Archive | February, 2012

Al-Dura Discredited, Again

26 Feb

Image

Remember the case of Muhammad al-Dura, the 12-year-old boy who was shot by unknown gunmen, which the media assumed to be Israeli soldiers? Al-Dura became an icon of the Palestinian Intifada.

A lesser-known aspect of this story is that the boy’s father, Jamal al-Dura, engaged in his own bit of media manipulation. Shortly after the incident, he held a press conference where he lifted his shirt to show journalists the scars on his chest as “proof” that Israeli soldiers had fired on him. In truth, these scars were the result of tendon transplant surgery that Jamal had undergone years earlier at an Israeli hospital, after being severely wounded by Palestinian thugs.

Dr. David Yehuda, the surgeon who operated on Jamal, recognized the scars:

“His wounds are not bullet wounds, but were produced by two things – first, the knife of the Palestinian who cut him, and second, my knife that fixed him. He faked the case.”

Jamal had displayed the height of ingratitude: After being saved by an Israeli doctor, he turned that around to foist a libel on the Jews.

If that wasn’t enough chutzpah, Jamal then sued the Israeli doctor for slander!

The case has been winding its way through the French courts, and last week the French Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Israeli doctor.

Jamal al-Dura thus joins Oscar Wilde and Alger Hiss in the pantheon of those who brought libel suits – and ended up destroying their own reputations.

A small bit of justice in this very disturbing case.

Interview on Las Vegas Radio AM 720 KDWN

20 Feb

Had a lively session with my old friend, Rabbi Yitz Wyne, who hosts a popular radio show in Las Vegas (therabbishow.com). We discussed everything from Iran to the Israel Lobby, from CNN to the New York Times.

Click here to listen (20 minutes)

VIDEO: The Inside Scoop on Syria

16 Feb

With Syria in the midst of a brutal crackdown that has left 5,000 people dead, it’s time to ask:

Why does the media paint such a glowing portrait of the dictator Bashar Assad and his wife Asma?

Here’s my new video, bringing examples from NBC Nightly News, Vogue magazine, and ABC News – as cited in my book, David & Goliath.

Be prepared for shock and outrage.

Bombings: Iran Blames Israel

15 Feb

In the wake of this week’s bombings against Israeli targets in India and Bangkok, Iran is blaming Israel for attacking its own people.

We’re used to this far-fetched Iranian paranoid smokescreening. Remember, these are the same folks whose intelligence agents arrested 14 squirrels for allegedly sneaking around with Western spy gear.

But now the mainstream media is chiming in with their own repugnant theories. Genieve Abdo, a frequent contributor to the New York Times, told Australian public radio that Israel had bombed its own diplomats in order to have an excuse to blame Iran:

Radio Host: Iran’s leadership says it’s sheer lies that it’s behind the attacks and [Iran says] that the Israelis have planted the bombs themselves to discredit Iran.
Geneive Abdo: Well I think that’s entirely possible. I mean, if you consider what the Israelis did for many years in Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East, that theory is not so farfetched.

This is a throwback to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, when Thomas Ricks, at the time a military correspondent for the Washington Post, told CNN that Israel purposely allowed Hezbollah to launch missiles into northern Israel – in order to have an excuse to retaliate. According to Ricks:

One of the things that is going on… is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

As the Iran-Israel battle heats up, be on the lookout for more of this libelous disinformation coming from the mainstream media.

HT: Michael Rubin / Contentions blog

NY Times Hides the Iranian Threat to Israel – Again

5 Feb

The New York Times reports:

In Tehran, the speech by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made during Friday Prayer and broadcast live to the nation, came amid deepening American concern about a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence. (Robert F. Worth and David E. Sanger, “U.N. Nuclear Inspectors’ Visit to Iran Is a Failure, West Says,” New York Times, February 3, 2012.)

Now why, pray tell, might Israel “consider” a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence?

The Times doesn’t get into specifics, and indeed leaves out a key part of Khamenei’s speech, reported by the Ahlul Bayt (“Holy Household”) Islamic News Agency:

“The Zionist regime is truly a cancerous tumor in the region and it must be, and will be, cut off.”

