Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: New York Times

Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Monday, June 09, 2025

The @NYTimes master class in anti-Israel slander while adhering to journalistic "ethics": implying the IDF illegally uses poison gas

The New York Times Patrick Kingsley visited the tunnel directly underneath the European Hospital where Gaza leader Mohammed Sinwar was killed.

This section of the article is a perfect example of how a reporter can subtly accuse Israel of war crimes without violating any journalistic standards:

When we entered the tunnel on Sunday, we found it almost entirely intact. The crammed room where Mr. Sinwar and four fellow militants were said to have died was stained with blood, but its walls appeared undamaged. The mattresses, clothes and bedsheets did not appear to have been dislodged by the explosions, and an Israeli rifle — stolen earlier in the war, the soldiers said — dangled from a hook in the corner.

It was not immediately clear how Mr. Sinwar was killed, and General Defrin said he could not provide a definitive answer. He suggested that Mr. Sinwar and his allies may have suffocated in the aftermath of the strikes or been knocked over by a shock wave unleashed by explosions.

If Mr. Sinwar was intentionally poisoned by gases released by such explosions, it would raise legal questions, experts on international law said.

“It would be an unlawful use of a conventional bomb — a generally lawful weapon — if the intent is to kill with the asphyxiating gases released by that bomb,” said Sarah Harrison, a former lawyer at the U.S. Defense Department and an analyst at the International Crisis Group.

General Defrin denied any such intent. “This is something that I have to emphasize here, as a Jew first and then as a human being: We don’t use gas as weapons,” he said.

The evidence that the reporter saw was a mostly undamaged room with bloodstains. The Israeli general suggested two possible scenarios - suffocation as a secondary result of bombings, or a shockwave. He then quotes an expert saying if Israel's intent was to kill with gases from the bomb that would be illegal.

I asked an AI to rank the possibilities of how they died given the evidence. A shockwave is the most likely scenario: the pressure from a shockwave can easily cause internal injuries which would result in coughing blood.

#2 is that explosions nearby could consume the oxygen in the room, suffocating the people. Blood is less likely but possible from people struggling to breathe, yet the amount of blood described makes this seem unlikely.

Every other scenario (damage from shrapnel or debris from the airstrikes, tunnel damage) do not fit the evidence at all.

And intentional use of poison gas is the very bottom of the list: there would be no blood, there is zero evidence that the IDF would use that method.

So why is that possibility even discussed?

Did the legal expert bring this possibility up on her own? That seems unlikely, since forensics is not her area of expertise. It seems that Kingsley asked her about the legality of Israel intentionally using bombs with the intent to gas the terrorists to death (with the carbon monoxide that bombs might release?) something that makes no military sense.

So Kingsley made upo a war crime scenario, he got an expert to confirm that it could be a war crime, and he then could credibly quote the expert to surface the possibility, He then asks the general, who of course denies it, and now he created a "he said/she said" story out of literally nothing, but subtly implying for readers that there is a 50% chance that this could have happened that way.

It is the equivalent of asking an animal rights expert "If the IDF is strangling puppies with their bare hands, would this be an animal rights issue?" and then quoting an Israeli denial that they strangle puppies. See? They quoted both sides!

This is a particularly disgusting slander that is perfectly ethical according to journalistic standards. And the editors at the New York Times happily allow this one-sided reporting to be published.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Who is more antisemitic: The Heritage Foundation or the New York Times?

Michelle Goldberg writes in the New York Times:

In The New York Times this weekend, Katie J.M. Baker described a fund-raising pitch that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that gave us Project 2025, made for a campaign to crush a subversive movement that threatens “America itself.”

The pitch, she wrote, “presented an illustration of a pyramid topped by ‘progressive “elites” leading the way,’ which included Jewish billionaires such as the philanthropist George Soros and Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois.” Whether intentionally or not, Heritage was deploying a classic antisemitic trope, the notion of the wealthy Jewish puppet master. In the contemporary version of this conspiracy theory, Soros looms especially large; the Anti-Defamation League has multiple pages on its website about the antisemitic underpinnings of right-wing claims that Soros is working to destabilize society.

Really? The Heritage Foundation published a pyramid that singled out Jews as puppet-masters?

I wanted to see this pyramid myself.

The top tier includes seven people, of whom only two are Jews.

That context changes the accusation of antisemitism a bit, doesn't it?

I haven't studied the Heritage Foundation's Project Esther in detail to see if the criticisms hold any water, but even the criticism of the Heritage Foundation mentioned disparagingly in the previous New York Times article shows how it is the NYT that is twisting facts, not the Heritage Foundation:

But the group decided to begin their own national task force and released a statement of purpose that affirmed a definition of antisemitism that is hotly debated because it considers some broad criticisms of Israel to be antisemitic.

Statement of Purpose
Antisemitism: We recognize any attempt to delegitimize, boycott, divest, or sanction the modern [state] of Israel or bar Jews from participating in academic or communal associations must be condemned. 

We recognize that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the different manifestations of the same hatred against Jewish people.

Let us be clear: anti-Zionism is not "broad criticisms of Israel." By definition, anti-Zionism states that Israel is - uniquely among all nations - illegitimate, and that the concept of a Jewish state itself is racist, while Arab and Muslim and Christian states are all kosher.

Anyone who claims that "anti-Zionism" is identical to "criticism of Israel" is being knowingly disingenuous. And that includes the New York Times here.

So here we have two examples where the New York Times is whitewashing antisemitism - one by extending a definition of antisemitism to include criticizing anti-Zionist Jews, and the other by limiting the definition of antisemitism by claiming that wanting the Jewish state destroyed is legitimate criticism and has nothing to do with Jews.

By summer 2024, Heritage had finalized a national strategy that aimed to convince the public to perceive the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States as part of a global “Hamas Support Network” that “poses a threat not simply to American Jewry, but to America itself.”

