Donate

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.

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

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

In Dealing with Iran, the U.S. Can Learn from Ronald Reagan

When Ronald Reagan arrived at the White House in 1981, the consensus was that, with regard to the Soviet Union, two responsible policy choices presented themselves: détente, or a return to the Truman-era policy of containment. Reagan, however, insisted that the USSR’s influence could not just be checked but rolled back, and without massive bloodshed. A decade later, the Soviet empire collapsed entirely. In crafting a policy toward the Islamic Republic today, David Ignatius urges the current president to draw on Reagan’s success:

A serious strategy to roll back Iran would begin with Syria. The U.S. would maintain the strong military position it has established east of the Euphrates and enhance its garrison at Tanf and other points in southern Syria. Trump’s public comments suggest, however, that he wants to pull these troops out, the sooner the better. This would all but assure continued Iranian power in Syria.

Iraq is another key pressure point. The victory of militant Iraqi nationalist Moqtada al-Sadr in [last week’s] elections should worry Tehran as much as Washington. Sadr has quietly developed good relations with Saudi Arabia, and his movement may offer the best chance of maintaining an Arab Iraq as opposed to a Persian-dominated one. But again, that’s assuming that Washington is serious about backing the Saudis in checking Iran’s regional ambitions. . . .

The Arabs, [however], want the U.S. (or Israel) to do the fighting this time. That’s a bad idea for America, for many reasons, but the biggest is that there’s no U.S. political support for a war against Iran. . . .

Rolling back an aggressive rival seems impossible, until someone dares to try it.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Cold War, Iran, Politics & Current Affairs, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Foreign policy