Sympathy for Terrorists at New York's Paper of Record

The New York Times.  Do I love to hate them?  No, I just hate them.  The Times's chronic anti-semitism, which dates back to the WWII era, has led them to become soft apologists for terrorists.  First, for terrorists who act against Israel, and by extension, all terrorists.  No where is this more apparent than in the headline shown in this screen grab, which sympathises with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/new-york-times-sympathy-for-the-devil/#ixzz2QwNJfnVK  (Mysteriously, the headline has been changed, which is why my link is to a blog showing the screengrab.)

We have also seen this phenomenon in action when they refer to Guantamo as a "political prison," implying that its prisoners are political prisoners, as described in this blog: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/the-new-york-times-declares-al-qaeda-membership-legitimate-political-activity/

Perhaps that puts some context on Times Magazine covers like the one in this screenshot (again, the headline and main graphic have been changed on the Times's website, and are now availably only through screengrabs that document it, like this one)  http://www.israellycool.com/2013/03/17/ben-ehrenreich-and-the-ny-times-paint-false-picture-of-terror-and-violence-advocates/

The One-State Solution – Why Not? 

The New York Times editorial page has been publishing pieces advocating a one-state solution in Israel and the West Bank for some time.  Recently, Saree Makdisi and Joseph Levine graced the Times’s Op-Ed pages, and perhaps most infamously, in 2009, an OpEd by Muammar Qaddafi put forth the same proposition.  (You can read Qaddafi’s column here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?_r=0.)  

To Americans, Jews and non-Jews, who were raised with the American ideal of the “melting pot,” or, in other metaphors, the “tossed salad,” or “beautiful mosaic” this may sound like the perfect solution.  Two peoples want the same land, why shouldn’t they share it?  Why can’t they live together, the way that the different ethnic groups that make up the United States do?  Ms. Makdisi asserted in her Times piece that in a single, binational state, “what [Jews] will gain . . .  is the right to live in peace.”

The fact that this proposal was advocated by Qaddafi ought to be enough to give one pause.  But setting that point aside, one way that we can assess the possibility of success for this proposal is by turning to history.  Throughout history, as long as Jews have lived in Muslim majority states, we, like any other religious minority in those states, were forced to live with so-called dhimmi status.  This was a second-class status, mandated by Islamic law, that allowed religious minorities to live in Muslim majority countries, but with many political restrictions, subject to a special dhimmi tax, and always subject to persecution.  

“But that is the past,” the melting-pot advocates will cry. “In the current times, we have all moved beyond that.  Modern Muslims would live in equality with Jews in this binational state.”  To see how preposterous this suggestion is, one only has to look at the current situation of Egypt’s Coptic Christians. 

Egypt is a U.S. ally, perhaps one of our closest Muslim allies.  After the overthrow of Mubarak, it held ostensibly democratic elections, the product of which was the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  Since that time, the persecution of women has increased and religious minorities have come under fire.  In October of 2011, between 25 and 35 Coptic Christians were killed by Egyptian police attempting to disperse a peaceful protest against religious suppression.  (You can read about it here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279657/situation-worsens-egypts-coptic-christians-kurt-j-werthmuller.)  Just last Friday, four more Christians were killed in sectarian violence, and on Sunday, the police attacked mourners at the funeral for those killed.  (You can read about it here: http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/04/07/funeral-for-killed-copts/ and here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/07/us-egypt-clashes-idUSBRE93503A20130407.)  And, of course, let’s not forget the reaction of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to the recent Declaration from the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.  The Brotherhood denounced the statement for advocating, among other things, to raise the minimum age of marriage, grant equality to gays and lesbians, and provide contraception.  (You can read the official brotherhood response here: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731.) 

A bi-national state would mean a return to dhimmi status, and persecution, as soon as the Muslim population outnumbered the Jewish population (or possibly sooner, due to the fractionalized political system).  Anyone who is familiar with the history of the region knows this, that is why it is not being advanced as a serious solution by anyone of any sense.  But no one wants to articulate it, because to do so would appear bigoted.  U.S. liberals need to understand that co-existence in “Israstine,” as Qaddafi put it, is simply not an option.  

UPDATE: Just today, 4/18/13,  the Times has published an Op-Ed by Marci Shore, which seems at first to be about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and pretends that its topic is a hero of that uprising, but ends with this line: "a single-nation state is never a good thing.”  This transparent advocacy for a bi-national state, with all that that entails, now under the guise of Holocaust Rememberance, is completely revolting.  Just when I did not think the Times could top its past antisemitism, sadly, I was wrong.  

UPDATE: 5/11/13.  This morning I said to my husband something I never thought I would say: "there was a good editorial in the Times yesterday. . . ."  I was referring to Manan Ahmed Asif's editorial on Pakistan.  If one wants to know what a bi-national state in Israel will look like by the end of this century, just read Asif's description of what is happening now in Pakistan.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/opinion/pakistans-tyrannical-majority.html?_r=1& 

Ha'aretz and Israel's Imaginary Ethnic Cleansing

I am an upper middle class woman living in a New York suburb.  I am a US citizen and English is my native language.  I am in the fortunate position of having access to the best medical care that money can buy.  And still, I have had medications prescribed for me without being made fully aware of the side effects.

Why?  Well sometimes doctors are rushed and don't take the time to fully explain all the possible side effects of medications.  Sometimes doctors are arrogant and don't think they need to do so.  Sometimes doctors are forgetful and there are oversights.

These phenomena will obviously be compounded in a clinic-like setting, especially when combined with a language barrier.  So is it true, as Ha'arezt reported in March, that some Ethiopian women were prescribed and administered Depo-Provera without being fully aware of what the medication was?  Well, unfortunately, it probably is true.  Was this deliberate ethnic cleansing?  Doubtful.

Think about this: Why would the Israeli government pay to bring these people from Ethiopia to Israel, footing the bill for not only the travel but also for absorption (olim get a generous package from the government including financial assistance, rent assistance, tuition assistance, and more) as well as any social services they will need for the foreseeable future, only to commit genocide on them?  This doesn't even make any freakin' sense!  The proposition that Israel went out of its way to bring people to the country only to forcibly sterilize them is completely illogical.  And contrary to the initial reports by Ha'aretz, the government never admitted that this happened.  Rather, upon allegations that some women were receiving Depo-Provera without being fully made aware of what it was, the government took remedial measures to ensure that, if such incidents had happened, they would not be repeated.  You can read the actual facts here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=2411

But Israel's detractors are determined to see only the bad.  So much so that they are determined to believe that the government has done something so completely illogical.  And despite Ha'aretz's retraction, almost a month later, this allegation is still being circulated.

Ha'aretz needs to understand that Israel's detractors are waiting with bated breath to pounce on sensationalist stories like this.  This is not to say that Ha'aretz should not expose racism where it occurs. But before printing allegations such as this, they ought to make damn sure that what they are printing is true.