Once again, we must see if the facts support the Heritage Foundation or its critics.

Have we ever seen any of these "pro-Palestinian" groups condemn Hamas, outside of pro-forma "condemnations' of October 7 that end up blaming Jews for Hamas' actions? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Which means that the Heritage Foundation's characterization of them being part of the Hamas "support network" is in fact accurate - their failure to hold Hamas to any standard whatsoever while demanding Israel adhere to their idea of moral perfection is effectively supporting Hamas.

Even their criticism that many of Project Esther's supporters are Christian, not Jewish, show their hypocrisy. Because the moral yardstick that they demand of Israel is not Jewish at all, but Christian - they are saying Israel must turn the other cheek in response to October 7, that destroying the terror group is a "disproportionate" response and that Israel should at best drop some symbolic bombs in open spaces to restore balance between the Jewish state and the Islamist terror group.

They effectively endorse Hamas' use of every Gazan as a human shield.

Maybe Project Esther goes too far; as I said, I have not examined it. But if these are the worst accusations that the New York Times can find against it, then it is the NYT's moral compass that is askew, not the Heritage Foundation's. And it is the New York Times that tacitly whitewashes some forms of antisemitism.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Once again, @PeterBeinart in the @NYTimes supports those who violate Jewish rights on campus

Peter Beinart writes in the New York Times with an article originally titled "You Want to Protect Jewish Students? What About Jewish Student Protesters? and later "Trump Doesn’t Want to Protect All Jewish Students — Just Those on His Team."

You can already see where this is going:

On April 29, 2024, Tess Segal, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Florida, joined her fellow activists at a prominent plaza on campus calling on the university to divest from weapons manufacturers and boycott academic institutions in Israel. Some protesters studied or played cards. Later they read obituaries of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip.

Then law enforcement moved in. And although Ms. Segal says she did not resist arrest, she was handcuffed and taken to jail, where she was held overnight.

....In an era in which students without U.S. citizenship are snatched off the street by federal agents, Ms. Segal’s punishment may seem comparatively mild. But her case contains a special irony. Ms. Segal is Jewish.

I didn't spend any time researching this specific case, but it is obvious from Beinart's description that Tess Segal was not arrested or discriminated against because of her Jewishness or her support for the Jewish state. On the contrary, she was part of a campus mob protesting against Jewish rights and to make an exception for academic freedom for Jewish Zionist students who may want to study in Israel or collaborate with their Israeli counterparts.

Beinart can argue all he wants for free speech rights for anti-Zionists, but pretending that Jews are being targeted on campus for anti-Zionist speech and require special protection as Jewish Zionist students do is peak Beinart-style deception.

His deceit extends to other examples in the article:

Since Oct. 7, at least four universities have temporarily suspended or placed on probation their chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace.

He doesn't mention that it was because they violated campus policies. Should Jewish students be allowed to violate policies because they are Jewish? Only if they agree with Beinart's anti-Zionist politics, it seems.

At a pro-Israel event at Rockland Community College at the State University of New York on Oct. 12, 2023, a Jewish student who briefly shouted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Jews for Palestine” was reportedly suspended for the rest of the academic year.

This was an indoor event, a "Unity Gathering in Support of Israel," held while the kibbutzim were still smoldering. Most colleges recognize that disrupting an event is not free speech - it is a violation of the free speech rights of the organizers of the event. In fact, many of the college suspensions of anti-Israel protesters are for that exact reason - there is no inherent right to disrupt normal activities on campus.

Beinart is claiming, in effect, that pro-Zionist Jews do not have the right to have their own events free from being interrupted, disrupted and shut down by protesters. He is against free speech when that speech goes against his hateful "principles."

In May 2024, a Jewish tenured professor in anthropology at Muhlenberg College said she was fired after she reposted an Instagram post that declared, in part: “Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable.”

First of all, the post by Maura Finkelstein also said "Why should these genocide loving fascists be treated any different than any other flat out racist." She is directly saying that 90% of Jews - on campus or anywhere - should not have the same rights as anyone else and calling them fascists. Can anyone who attends her classes feel comfortable?

They don't. Beinart omits the other reason she was fired - because within a week of October 7 she taught two classes of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas propaganda. In her own words, on October 12, "I had dedicated both of my classes to contextualizing the events unfolding in Gaza and giving my students space to ask questions. ...In our first meeting, the provost told me that several Title VI complaints had come to her through the college’s Title IX office; “Multiple students felt you created an unsafe atmosphere and that you have been targeting and harassing them.”

Beinart, skillfully posting half-truths and omitting context about college policies and the events he is describing, is pretending that Jewish students and faculty are being targeted when in most cases they were violating the rights of Jewish students whose opinions they disagree with. On campuses where free speech is supposedly a sacred right, Beinart is supporting those who want to quash it - in one direction.

His last example is even more absurd:

Even when protest has taken the form of Jewish religious observance, it often has been shut down. Last fall, when Jewish students opposing the war during the holiday of Sukkot built Gaza solidarity sukkahs, temporary boothlike structures in which Jews eat, learn and sleep during the holiday, at least eight universities forcibly dismantled them, or required the students to do so, or canceled approval for their construction. (The universities said that the groups were not allowed to erect structures on campus.)

These groups obviously tried to use sukkahs as a way to get around existing regulations against building encampments or other structures by pretending that they are for a religious purpose. They clearly weren't - none of the people who built them would ever build a sukkah for religious purposes. They pervert Judaism for politics, and Beinart pretends that they were just practicing their religion - much like those who blow shofars at any "Jewish anti-Zionist" occasion and pretend that this is a religious obligation.

No one is saying that anti-Israel students, Jewish or not, do not have the right for protests and speech that do not violate campus policies. Beinart is claiming that anti-Zionists, uniquely, have the right to violate campus policies.

