In the latest blow to The Times' expired identity, the former Paper of Record refuses to set the facts straight on Jewish sovereignty in ancient Israel. The longest period of Jewish rule extended beyond three centuries, not 80 years.
Does the New York Times think any violent attack on any Jew living anywhere in the Holy Land at any time in history counts as "resistance"?
When misfired Palestinian rockets killed Palestinians, the New York Times repeatedly told readers Israeli rockets were responsible. Editors refused to correct the errors.
If Jewish "settlement" once denoted illegitimate Jewish habitation in disputed territory, The New York Times is now expanding the term to signal illegitimate Jewish residency within cities acknowledged throughout the world as part of the Jewish state.
The New York Times, once priding itself as the “paper of record,” is better recognized today as the “paper of advocacy.” Rather than documenting the various factors contributing to the unrest in Israel during Ramadan, it ignored rocketing from Gaza, emphasizing instead what could be blamed on Israeli Jews.
If an antisemitic leader works hand-in-hand with antisemitic Nazis to spread anti-Jewish propaganda and encourage Nazi soldiers, why does the New York Times avoid describing the partnership as antisemitic? Apparently, it's because this particular Nazi ally was a Palestinian leader.
The New York Times corrects after taking sides in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians over the West Bank.
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.
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.
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?