Where Do New York Times Editors Think Anti-Semitism Comes From? The Sky?

A front-page story on European anti-Semitism appeared in the New York Times in September. It contained, as Matthew Continetti notes, “no breaking news, no revelations, no surprising analyses, and no startling perspectives.” Nor did the paper draw any connection between its “discovery” of a resurgence of anti-Semitism and the poisoned climate of opinion fostered in European—or American—media, prominently including the Times itself, with their constant and relentless harping on the alleged sins of of the state of Israel. But that connection, writes Continetti, is inescapable and pernicious:

Throw a dart, and it will land on a publication or media company whose feelings toward Israel are, in a word, bellicose. The Independent, the Guardian, the Economist, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, Vox, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the Lancet—they all portray Israel as rapacious and the Palestinians as helpless victims of Jewish sadism. Their fixation on Israel becomes a fixation on Jews that creates a noxious climate of opinion, breeding conspiracy theories, accusations of dual loyalties, intimidation, even violence.

And when these fumes come “out of the shadows,” and make contact with an environment in which anti-Zionists and anti-Semites reside, the hazards, as we see in the Middle East and in Europe, are real. And they are deadly.

Read more at Commentary

More about: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Media, New York Times

As Hamas’s Reign of Terror Endures, the International Community Remains Obsessed with Jews Living in the Wrong Places

On Thursday, foreign ministers of the G-7—the U.S., Canada, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—along with the EU, made an official “statement on the situation in the West Bank,” an area where they are very concerned, it appears, that too many Jews are dwelling. In particular, the G-7 condemned Israel’s decision to grant municipal status to five ad-hoc villages built without proper permits. Elliott Abrams comments:

I can see “condemning” murder, terror, kidnapping, and “rejecting” that legalization. Indeed in the next sentence they “reject the decision by the government of Israel to declare over 1,270 hectares of land in the West Bank as ‘state lands.’” Building houses should not be treated with language usually reserved for murder.

The statement then added complaints about the Israeli settlement program more generally, and about Israel’s decision to withhold some tax revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Why does Israel ever withhold such funds? Sometimes it is in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Sometimes it’s domestic politics. But it’s worth remembering something else: the Taylor Force Act, which became law in 2018 and stated that the “Palestinian Authority’s practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror.” Until those payments cease, most forms of aid from the U.S. government to the Palestinian Authority may not be made. The payments continue. It is not clear if the State Department is pressuring the Palestinian Authority to end them.

Such moral considerations are entirely absent from the G-7 statement. The statement may be correct when it says, “maintaining economic stability in the West Bank is critical for regional security.” But it should be obvious that ending the pay-for-slay program and rewards for terrorism is even more critical for regional security. It’s a pity the G-7 did not find time to mention that.

The statement, it’s worth noting, appeared on the U.S. State Department website.

Read more at Pressure Points

More about: Europe and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terror, U.S. Foreign policy, West Bank