This is not a defense of free speech. It is a demand for privileged speech – for one side only.

By selectively presenting facts, omitting crucial context, and portraying violators of others' rights as victims, Peter Beinart is not merely misleading. He is manufacturing antisemitic propaganda: turning those who seek to destroy Jewish communal life on campus into the new “Jewish victims.” And the New York Times eagerly provides him the platform, without even basic fact-checking.

It’s not just deception. It’s complicity.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The @NYTimes @NickKristof whitewashes Palestinian Christian antisemitism

Nicolas Kristof writes in the New York Times:

In the face of this American Christian enthusiasm for crushing Palestinians while saying it is God’s will, I wondered what Palestinian Christians thought. So I visited Bethlehem and asked them.

I didn't quote the beginning of the article where he sarcastically attacks American Christians who support Israel as hypocrites. Let's focus on the main part of his article.

First of all, every single person Kristof spoke to is an anti-Israel activist. He did not speak to random Christians but professional haters. (And I mean "professional" literally. Every one of them makes money from their anti-Israel positions.)

“Do we feel betrayed?” mused Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran Palestinian pastor who is president of Dar Al-Kalima University and, like many Palestinian Christians, against annexation. “Yes, to some extent. Unfortunately, this is not new for us.”

Raheb wrote a book based on the lie that Israel is guilty of "settler colonialism." He does not accept that Jews have any historical, legal or moral rights in their ancient homeland.

He loves to promote the propaganda lie that Jesus was a "Palestinian" and not a Jew from Judea.

Moreover, Raheb is a leader behind the Palestinian Kairos document which uses supersessionist language, the antisemitic idea that the Christian church has replaced Jews as the Chosen People. (Even though most Lutheran churches have rejected Martin Luther's explicit antisemitism, the Palestinian churches do not seem to have done so in practice.) And he embraces the antisemitic Khazar theory, denying Jews are really Jews.

Fewer than 2 percent of West Bank Palestinians today are Christian, but they are an influential minority who endure the same land grabs and hardships as the majority Muslim population.

Funny how Kristof ignores the reason why there are so few Palestinian Christians left compared to 1948. As with the rest of the Middle East, it was Muslim hate for them that forced them out. Seems like a relevant point.

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian Christian writer and the author of the new book “State of Palestine NOW,” says that far-right American Christians have embarrassed the Christians who actually live in the holy land.

“When the Bible is used to justify land theft and war crimes against civilians, it puts the faithful in an awkward position,” he said.

Kuttab himself justifies terrorism against Israeli Jews, even in Tel Aviv. In 2016, after a shooting attack at a cafe that killed four people, he claimed that the attack was a natural reaction to Israel rejecting some forgotten French peace plan: "overdone live @cnn coverage of Tel aviv attack but not a single word on the CONTEXT of the situation, the israeli rejection of french plan?" And he followed up with another post that evoked "context" saying that the attack was Israel's fault.

So this Christian quoted as a moral authority by Kristof justifies war crimes against Jewish civilians. Awkward!

One group in the West Bank where biblical themes of love and justice do prevail is Tent of Nations, a Christian community that promotes nonviolence and declares, “We refuse to be enemies.” It operates on the farm of an old Palestinian Christian family, the Nassars, who have used their property to hold youth camps and advocate peace toward all.

That attitude has not been reciprocated.

Tent of Nations and Daoud Nassar are not exactly supportive of the themes of "love and justice" when it comes to Israeli Jews. Nassar, also a Lutheran, does not reach out to Israeli Jews; he doesn't condemn Hamas attacks like October 7 as far as I can find. His idea of "peace" is a Palestinian state that only has Jews living in fear like most Christians do under Muslim rule.

I am not trying to justify any crimes that may or may not have been done by Jewish settlers against these people. I trust the Israeli judicial system to determine who owns specific lands based on evidence and law, not emotion. But this op-ed goes out of its way to canonize these Palestinian Christians and their antisemitism while attacking American Christians who have shed theirs.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Applying a Jewish ethical lens to identify and call out media bias (@NYTimes, again)

My series on antisemitism has evolved into something broader: using Jewish ethics as a baseline for personal and political judgment. Today, I want to apply this lens to a case of subtle media bias - a recent New York Times article on the International Criminal Court.

Leaders Flex Muscles Against International Criminal Court
The leaders of Israel, Hungary and the United States have moved to neutralize the judiciary both at home and abroad.

There are several things going on here, analysts say, which tie together the affinities of Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and President Trump.

Bonding: The International Criminal Court is the most ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect — version of an global judicial system to enforce human rights. Most liberals love it. Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Trump hate it.

Signaling: Mr. Orban is telling the world that Hungary does what it wants: It may be a member of the European Union, but it is not constrained by it. He’s telling China and Russia that Hungary is open for business. And he’s telling his voters at home that it’s Hungary First all the way.

Testing boundaries: At a moment when global institutions are crumbling and a new order has not yet emerged, no one knows what’s allowed and what’s forbidden anymore.

But Mr. Orban’s defiance of the court is also about something else: a desire to sideline independent judges, both at home and abroad.

“Quite simply, some international institutions have become political bodies,” he told a Hungarian radio program on Friday. “Unfortunately, the International Criminal Court is one of these. It is a political court.”

The power struggles between leaders and judges — whether international or domestic — have become a defining political theme in many countries, including Hungary, Israel, Brazil and the United States.

The article presents a narrative: these three leaders share authoritarian instincts and want to weaken legal checks on their power. The ICC, we’re told, is “ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect.” The reader is left to assume that criticism of the court is just another sign of creeping despotism.

But when we step back and apply a Jewish moral lens, the picture becomes clearer — and the bias more obvious.

