In an earlier post I quoted Arlene Kushner who talked about UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s outrageous assertion that Palestinians are stabbing Israeli civilians, throwing rocks and firebombs, and even shooting, because of “frustration at the ongoing occupation and settlement expansion”.
Addressing the issue of Palestinian Arab violence, he attributed it to “frustration” – “it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism…progress towards peace requires a freeze of Israel’s settlement enterprise.” He also objected to the demolition in Area C of illegally built Arab homes, often funded by the EU. (Although of course he didn’t acknowledge that they were illegally built.)
Prime Minister Netanyahu was justifiably furious, as were all Israelis and I hope all civilized people, saying that Ban’s statement was a justification for terrorism, and of course remarking quite correctly that the UN has lost all credibility:
“There is no justification for terrorism,” Netanyahu said. “The Palestinian terrorists don’t want to build a state; they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don’t murder for peace and they don’t murder for human rights.”
The UN has “lost its neutrality and its moral force, and these statements by the Secretary-General do nothing to improve its situation,” Netanyahu said in a furious video statement. Ban’s remarks, said Netanyahu, “stoke terror.”
In a way this is standard fare for the UN: ignore terrorism around the world, ignore much harsher conflicts and higher death tolls, and criticise Israel alone. Israel then reacts furiously, and thus the wheel turns.
Until Sunday. Ban Ki Moon was furious that Israel was furious, and took to the pages of the New York Times (where else?) where he whined and complained at Israel’s “shooting the messenger“.
As I warned the Security Council last week, Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight of nearly a half-century of occupation. Ignoring this won’t make it disappear. No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
There’s much more at the link, including the tired old mantras of “expanding settlements” (when nothing could be further from the truth), Palestinian houses “slated for demolition” when the opposite is true – illegal Palestinian building, aided and funded by the EU, is rampant. And more.
One commenter on the NYT article got it spot-on:
The issue here is not with the messenger, the issue is that a person that does not even care to be knowledgeable about a situation is not suitable to suggest solutions for it. And this article could not illustrate any clearer that Ban Ki Moon has no idea what the current wave of murders are about.
They are not, as he claims, because Palestinians are frustrated with the occupation. Teenagers do not go out and get themselves willfully killed because they are frustrated with the general situation. They do so because they want to become martyrs. As one girl wrote before she went to get herself killed, she wants to become a martyr because this way she will be famous.
Hamas TV runs programs on recent “martyrs”, they glorify the idea, and martyrs are portrayed as heroes. This is without even mentioning the death cult that is raging throughout the Muslim world that by murdering innocents and getting killed as result begets a person the greatest rewards and the highest place in paradise.
In addition he should have actually looked at what those kids cite as the reason for why they commit these murders. It is because, they say, Israeli soldiers are killing Palestinian children in cold blood, and so they must be avenged. And the reason they believe this is because Palestinian media bombard them with photos of previous attackers who were killed and say they were killed in cold blood.
So the last thing on these killer’s minds is the 2 state solution.
Another commenter also understands the Middle East much better than Ban:
Funny, Israel has made a lasting peace with Jordan, Egypt, and has shown it is more than willing to do so with any foe that operates in good faith.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in the “land for peace” deal that Hamas immediately violated by firing rockets into Israel. What’s the lesson here?
It’s not Israel that wants all Palestinian territory and to terrorize the group. It’s the reverse . This goes way before there even was an Israel, when the Grand Mufti of Palestinian aligned with Hitler to eradicate the Jews.
You are the secretary general of the UN. Perhaps its time to learn some history.
Veteran journalist Jeffrey Goldberg agrees:
Ruthie Blum in Yisrael Hayom slammed Ban Ki Moon and his outrageous op-ed:
That the U.N. chief had said it was “human nature” for downtrodden people like the Palestinians to express their frustration through violence had something to do with Israel’s adverse reaction to his words, particularly since he hasn’t said such things about al-Qaida, Islamic State, Hezbollah or Boko Haram. You know, the group that on Saturday night burned 86 Nigerian villagers alive, among them many children.
Given the total falsehood of his depiction of the situation — for example, by omitting Israel’s withdrawal from more than 90% of the territory it obtained after the attempt of surrounding Arab armies to obliterate it in the Six-Day War — it is no wonder that his proposed solutions to the problem are so preposterous.
“Of course,” Ban continued, “a lasting agreement between Israel and Palestine will require difficult compromises by leaders and peoples on both sides.”
Indeed, Israel has made endless “difficult compromises,” for decades. This has led to repeated uprisings against the Israeli populace, such as the current spate of terrorism that surged in September, thanks in large measure to incitement emanating from official PA institutions and media outlets.
So basically Ban is angry at Israel for grasping the meaning of the words, not for “twisting” them.
More ridiculous than his protestations to the contrary, though, is the title of the piece, taken from his claim that Israel’s ire is a form of “shooting the messenger.” It is a metaphor he clearly does not know how to use properly, since he is a key source of the anti-Israel message — embraced by anti-Semites the world over — not some serf paid to deliver it.