Why did the Times leave out that key statement, and present this very real threat to Israel as a mere concern?

This is just another one of the many, many patterns of bias the New York Times is perpetrating against Israel. In reporting on Ahmadinejad’s horrific threat that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” the Times has cleverly re-translated the original Farsi into the far milder wish that Israel should “vanish from the pages of time.” (Ethan Bronner, “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?”, New York Times, June 11, 2006)

Of course, the Times’ mistranslation ignores the fact that the Iranian government has erected billboards with the phrase “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world” in plain English, and the slogan is painted on Iranian ballistic missiles.

The English section of Ahmadinejad’s own website quotes him as saying that Israel “will be wiped off the map.” (“President Says Zionist Regime of Israel Faces Deadend,” June 3, 2008) And Dariush Rezaiinejad, chief commander of Iran’s Basij militia, has stated clearly: “We have no option but to have the Zionist regime wiped off the map.” (“IRGC Basij: No Choice But to Wipe Out Israel,” Home Daily News – Iran, July 27, 2011)

But all of this has been erased from the New York Times, the increasingly-questionable “newspaper of record.”

Jimmy Carter’s Blindfold on Iran

5 Feb

Our old friend Jimmy Carter is at it again, this time downplaying the Iranian threat to Israel.

This week, when asked by Time magazine for his take on Iran obtaining the means to build nuclear bombs, Carter replied:

“Well, of course, the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they’re not going to manufacture nuclear weapons. If they are lying, then I don’t see that as a major catastrophe because they’ll only have one or two military weapons. Israel probably has 300 or so.”

First, Carter is not quite sure whether the Mad Mullahs are the kinds of guys we should place our trust in. I mean they have “sworn on their word of honor,” right?

Secondly, Carter is not quite sure whether “one or two” nuclear bombs would be a “major catastrophe.”

Maybe it won’t be a major catastrophe for Jimmy Carter, whose foundation, the Carter Center, has pocketed million-dollar donations from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Osama bin Laden’s brothers.

But it sure would be a catastrophe for myself and the other 8 million residents of Israel. Not to mention the entire free world.

Even if Iran decides not to push the button, the mere possession of nuclear weapons would change the balance of power in the Middle East – and world oil markets – in a radical direction. It would likely trigger a nuclear race in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and elsewhere. For Israel, it could cause a wave of emigration and scare off millions of tourists that form the heart of Israel’s economy.

As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his pronouncements to “wipe Israel from the map,” Elie Wiesel had this to say: “I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy’s words of hate seriously.”

But no, Carter can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

Carter has shown a deep anti-Israel streak sine we can remember. This is the same Jimmy Carter who denounced Israel for weapons-smuggling tunnels in Gaza, which he insanely called “defensive tunnel[s] being dug by Hamas.” (Jimmy Carter, “An Unnecessary War,” Washington Post, January 8, 2009)

The same Jimmy Carter whose not-so-subtly named book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, earned the praise of Osama bin Laden. (New York Times, May 7, 2011)

The same Jimmy Carter who called the Shah of Iran “an island of stability” — months before the Khomeini revolution swept through Iran, and who then left 52 American hostages languishing in Iranian captivity for 444 days.

Yet Jimmy Carter purports to be an expert in understanding Iran?!

(All this is documented in my book, David & Goliath)

New York Times Misrepresents “The Third Jihad”

3 Feb

There’s a major scandal brewing and it’s time to blow the lid off it.

The New York Times is taking an extreme politically-correct stance, working to discredit any and all sources that expose insidious Islamist activities in America.

The latest scandal started when Tom Robbins, a reporter from the Village Voice, wrote an article on how the New York Police Department was screening the film, The Third Jihad, to educate officers on the dangers of domestic terror.

Next up to the plate was New York Times reporter Michael Powell, who last week delivered a front-page snow job against the film. I have not studied The Third Jihad in-depth, so I cannot comment on all its content. But what I do know is that the Times’ article, “In Police Training, A Dark Film on U.S. Muslims” (January 23, 2012), is filled with misinformation and bias.