Jewish political ethics, which heavily influenced Western philosophy, begin with the idea of covenant (brit). At Sinai, the Israelites voluntarily accepted God’s authority. In return, they became a nation bound by a system of law. That covenantal relationship is the foundation of Jewish nationhood and moral order.

This is the same foundational principle behind Western liberal democracy: the “social contract” described by Rousseau and embedded in the U.S. Constitution. It assumes that power is legitimate only when it emerges from a shared moral agreement between rulers and ruled.

Within that framework, national leaders must be subject to their own legal systems. Jewish ethics demands this, as does the Western tradition it helped inspire. So when leaders attempt to subvert or ignore national courts, it’s morally right to criticize them.

But the International Criminal Court is not grounded in any covenant. It presumes universal jurisdiction - even over nations and individuals who never consented to its authority. This is not law through covenant. This is law through imperium.

The ICC was created through the Rome Statute in 2002. Unlike most international treaties, it explicitly prohibits reservations. Signatories must accept the court’s authority in full or not at all. That’s not a covenant — that’s submission.

Even democratic nations that joined expressed concern. Australia, for example, stated upon ratification, “Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

Spain similarly insisted that any ICC sentence for its citizens must be compatible with Spanish law. These caveats show that even member states were wary of the court’s overreach.

More tellingly, Israel and the United States never joined — and not just under Netanyahu or Trump. Both nations have long been concerned that the ICC could become politicized, would undermine national sovereignty, and lacks the checks and balances that protect fairness in domestic legal systems.

In fact, the Rome Statute includes a war crime category created specifically for Israel, exposing its political nature from the outset and violating the Jewish (and democratic) principle of equal law for all.

The New York Times acknowledges that the ICC is “deeply imperfect,” but then drops it. No elaboration, no context. That small phrase is the only hint that critics of the ICC might have legitimate concerns. But the article doesn’t explore those. Instead, it funnels the entire critique through the lens of autocracy.

This is where the Jewish moral lens becomes essential. It reveals what the article hides: The ICC lacks the covenantal legitimacy Jewish ethics demands. It violates national self-determination - a core moral right.

I cannot read Orban's or Trump's minds. Maybe they really are power-hungry strongmen. But the NYT, by ignoring the deeply problematic nature of the court, doesn't even admit the possibility that they may be defending a deeper ethical principle that justice must be rooted in shared moral commitment, not imposed authority. Without that lens, readers may miss the difference between resisting accountability and resisting illegitimate power.

Jewish ethics doesn’t oppose international law. But it insists that law must emerge from covenant, from mutual responsibility and consent. Without that, “law” becomes just another tool of power. This became clear last year when the ICC rushed to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu while the Gaza war was still ongoing, even though in other cases it has given nations years to demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to prosecute before stepping in.

The ICC lacks covenant. The NYT lacks context. And the moral arguments against both are not partisan, but principled.

Once you put on those Jewish moral glasses, the picture becomes much clearer. And without that framework, it is much easier to be swayed by media bias and propaganda.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Canary Mission cares more about journalistic ethics than the @NYTimes does

The New York Times provides us with a textbook case of media bias while technically staying within the bounds of journalistic ethics.

The actions taken in recent weeks against these foreign students and academics, many of them highly accomplished in their fields, have raised questions about why federal authorities are singling them out, and what role outside groups like Canary Mission are playing in identifying targets for deportation.

The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has said that it does not rely on lists from Canary Mission, and some of the students who’ve been targeted by federal agents do not appear on any of the lists.

Yet some of them do. And immigration lawyers and experts point to coincidences that suggest to them that the information circulated by Canary Mission and another pro-Israel group, Betar, may be providing road maps for ICE enforcement actions.

... Canary Mission, asked if it had shared information on potential deportation targets with federal authorities, said that it had not. “Our investigations of anti-U.S. and antisemitic extremists are all publicly available on our website,” the group said in a statement.

To summarize: There is zero evidence that the US government uses Canary Mission as a resource. The government flatly denies it. Canary Mission denies providing any information to the government. But some biased "experts" "suggest" that it "may" be happening - and that's all the evidence the New York Times needs.

Jonathan Wallace, a lawyer representing one of the seven “deportable” people posted on Canary Mission’s “Uncovering Foreign Nationals” web page, called the group a “predator in the ecosystem that we’re living in right now.” Critics say the lists amount to doxxing, the publishing of private information about someone with malicious intent.

According to documents filed in a lawsuit against Columbia, Dr. Abdou was doxxed by Canary Mission.

Canary Mission's website, along with its mission and methodology, is public. It never publishes private information on the people it writes about. Every piece of information on the site about these individuals is public - their own writings, their own LinkedIn profiles, photos of them in public protests. The Canary Mission site is extraordinarily careful to document everything it says.

The NYT doesn't fact check the "doxxing" lie, even though it easily could. Because better to quote biased "experts" and a lawsuit that does not need to be truthful than to do actual reporting.

In 2018, the Middle East Studies Association, an academic group, published a report, “Exposing Canary Mission,” that compared the group’s tactics to the Red Scare of the 1950s, when the government targeted those purportedly engaged in Communist subversion. The report also accused the organization of “misinformation, omissions, quotations taken out of context and allegations based on guilt by association.”

Again, the New York Times reporters can check whether this is true themselves. They can look through the site and find on their own examples of misinformation or quotes out of context. But instead of doing journalism, it chooses instead to quote a rabidly anti-Israel group that supports boycotting Israel as an unbiased "academic group." They can link to the Ethics section of Canary Mission and let readers decide for themselves whether the site is doing anything unethical.

But they don't. And they won't.

Then the newspaper of record adds more innuendo:

Details about Canary Mission’s leadership, origins and funding are murky, with a few exceptions.
The group has not sought tax-exempt status in the United States, meaning that, unlike most American nonprofit organizations, it does not file disclosure statements about its leadership and budget with the federal government. It also does not list a physical address.

Unlike anti-Israel organizations that claim tax exempt status and spread hate on the American taxpayers' dime, Canary Mission does not seek tax benefits. The NYT suggests that there is something wrong with the organization that does not rip off Americans, that does everything legally and above-board, whose methods and veracity can be independently checked and verified.

Canary Mission cares far more about the truth and ethics than the New York Times does.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Trump is right and the @NYTimes is wrong on clearing explosives from Gaza

The New York Times has a "gotcha" article aimed at Donald Trump: How can Gaza be cleared of explosives when the US has stopped funding NGOs that do exactly that?

The article does not mention the thousands of houses booby-trapped by Hamas; only the unexploded ordnance from Israeli actions. This bias is a major reason the article is highly deceptive. It talks about the difficult work of deminers who have to find and neutralize explosives, but when you include explosives that are deliberately hidden in the walls of residential buildings, you realize that this job goes way beyond the painstaking job of traditional deminers employed by NGOs.

Hamas booby traps are at least as much of a danger as unexploded Israeli ordnance. Many IDF soldiers who were trained to be careful for booby traps were killed by them during the war. The IDF reported in early January that Hamas had booby trapped nearly every building left standing in northern Gaza. Some estimates say that 40% of the buildings in Gaza - some 95,000 buildings - are booby trapped.

In an urban area filled with bombs, it is far safer to raze the entire area than to try to clear each explosive individually.

In 2010, the New York Times knew this. It reported that American forces were razing neighborhoods in Kandahar, Afghanistan, because the homes were so heavily booby-trapped. In that case, the newspaper praised the operation as saving lives. (Interestingly, the NYT has removed the "To Save Lives" part of the original headline.)

In the newly won districts around this southern city, American forces are encountering empty homes and farm buildings left so heavily booby-trapped by Taliban insurgents that the Americans have been systematically destroying hundreds of them, according to local Afghan authorities.

The campaign, a major departure from NATO practice in past military operations, is intended to reduce civilian and military casualties by removing the threat of booby traps and denying Taliban insurgents hiding places and fighting positions, American military officials said.

...In recent weeks, using armored bulldozers, high explosives, missiles and even airstrikes, American troops have taken to destroying hundreds of them, by a conservative estimate, with some estimates running into the thousands.

As bad as Kandahar was, the cities of Gaza are worse.

In a case like this you don't employ NGOs to clear the area. The work that deminers do would take centuries to clear Gaza. The State Department description of how much time it takes to detect and destroy mines on relatively easy terrain shows how absurd it would be to try to duplicate that in tens of thousands of buildings:

Manual humanitarian demining generally proceeds as follows: wearing personal protective equipment, the deminer approaches the edge of the hazardous area with vegetation cutting tools, probe, excavation tools, a tripwire feeler, a metal detector, mine tape, and mine markers, and begins to clear a lane. The deminer visually scans an area approximately one meter wide by half a meter deep, looking for evidence of landmines. Satisfied that no mines are present on the surface or in the vegetation, the deminer sweeps the area with a tripwire feeler. The deminer carefully removes all vegetation to ground level, using a variety of cutters to ensure no piece of brush falls onto the ground and gently places any brush fragments behind him or herself. The deminer uses a metal detector and, if a signal is heard, sweeps the area with the detector to identify the center and edge of the target. A marker is placed at the target location. The deminer then backs off from the marker approximately 20 centimeters and begins probing for the suspected mine at a 30 degree angle. If a mine is found, the deminer excavates sufficient space to place a demolition charge. It is often safer for deminers to destroy the mine in place, using an explosive charge at the end of daily operations. Neutralizing or defusing mines is avoided when possible, as these procedures carry a greater risk of physical harm. This process is repeated meter by meter until the ground is determined to be free from known hazards.

To perform this level of care when there are thousands of bombs hidden in buildings is impossible. Even for deminers, it is safer to explode the bombs than to remove them, meaning the buildings would be heavily damaged or destroyed anyway.

The bombs embedded in the buildings that are still standing are more of a potential risk than the unexploded bombs dropped by the IDF, although both are of course deadly. The Guardian mentioned on January 15

To properly clear Gaza of explosives, you need to practically flatten Gaza. You need an army. You need armored bulldozers and bombs.

It is not only the New York Times. The mainstream media has all but ignored Hamas booby-traps in Gaza houses and buildings, only reporting on them when they kill IDF troops. The Guardian mentioned that a UN official estimated it would take a decade to remove all the explosives in Gaza - and he said that nine months ago before the extent of Hamas booby-traps were known.

Donald Trump called Gaza is a demolition site, and he is correct. If the NYT would look back on its previous articles and deign to report on Hamas booby traps, it would know that this is true.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Evidence mounts that the @NYTimes published faked X-ray pictures of bullets in Gaza children (update)

On Friday, the New York Times published an op-ed that claimed that Israel deliberately executes children in Gaza.

The top photo shows three X-rays and a caption that sets the tone for the article.

The caption:

These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.”

"Head or left side of chest" is an accusation of cold blooded executions.

People who know what they are talking about questioned these images.

Matt Tardio, who is a former sniper:

As a former Law Enforcement Officer, Ret. Special Forces Soldier (Green Beret) and Sniper, I feel confident in saying I know the effects of 5.56 NATO (M855).

Conclusion:
The NYT lied or failed to verify the information presented to them. This is based on the MV and BC of the M855 Ball ammo currently being used by the IDF.

| Analysis |

Dr. Mimi stated she worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. The IDF announced on Aug 9th, 2024 they were beginning another ground operation in Khan Younis. Major combat operations by the IDF were completed on Aug 30th.

This means Dr. Mimi was on the ground in Khan Younis for the entire operation according to her claim. ...

There are two issues with her accusations provided in the photo's and statements.

1- Accuracy
2- Velocity and Penetration

| Ballistics Of The M855 Fired From A 14" Barrel (M4) |

Muzzle Velocity: 2,841 ft/s
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.151 (G7 Drag Scale)
Accuracy: About 4 Minutes Of Angle (MOA)

Even at sea level with high humidity, the M855 fired from an M4 will remain supersonic beyond 500 meters. The M855 Green Tip ammo is designed to penetrate body armor and defeat barricades/cover.

However, this comes at a cost in accuracy. An M4 shooting the M855 round has an average accuracy of around 4 Minutes Of Angle. That is roughly a 4-inch shot group at 100 yards. At 200 yards, the shot group expands to 8 inches. At 300 yards, it increases to 12 inches.

The average diameter of the adult male head is about 8 inches. The size of a child's head will vary based on age. Hitting a 4-inch to 8-inch target at greater than 100 meters with an M4 is a challenge on the range with stationary targets. In combat conditions with moving targets, it would be almost impossible.

The M855 travels too fast at that range and is designed to penetrate. It would easily, without question, pass completely through a child's skull at those ranges. This leads to the next question.

Were the x-ray images the result of ricochets?
Well, no. When projectiles traveling that fast strike another object, they tend to deform and tumble. We would see that represented in the x-rays. We do not.

Cheryl, a forensics ballistics specialist responding to a tweet about the article:

1. The damage to the body by bullet shot depends on the weapon and caliber used. A small low caliber pistol will always have less damage than a high caliber rifle such as the 5.56 you and the article mention.
2. The most important factor that determines the level of damage is velocity. And a 5.56 caliber high velocity rifle as is used by the IDF will therefore have a high degree of damage to the head and skull. None of the most obvious types of damage from any gunshot wound to the head nevertheless a 5.56 high velocity rifle shot are visible.
3. When the bullet hits the skull at high velocity, it bevels into the skull, which means as it’s passing through the skull, the immediate entry is small and clean whereas the exit at the front of the skull inside the head is wider and flared. It splinters the skull bone on entry and creates bone shards that then move with the bullet and cause even more damage.
4. Once the bullet enters the head, especially at high velocity, it heats up and creates a shockwave in front of the bullet which widens as the bullet travels through the head causing more damage. The brain is a solid, soft and highly inelastic organ, which means the damage to the brain is such that it literally mushes. The shockwave on entry causes external gases to enter the head in front of the bullet and thus significant displacement of brain matter very rapidly which in turn causes the head to expand rapidly thus causing primary and secondary fractures in various areas of the skull. NONE such fractures are visible in these X-rays.
5. Back to the velocity of the 5.56 rifle shot, for any bullet to stop in the area shown in any of the X-ray images, the bullets would need to travel at very low velocity. That means either the bullets were fired by low velocity small caliber pistols or the rifle shots would need to have been fired from a very long distance (many hundreds of meters) with pinpoint accuracy. When looking at the images, the caliber of bullets are not the same. The first image has a much shorter bullet than the second, meaning it could not be the same caliber.
Now if the children were deliberately shot in the head and neck, it would mean it would be from close range. With a high velocity 5.56 rifle of the type the IDF use, the bullet would never stop so quickly, ever. The bullet would travel so quickly due to VELOCITY that they would almost always exit the skull or body causing much larger exit wounds. None are visible as the bullets are all magically stopped for the perfect X-ray pose. As you can see, there is no damage to the brain in the X-rays. This is even more true of the neck shots where the bullets barely travel an inch and stop at the spine. This would happen only with very low velocity small caliber handguns such as .22 caliber pistols.
6. Basically, for any of the X-rays to be true, these would need to be low velocity pistols, and not high velocity rifles. The distance of fire would still not be very close range, as the damage is not significant enough. Very close range has higher velocity thus more damage.
I’m quite happy for any other ballistics experts to come and debate the post and article and my analysis above. What I can pretty comfortably say is that these are not head and neck shots by high velocity 5.56 rifles. At best these may be wounds from ricochets which would mean they are not deliberate and completely accidental, and also not from close range, but would account for the much lower velocity. At worst, and more likely, this entire post of yours, and the article, is complete and utter bullshit.

A radiologist:

I am a radiologist, and I believe the images are fake because there is only one view available for all cases and the edge of the bullets is irregular while the edge of bones is smooth.
what we can see on the image:

and the most important is that we DON'T SEE any skull damage along the route of the bullet, while we see a realy small fracture and a suture.

The upshot is that these photos could not come from an IDF sniper deliberately aiming at children. The distance away from the target for the possibility that a bullet would lodge in the skull or neck is far too high for an exact shot at the head or "left side of chest", And if the bullet traveled more than the half mile or so needed for it to pass through a skull and lodge there, it could not be a deliberate shot.

Most likely one or more of these photos are Photoshopped, or otherwise manipulated (i.e., a bullet placed behind the head of a child.)

The entire article, with all the doctors and medics testimony, does not show any evidence of IDF fire in the cases they saw in Gaza. After all, Hamas and the other armed groups in Gaza fire bullets too, and a lot more indiscriminately.

The medics who travel to Gaza are typically anti-Israel to begin with. The author of the article heatedly denied that Hamas ever uses human shields, for example.

The entire piece is a sham, and the faked X-rays are only the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE: Another thing just hit me about the three X-ray photos.

All of the bullets are perfectly perpendicular to the camera.

In real life, the head is 3-dimensional - a bullet could come any angle. It is highly unlikely that most bullets would enter exactly from the front or back of a head, no matter how the person is positioned or which direction they are looking, perfectly positioned for a lateral X-ray image.