But it is not just Ban Ki Moon himself who is the “messenger” for anti-Semites. The New York Times itself eagerly complies with the role of messenger for anti-Israel polemicists and bigots. Here are a couple of recent examples:
The blog A small European country writes about how even “When the New York Times tries to be positive about Israel” it doesn’t work:
…an article in the New York Times dedicated to the urban culture of the Israeli city of Haifa. The article is titled “In Israeli City of Haifa, a Liberal Arab Culture Blossoms”, and boy, its a hilarious one. In Haifa, the NYT preaches, “30,000 Arab residents, around 10 percent of the population, include equal numbers of Muslims and Christians, and they are generally wealthier and better educated than Arabs elsewhere in Israel”.
Essentially, what “makes Haifa a comfortable place for liberal Palestinians” is living alongside a significantly larger Jewish community. It is the Jewish community where they can escape to and where they enjoy the liberties and tolerance. Sadly, both the “liberal Palestinians” and the NYT fail to thank Haifa’s Jewish community even in a footnote.
But hey, what can one expect from a newspaper that produces a headline like “Israeli Woman Stabbed Amid West Bank Exchanges of Violence”, leaving it to the readers to guess, even after reading the article, that the pregnant woman was not “exchanging violence” with anyone but was stabbed by a Palestinian terrorist because she was Jewish.
There’s a lot more interesting detail at the link. Go and read it all.
On a similar theme, but much more seriously, Prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has written a post about how the NYT can never quite find the elusive answer as to why Palestinians keep murdering Jews: (emphases added):
A January 19, 2016, NYT article by Steven Erlinger typifies the genre, Anger in a Palestinian Town Feeds a Cycle of Violence
Raed Jaradat was 22, an accounting student from a well-to-do family here, already working part time with his father in his stone quarry and construction business. After Dania Ersheid, 17, was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers who said she had pulled a knife at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a version disputed by Palestinians, Mr. Jaradat wrote an angry post on Facebook: “Imagine if this were your sister!”
Stephen Flatow takes apart both the Erlinger article and the genre, Let’s play the ‘blame Israel game’ with The New York Times:
Following The New York Times’s tortured search for the reasons behind the “anger” that causes Palestinian violence is like watching an episode of “Finding Bigfoot.” Tantalizing hints, frustrating glimpses — but the solution to the mystery always seems to be just out of reach.
No matter how hard the Times tries, it can never quite find the elusive answer to the question of why Palestinians keep murdering Jews.
But just like those intrepid Bigfoot hunters, the Times won’t give up the search. It could be a reality show: “Finding Palestinian Anger.” But it might grow tiresome pretty soon because of its utter predictability: every possible answer the Times comes up with involves pointing an accusing finger at Israel.
Flatow then explodes the narrative of the Palestinians killed:
Then Flatow gives the spoiler, something was already knew but the Times and Western media never will acknowledge:
Sorry, but those explanations just don’t cut it. So long as The New York Times keeps promoting the myths of Palestinian “hopelessness,” “humiliation,” “fear,” and “occupation,” the search for the real cause of Palestinian anger will continue forever.
The way to bring this unwelcome reality show to a quick and deserving end is to face the simple truth: They murder Jews not because of anything the Jews do, but simply because — spoiler alert! — they hate Jews.
Read the whole thing, there are many other very good parts.
Stephen Flatow is the father of Alisa Flatow Hy’d who was murdered in a suicide bus bombing in Kfar Darom in Gush Katif in 1995. Here is Alisa’s memorial:
The New York Times in fact has such a “good” name for anti-Israel sentiment that an anti-Israel group had no problem faking the NYT headlines to use in an anti-Israel campaign:
Anti-Israel campaigners distributed a fake edition of The New York Times to commuters on Tuesday morning, proclaiming that the US congress will debate its aid package with Israel and that Hillary Clinton has quit the presidential campaign.
Campaigners handed out the paper at venues across New York City including Grand Central station, Penn station, the Times Square subway station and outside corporate offices.
Under the banner: “All the News We Didn’t Print”, the publication included a story announcing that Democratic candidate Ms Clinton had given up the presidential bid and had been appointed Director of Human Rights for All Women Foundation, “a new nonprofit organization with headquarters in Ramallah, New York City, Nairobi and Charleston, S.C.”
The second story announced that Congress would debate US aid to Israel, and said the US has given the country more than $121 billion in bilateral assistance since Israel was created in 1948. The article also made a point of denouncing deaths of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces.
The NYT did not like this fakery one little bit. After all, they are proud of their “good” name:
A spokeswoman from The New York Times said in a statement: “We’re extremely protective of our brand and other intellectual property and object to this group (or any group’s) attempt to cloak their political views under the banner of The New York Times. We believe strongly that those advocating for political positions are best served by speaking openly, in their own voice.”
I’m almost moved to tears. Almost. Tears of laughter that is. One of the commenters to this article remarked:
Hilarious. They’ve spoofed one of the most left wing anti-Israel newspapers in the US. This is the sort of drivel that the NYT usually prints, so why bother faking it.
Indeed. And given the NYT’s form on Israel reporting, let’s give the last word on the NYT to Scottish journalist Stephen Daisley: