The “New York Times” Ignored Mahmoud Abbas’s Paranoid Rant about Jewish History

Jan. 17 2018

At a gathering of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s central council on Sunday, Mahmoud Abbas delivered a two-hour speech assessing the current situation of the Palestinians, setting forth his ideas as to how they should proceed, and railing against the Trump administration. He also elaborated on Palestinians’ claims to the land of Israel and the illegitimacy of Jewish claims, and expounded a complex web of conspiracy theories—ranging from the anti-Semitic to the insane—that, to him, explain Palestinian suffering. But none of this made it into the New York Times’ coverage of the speech, as Noah Pollak reports:

Abbas, the Times reports, “stopped well short of embracing an alternative to a two-state solution.” “Abbas said nothing about abandoning it,” the reporter, David Halbfinger, adds editorially. Not only was Abbas promoting peace, “he also shied away from urging the kind of provocative acts,” like ending security cooperation with Israel, that would “shake officials in Jerusalem and Washington.” In fact, Abbas “reaffirmed his commitment to nonviolence.” . . . The Times did allow a discordant note into its report, quoting Abbas saying that Zionism “is a colonial enterprise that has nothing to do with Jewishness.”

But much to Abbas’s annoyance, one imagines, the Times left out all the good stuff, [such as his comment that] “Israel has imported frightening amounts of drugs in order to destroy our younger generation.” Much of the speech was consumed with a lengthy exposition of a multi-century global conspiracy among Europeans, British, Americans, and Jews to steal Palestinian land. “The issue did not start 100 years ago. It started much earlier in 1653 when Cromwell ruled Britain.” Centuries later, he said, Europe “asked the Dutch, who had the largest fleet on earth, to transport the Jews” to the Middle East. . . .

Abbas wrapped up the speech by honoring terrorists, . . . . [noting that] “today is the anniversary of the martyrdom of Abu Iyad Abu al-Houl.” Abu Iyad was the founder of the notorious Black September terrorist group, mastermind of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, and a year later, of the murder of two American diplomats in Khartoum. Abu Iyad, a true Palestinian hero.

That Abbas called out a terrorist for special recognition and honor is important in understanding his mentality and that of Palestinian politics. That the New York Times ignored this detail and so many others like it is important to understanding the mentality of contemporary Western liberalism. Mahmoud Abbas is tired of pretending and wants to tell the world what he really thinks. The New York Times won’t let him.

You have 2 free articles left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

More about: Anti-Semitism, Mahmoud Abbas, New York Times, PLO, Politics & Current Affairs

The Struggle for Iraq, and What It Means for Israel

Oct. 17 2018

Almost immediately after the 2003 invasion, Iraq became a battleground between the U.S. and Iran, as the latter sent troops, money, and arms to foment and support an insurgency. The war on Islamic State, along with the Obama administration’s effort to align itself with the Islamic Republic, led to a temporary truce, but also gave Tehran-backed militias a great deal of power. Iran has also established a major conduit of supplies through Iraq to support its efforts in Syria. Meanwhile, it is hard to say if the recent elections have brought a government to Baghdad that will be pro-American or pro-Iranian. Eldad Shavit and Raz Zimmt comment how these developments might affect Israel:

Although statements by the U.S. administration have addressed Iran’s overall activity in the region, they appear to emphasize the potential for confrontation in Iraq. First and foremost, this [emphasis] stems from the U.S. perception of this arena as posing the greatest danger, in light of the extensive presence of U.S. military and civilian personnel operating throughout the country, and in light of past experience, which saw many American soldiers attacked by Shiite militias under Iranian supervision. The American media have reported that U.S. intelligence possesses information indicating that the Shiite militias and other elements under Iranian auspices intend to carry out attacks against American targets and interests. . . .

In light of Iran’s intensifying confrontation with the United States and its mounting economic crisis, Tehran finds it essential to maintain its influence in Iraq, particularly in the event of a future clash with the United States. The Iranian leadership has striven to send a message of deterrence to the United States regarding the implications of a military clash. . . .

A recently published report also indicates that Iran transferred ballistic missiles to the Shiite militias it supports in Iraq. Although Iran has denied this report, it might indeed attempt to transfer advanced military equipment to the Shiite militias in order to improve their capabilities in the event of a military confrontation between Iran and the United States and/or Israel, or a confrontation between [the militias] and the central government in Baghdad.

From Israel’s perspective, after years when the Iraqi arena received little attention from Israeli decision makers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman have mentioned the possibility of Israel’s taking action against Iranian targets in Iraq. In this context, and particularly in light of the possibility that Iraq could become an arena of greater conflict between the United States and Iran, it is critical that there be full coordination between Israel and the United States. This is of particular importance due to [the American estimation of] stability in Iraq as a major element of the the campaign against Islamic State, which, though declared a success, is not yet complete.

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Institute for National Security Studies

More about: Barack Obama, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Israel & Zionism, U.S. Foreign policy