But they make for great photos for the media.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

How the @NYTimes censors calls to violence (and actual violence) at anti-Israel protests

The New York Times reported on the Gaza protests in Manhattan yesterday.

The photo caption says, "Demonstrators blocked streets in Lower Manhattan to call for a cease-fire in Gaza on the first anniversary of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel." The "Cease Fire Now" sign is prominently highlighted as the main photo of the article.

The New York Daily News also shows that same sign. But they show it as it was seen for most of the march - behind several other much larger banners that led the demonstration.

Those banners included:

* Justification of Hamas murders, rapes and kidnappings "by any means necessary."

* Calls to "Globalize the Intifada," a direct call for worldwide violence against Jews and others.

* Calls for "resisting the nakba," another keyword they (and Hamas) use for terrorism.

The NYT didn't even allude to the explicit messages of hate and terror that were forced on thousands of Jewish New Yorkers working in Manhattan yesterday.

It gets even worse. The antisemites harassed Jews mourning the victims of 10/7 by explicitly praising the rapists.

It somehow missed this graffiti at Baruch College saying "October 7 Forever."

The "newspaper of record" says "The protests across the city remained peaceful. " Tell that to Democratic Majority for Israel official Todd Richman who was assaulted and bloodied by a mob of "peaceful protesters."

The NYT pretends that the anti-Israel protestors call for peace and an end to war. But Within Our Lifetime and other protesters want war. They want violence. They want another intifada. They justify and call for more Hamas terrorism. They want more October 7ths. They say that as clearly as possible.

They just don't want Israel to defend herself.

It takes effort to highlight the sign the Times want their readers to see and to crop out the ones that disprove their thesis that the protests were for an end to war. It takes effort to avoid reporting on what is right in front of their faces. The NYT went through all that effort.

Because they are reporting propaganda, not the truth.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Gratuitous insult to Israel in @NYTimes story on Marvel changing Sabra's superhero origins

The New York Times reports:

When Marvel Studios announced two years ago that it had cast the Israeli actress Shira Haas to play Sabra, a superhero Mossad agent, in its next “Captain America” film, the news was cheered by Israelis and denounced by Palestinians.

The studio said at the time that the makers of the film, “Captain America: Brave New World,” would be “taking a new approach to the character,” but did not elaborate.

The contours of that reimagined character became clearer on Friday when Marvel released a trailer of the upcoming film. The accompanying announcement made no mention of Sabra as an agent of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, as she is depicted in comic books, but described her as “a high-ranking U.S. government official.”

Remember how upset people get when actors are cast who don't fit the racial or genetic profile of their characters? This may be the first time that an actor was chosen to fit the role, and then they change the role so that the actor's national origin no longer matters.

Anyway, this part of the article is bizarre:

It was not clear whether Sabra — alter ego: Ruth Bat-Seraph — still has Israeli origins in the movie, as her superhero name suggests. “Sabra” is a Hebrew word for a local cactus bush that doubles as an affectionate term for native Israelis. It also the name of a refugee camp in Lebanon where Palestinians were massacred in 1982 by a Christian militia while Israeli troops stood by, though the superhero predated that event.

"Sabra" is the name of a brand of condiments. It used to be the name of a Japanese men's magazine. It is a name of a genus of moths. It is also the name of several towns as well as a church in Sweden.

Except for the hummus, none of them have any relationship with the word Sabra used in the comics. And neither does the refugee camp in Lebanon.

The only reason that the Sabra refugee camp was mentioned is to gratuitously blame Israel for the massacre, which has nothing at all to do with the Sabra character.

Many idiotic Israel haters claimed that the character was named after the massacre. The New York Times wanted to give the readers that same impression, before discounting it.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

In a @NYTimes op-ed, MIchelle Goldberg finds Jamaal Bowman "deeply admirable" while listing his antisemitic credentials (@michelleinbklyn)

These two paragraphs in an op-ed by Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times are Exhibit A in how antisemitism has been normalized and accepted in today's America by the Left.

Goldberg wrote, ahead of yesterday's New York primary that saw George Latimer easily defeat Jamaal Bowman in the Democratic primary:

It was always going to be hard, after Oct. 7, for Bowman to bridge the gulf between his convictions and the expectations of many of his Jewish constituents. His district, which includes a small slice of the Bronx as well as the suburbs of southern Westchester, is among the country’s most Jewish, and many of his voters, traumatized by Hamas’s attack on Israel and by increasingly visible antisemitism in America, wanted someone who would stand resolutely with the Jewish state. Bowman was never going to do that; he was horrified by his encounter with Israel’s occupation during a congressional trip in 2021, and he’s been anguished by the mass death and suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, where he believes Israel is committing a genocide. There is something deeply admirable about his refusal to subordinate his values to political expediency.

But Bowman has also been reckless in stomping on ideological land mines. Among his greatest unforced errors was claiming that reports of Israeli women being raped on Oct. 7 were a “lie” used for “propaganda.” (He later apologized.) Though he says he continues to support a two-state solution, he’s fallen into the left-wing habit of using “Zionist” as an insult, such as when he referred to the “Zionist regime we call AIPAC.” Speaking to Politico, he complained about the “decision” some Jews have made to segregate themselves, which many saw as an insult to the Orthodox communities in his district. I suspect Bowman didn’t know that the idea of Jews as clannish is an antisemitic trope, but when you have lots of Jewish constituents, understanding their sensitivities is part of the job.

Calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide" is antisemitic.
Denying that Israeli women were raped and claiming that it is a propaganda lie is antisemitic.
Using the word "Zionist" as a pejorative is antisemitic.
Complaining that religious Jews live in their own neighborhoods, when they must all be walking distance to synagogues, is antisemitic.

Later in the same article, Goldberg also mentions that Bowman has called Israel a "settler-colonialist project" and privately promised the far-Left to support boycotting Israel from Congress, aligning himself with those who want to see Israel destroyed.

