Jim Krane, of Rice University's Baker Institute, alleged in Forbes that "the Israeli president has been braying for America to attack Iran, just as he urged Congress to do in Iraq," and tenaciously clung to the unfounded falsehood when challenged about its veracity.
Why does the New York Times want its readers to wrongly believe that Palestinian gunmen and bombers struck down while engaged in combat were killed while merely "demonstrating"?
Contradicting both the High Commissioner and Jaffa Arabs who lived through the events, editors of The New York Times, in Manhattan, rewrote history, falsely reporting that in 1948 "most of Jaffa's Arab residents were forcibly removed from their homes." The falsehood appears in the context of a "correction," no less.
In covering the UN Human Rights Council's Gaza report, the New York Times misleads readers about Palestinian demands for a “right of return,” ignores widespread international criticism of the UNHRC’s anti-Israel bias, and conceals accounts of gunfire and explosives used by rioters.
C-SPAN recently aired a “discussion” hosted by National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations (NCUSAR), an Arab centered organization hostile to Israel. This hostility was reflected in the choice of panelists.
The piece by a self-described “scholar of Palestinian history,” is rife with historical distortions, such as, the claim that Palestinians wished to "throw Jews into the sea" was a result of “an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war."
In French, Agence France Presse managed to report accurately on Doctors Without Borders' entreaty to Palestinian and Israeli authorities to address the healthcare situation in Gaza. Why couldn't they do it in English?
An AFP infographic grossly minimizes the impact of Palestinian attacks on Israel while at the same time emphasizing the impact of Israel's military response on Gaza.
Why does the New York Times pretend Israeli civilians are "caught up in the fighting" between Hamas and Israel instead of acknowledging that Hamas targets Israeli civilians? Perhaps because that gets in the way of the newspaper's preferred "both sides" narrative.
