The “New York Times” Gives Anti-Semitism a Pass, Again

Oct. 20 2020

On Saturday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Natalie Hopkinson, a professor of Communication, Culture, and Media Studies, about the behind-the-scenes role played by women in organizing Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 march on Washington, thereby rendering it more effective and saving it from the taint of being “patriarchal.” The article made no mention of Farrakhan’s more disturbing statements about women or homosexuals, let alone his vicious anti-Semitism. To Ira Stoll this is yet more evidence that the Times will trip over its feet to avoid every sort of prejudice, except for that against Jews:

The op-ed piece appears . . . under the headline “Behind the Million Woman March.” It is subheadlined, “Behind every great feat in the public record lies an untold story of the unsung foot soldiers.”

[The current opinion-page editor] Kathleen Kingsbury, told staffers when she took over: “Anyone who sees any piece of opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.” That policy, as it’s been implemented, gives even the most junior staffers the power to halt the publication of an opinion piece by marking it with a “red flag” in the paper’s editorial system.

Did the article headlining Farrakhan’s “great feat” and ignoring his antisemitism not trigger even “the slightest pause” at the Times editorial page?

Perhaps more disturbing still is Hopkinson’s reaction to criticism on Twitter. She might have resorted to the simple defense that her article was a historical consideration of one aspect of the march, that she was given only 1,000 words to make her point, and that it was not the place for a discussion of Farrakhan’s merits or shortcomings. Instead, she went on the offensive, upbraiding one critic for failing to “center the marchers” or “Black women who are named” in her article, adding that her interlocutor’s concern over anti-Semitism in this context is an example of “privilege,” and a desire to “center” oneself and one’s feelings. In another post on the matter, Hopkinson wrote that those “who have become white [i.e., Jews] should not be lecturing Black ppl [sic] about oppression.”

Of course, it is Farrakhan himself who is guilty of “centering” Jews, as he believes that they are at the root of understanding the injustices that have befallen African Americans in the past three centuries.

Read more at Algemeiner

More about: Anti-Semitism, Louis Farrakhan, New York Times

In Prospective Negotiations with Iran, the U.S. Has the Upper Hand. President-Elect Biden Is Determined Not to Use It

In a recent interview with a writer for the New York Times, Joe Biden expressed his willingness to reenter the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran (formally known as the JCPOA) without new preconditions. Noah Rothman comments:

[S]ome observers believe Biden has provided himself with an escape hatch. Biden reiterated his insistence that there could only be a new deal so long as “Iran returns to strict compliance.” [But if] Iranian compliance were a real sticking point, Biden might have dwelled on—or even mentioned in passing—the kind of inspections regime that would verify such a thing. But he did not.

[Under the terms of the deal], Iran provided inspectors access to declared nuclear sites but not military sites where illicit activities were likeliest to occur. A subsequent agreement allowed inspectors to access suspected sites but only with at least 24-days-notice—enough to dispose of the evidence of small-scale work on components related to a bomb. But functionally, that 24-day timeline could be reset by Iran, which could stretch the delays out for weeks—ample time to deceive inspectors.

The JCPOA was never designed to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear-nation status. It was only aimed at dragging that process out while reshuffling the region’s geopolitical deck in Iran’s favor and ultimately providing a patina of legitimacy to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Any talk about exhuming and reanimating this agreement that glosses over its weak verification regime suggests that the Biden administration, like the Obama administration, will settle for any deal—even a bad one.

Such an approach seems particularly shortsighted when the Islamic Republic has been pushed onto the defensive, reeling from economic woes, the devastating effects of the coronavirus, and a series of assassinations. Rather than press America’s advantage, when “Iran is on the ropes,” writes Rothman, Biden “is committed to negotiating from a position of weakness.”

Read more at Commentary

More about: Iran, Joseph Biden, U.S. Foreign policy