in 2009? Or will it help advance the cause of peace?