Doing all of this while representing a large Jewish community is not simply an oversight, or reckless, or a series of unforced errors. It is an indication of Bowman's embrace of antisemitism as a key component of his own political stance.

What, exactly, is "deeply admirable" about resolutely refusing to change his antisemitic positions? (And does that make his belated "apology" for denying October 7 atrocities less admirable?)

Goldberg remains perplexed but still admiring at the end of the article despite her own listing of no less than six antisemitic positions that Bowman has taken:

After the rally on Friday, I asked Bowman about choices he’s made that seemed to me like political malpractice. He rejected the idea that he should cater to those who’ve already decided that he’s antisemitic, emphasizing all the other communities in the district that he’s accountable to: “The community living in poverty, the community that can’t afford housing, the community that can’t afford child care” and those who want to see the war in Gaza end. But he can’t represent those communities, I said, if he loses. “If we lose, we lose,” he said. “It’s not about that. It’s bigger than that.”

Would Goldberg say that far right politicians who refuse to change their racist positions when criticized are "admirable"?

Publicly espousing antisemitic positions is acceptable and even praiseworthy as long as it is couched as anti-Israel rhetoric. And we can see it in the pages of the New York Times.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Explaining the huge disconnect between what the @NYTimes is reporting on Gaza aid and what @COGATonline reports

I have been trying for weeks to understand the huge differences between how aid agencies are reporting the number of trucks entering Gaza and how many Israel's COGAT is reporting.

The New York Times published an article, "Access to Aid in Gaza Was Dire. Now, It’s Worse," claiming that the number of trucks entering Gaza has been reduced since May 7 when the IDF took over the Rafah crossing. But COGAT has been reporting that on the contrary, more trucks of goods are entering Gaza.

Here is the Times' graphic:

I superimposed that over the number of trucks COGAT has documented in their social media since May 16.

The differences are huge:

(May 24 figure comes from the difference between COGAT's numbers for the entire week week and the total of the daily reports.)

If you believe the New York Times, the number of trucks never went above the minimum number needed for Gaza. If you believe COGAT, that number has been exceeded most days recently.

The NYT gave this methodology:

Daily truck counts were compiled from multiple sources, including the U.N. dashboard for southern border crossings, meeting minutes from the inter-agency Logistics Cluster, World Food Program reports and updates from COGAT, the Israeli military agency coordinating aid delivery. The counts were cross-checked with multi-date aid truck totals from the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Office of the Spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General.

Daily averages were calculated for the northern crossings from May 12 to May 15, as only a total count for that span of dates was available. Trucks carrying commercial goods are excluded.

That bolded sentence may account for some of the differences, but COGAT sometimes breaks down the categories of imports, and it still doesn't add up. On May 20, COGAT said that it facilitated 376 food trucks alone, and 27 more of water. A similar number wa brought in on May 22. Either there is a huge commercial business of importing food, or something else is going on.

It appears that the answer is buried in the latest UN OCHA-OPT report:

These figures do not include commercial trucks, as the UN has been unable to observe the arrival of private sector cargo through Kerem Shalom crossing due to insecurity. Supplies that are dropped off at the crossing without safety or logistical viability for humanitarian organizations to pick them up are also not included in these statistics.

This explains it. Israel is bringing in plenty of aid, but the aid organizations are not taking them from the crossings to the people.

This makes sense - because COGAT has been begging the aid agencies to work with them, saying that they want to coordinate with any and all aid agencies but they - especially UNRWA - are the ones not cooperating!

Now, why didn't the New York Times mention this? Clearly they are aware of COGAT's statistics, and they know how many actual trucks are entering Gaza. Yet their infographic makes it appear that the aid trucks are not entering Gaza at all.

I could understand if the Times reports on the specific dispute and shows both sets of numbers. But this is all it says, way down the article:

COGAT, the Israeli military agency coordinating aid delivery, has said that increasing the amount of aid going into Gaza remains a priority. It reports daily that it has inspected hundreds of trucks and coordinated their transfer to border crossings, though the figures are often higher than those reported by aid organizations, which track the number of trucks that have collected goods for entry into Gaza and exclude trucks carrying commercial goods.

Neither set of figures accounts for difficulties in distribution that can prevent aid from getting to Gazan civilians. Israel says enough aid is entering Gaza and has blamed aid groups for not distributing it faster to civilians — a characterization the aid groups dispute, saying Israeli forces have made distribution extremely difficult.

By not reporting on the hundreds of trucks being brought into Gaza daily and waiting to be picked up, the New York Times is effectively saying that Israel is not trustworthy. Their claims of hundreds of trucks being brought into Gaza are not even worth counting. Even though it makes no sense for COGAT to go to so much effort to bring in aid and not want to see it distributed, the Times accepts the aid agencies' claims and does not even try to find out the truth.

Beyond that, the commercial goods that no one wants to count are a story in themselves that also contradict the narrative of things getting worse for Gazans since Israel took over the Rafah crossing. This Gaza journalist says that prices in the markets that had been sky high beforehand have gone down dramatically since Israel now controls all imports into Gaza. He says the high prices were the result of Egypt and Hamas controlling the border crossing. If the shortages are getting worse, how can the food be getting cheaper? It is another story the New York Times doesn't want to cover. (h/t Abu Ali Express)

I cannot say for sure that COGAT is not at fault for aid distribution delays. I do not have the information of what is happening between the trucks entering and the aid being distributed, and I do not know details about the commercial imports. But this is exactly what the New York Times should be doing - and it instead already decides who is right and doesn't bother to report on the other side, except perfunctorily.

The idea that Israel is just dumping aid trucks at the crossings and doesn't care what happens afterwards, which is what the aid agencies and the NYT are pretty much saying, is not much better than a blood libel.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!