For example, the opening sentence claims that in the film “a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.” The clear implication is that the filmmakers photoshopped this negative image. In truth, the “Islamic flag flying over the White House” is taken straight from an Islamic film. In other words, the image supports the film’s concern over radical Muslim groups operating in America – which the Times flips around to attack the credibility of the film!

Another example: The Times tries to discredit the film by portraying it as broadly anti-Islam, alleging that the film declares: “This is the true agenda of Islam in America.” Yet the Times fails to mention the disclaimer at the beginning of the film which clearly states: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

After complaints this week, the Times amended the quote to read: “This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America.”

Strike two for the Times – that is also a misquote! The actual line from the film is: “This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America.” Thus far, the Times has refused to correct the article, nor print a letter to the editor setting the record straight – using the excuse that “the Letters section won’t publish anything that refutes matters of fact and only publishes matters of opinion.” Right.

Again, my purpose is not to judge the content of the film. (The Third jihad is now available for free online viewing, so you can judge for yourself.)  But if there is to be an intelligent public debate about the film’s value, the starting point must be a factual presentation in the media.

Meanwhile, the Times has been hammering this story all week – running two news reports and three op-eds against the film. So what do you think happened when Tom Ridge (former head of Homeland Security) and Jim Woolsey (former CIA Director) submitted an op-ed defending the film? That’s right, the Times refused to print it.

This is all part of a pattern in the media toward hiding domestic Muslim threats. As I document in my book, David & Goliath, political correctness has spawned a phenomenon whereby the New York Times dodges the “M-word” whenever Muslims commit heinous crimes. A few examples:

• When 17 Canadian members of an Islamic terror cell were arrested on charges of plotting to bomb targets near Toronto, the Times managed the remarkable feat of publishing an 1,843-word report without once calling them “Muslims.” The only identifying information provided by the Times was that they are of “South Asian descent” and “represent the broad strata” of society. (“17 Held in Plot to Bomb Sites in Ontario,” June 4, 2006)
• When eight people – all Muslims – were arrested in the UK for plotting car bombings, the Times referred to them simply as a “disenfranchised South Asian population.” (“Britain at Top Terror Alert After Air Terminal is Struck,” July 1, 2007)
• In 2009, when four New York men were arrested for plotting to bomb synagogues and “bring death to Jews,” the Times hid the M-word until the ninth paragraph. (“4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues,” May 20, 2009)
• And when Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the failed Times Square car bombing in 2010, the Times ran a 900-word article with no mention of the M-word, even as information was available that Shahzad had admitted to training at an Islamist terror camp in Pakistan. (“Suspects in Terror Case Wanted to Kill Jews, Officials Say,” May 12, 2011)

This week, we saw more of these media gyrations with the Third Jihad controversy. Writing in Forbes magazine, Abigail R. Esman observes how the Times is mixing up who are the bad guys here:

Much of what the Times objects to is a group of clips from You-Tube videos in which Islamist leaders speak of taking over the United States, of their dream of flying the flag of Islam from the White House, of the importance of destroying the infidel. The Times, however, in describing the film as “hateful,” does not mean that these clips themselves are hateful; no, they mean that allowing the NYPD to see that they exist is hateful. In other words, they have no problem with the video clips themselves; but with those who expose them…
[In the view of the New York Times, the fact] that the NYPD, which is responsible for maintaining public safety in the world’s top target for Islamic terrorists, should happen to be provided this information, apparently not only unnecessary, but egregious.

Beyond all the inaccuracies, the Times’ advocacy journalism is being used by the pro-Muslim group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) to pressure NYC police chief Ray Kelly to resign. CAIR, as we know, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial, which was shut down by the U.S. government for funding Hamas to the tune of $12 million.

Here’s the real irony: While the premise of The Third Jihad is to expose the pressure, intimidation and manipulation tactics of groups (such as CAIR) who are trying to stifle exposure of Islamists operating in America, the “newspaper of record” is now aiding and abetting those very efforts.

Stay tuned. This is bound to get even more interesting.