The New York Times won't correct an error it has corrected twice before, and won't defend its incorrect claim. But it is simply false to claim, as does David Halbfinger and Michael Crowley, that there had been until recently a “longstanding American policy treating the settlements as illegal.”
Palestinian leaders are never responsible for the inflammatory actions they take. That’s the overarching New York Times narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that’s the message again of today’s story, by reporters David M. Halbfinger, Adam Rasgon and Mohammed Najib, about Palestinian threats to cut off security cooperation with Israel.
Unable or unwilling to portray Israel in an entirely good light, a New York Times article about the Israeli Directorate of Defense Research & Development's efforts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic begins by casting the department in derogatory terms that Israel’s enemies might use.
The New York Times corrects after taking sides in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians over the West Bank.
The New York Times was slow to report on Hamas's arrest of a Palestinian bridge-building activist. Don't expect the newspaper to note that a former Amnesty International employee urged the terror group to arrest him.
Media outlets falsely report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shut Israel's courts, citing him as a prime example of an "authoritarian" national leader engaging in a "coronavirus coup." In fact, Justice Minister Amir Ohana, a Netanyahu ally, curtailed court activity without closing the institutions, a move backed by Supreme Court justice Esther Hayut.
Unsurprisingly, a newspaper that calls Benjamin Netanyahu a scold for trying to protect seniors is unable to report fairly on Israeli hesitations about the Joint List political alliance.
New York Times journalists continue to distort and revise history to maintain a phony but consistent narrative about who is to blame in the ongoing conflict.
Why did the New York Times conceal Islamic Jihad's terror designations, then describe the group as simply "nettlesome"?
The New York Times doesn't have a policy to avoid using the word "terrorist." So why did it scrub that word from coverage of Israel's strike on senior Islamic Jihad leader Baha Abu Al Ata?