The New York Times Gets into Serious Falsification Again -- Altering Quotes about Israel

We at Emet m'Tsiyon have already covered several cases where the overrated New York Times distorted facts. We showed how once the NYT changed the meaning of what Pope Francis said to Mahmoud Abbas [= Abu Mazen]. That was a serious falsification because it had the Pope declaring that Abbas was "an angel of peace." What the Pope actually said was that Abu Mazen "could be an angel of peace" [Lei possa essere un angelo della pace].That is, he could be one if he made peace with Israel.

The present case of falsifying a quote does not involve false translation but rather deliberately leaving out several words from a statement by President Trump. Here I thank CAMERA, the media monitor, for bringing this notable NYT falsehood to light.

Trump made a statement on 2 February of this year about Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria:

While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. (Emphasis added.)

Now a video on the NYT website produced by its Jerusalem-based journalists Ian Fisher and Camilla Schick, narrated by Fisher, left out the words in boldface which means that they were significantly altering the meaning of Trump's statement. Instead of what Trump said Fisher and Schick give us this truncated and therefore distorted and misleading version:

The White House had this to say back in February. "While we do not believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements [the missing words belong here] may not be helpful in achieving that goal." Trump publicly asked Mr. Netanyahu to exercise restraint on settlement building. . .

Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA explains the problems of distortion, done for what I see as clearly political partisan reasons [here]. That is, the Jerusalem-based journalists and the NY Times itself on the whole are partisans in favor of the PLO.

Basically, what Trump's actual statement said that it would be all right for Israel to expand the existing settlements, in terms of numbers of housing units, if that expansion did not go beyond the current boundaries of these settlements. Serious politically motivated distortion.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Also see the links below for more on NYTimes hatred of Jews and Israel:
1-- defense of Nazi sympathizer, Linda Sarsour [here]
2-- five NYT anti-Israel op eds -- hatred of Israel intensifies at the NYT [here]

European Union Against Israel, Not against Occupation in Principle

UPDATED 4-3-2016 see at bottom

We do not agree that Israel is now occupying any territory that does not belong to Israel according to international law. But suppose it were. Suppose for the sake of argument that Israel was occupying Judea and Samaria, the heart of ancient Judea, the ancient Jewish homeland that the Jews have traditionally called the Land of Israel and that Greece and Rome called Judea ( IVDAEA, Ioudaia). The European Union claims this all the time and uses this false claim to deny the human and civil rights of Jews. The EU denies Jewish rights to inhabit any land over the 1949 Israel-Transjordan [now Jordan] armistice line. But the EU seldom complains about Turks settling in the Turkish occupation zone of northern Cyprus. We will get back to the EU and Cyprus below.

The EU does not agree to Jews doing business over the 1949 armistice line or running factories or farms there in what was the Jordanian occupation zone from 1948 to 1967 in Judea-Samaria or doing any productive activity there.

The EU also denies those rights to Jews in those parts of Jerusalem captured by Transjordan in 1948 from which Arab irregular forces and the Transjordanian Arab Legion had driven Jews out starting on 30 November 1947 up to the summer of 1948, although Jerusalem was to be an internationally governed enclave where both Jews and Arabs could reside, according to the UN General Assembly recommended partition plan. These areas were captured by Israel in the June 1967 Six Day War after 19 years of Transjordanian [now Jordanian] occupation. Now the EU gets up on a moralistic high horse of hypocritical outrage when Jews again live in those formerly Arab-occupied parts of Jerusalem, whereas there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem going back to 1853, if not before. But the EU says that those areas are occupied. 
This is what the EU said about a recent Israeli decision to recognize a tract of unused land without private owners near Jericho as state land, as it was recognized in the days of the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim empire to be sure, which as such was seen by the Arab Muslims in the Land of Israel as representing them: 

“Israel’s decision … is a further step that risks undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and therefore calls into question Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution,” the EU says in a statement.

“Any decision that could enable further settlement expansion, which is illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace, will only drive the parties to the conflict even further apart,” the EU continues. 

 “The European Union remains firmly opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and actions taken in this context . . ." [here]

The claim of illegality is based, as we know, on two false claims: One, that Israel is an occupying power in Judea and Samaria and the formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem. Two, that people cannot voluntarily migrate to an occupied territory. This second claim is based on a false interpretation of Geneva Convention IV:49:6 (The point is that people are permitted to voluntarily migrate to such territories, even if "occupied."). See here for clarifications on these legal issues.

But the question is whether or not the EU is actually against occupation in principle or simply hostile to Jews and Israel. The question is easily answered. The EU is quite comfortable with living with occupying powers and trading with them without demanding, for example, the labeling of goods produced in the supposed occupied territory as settlement goods or products of an occupied territory.

The proof of EU hypocrisy on this issue is very close at hand. The island republic of Cyprus is very close to Israel, a few score kilometers northwest of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea. Cyprus is also a member of the EU. Yet, about 35% of the island is occupied by Turkey. The fact that northern Cyprus is occupied is recognized by just about everybody, although not by Turkey. Do these facts cause or lead to any massive EU denunciation of Turkey as an occupying power abusing the native population of the occupied territory in an illegal and/or inhuman fashion?
The question is itself laughable. The EU is happy to do business with Turkey and is now agreeing to work to bring Turkey into the Union. But the British press agency, Reuters, does not even want to call Turkey an occupying power which it is. See below how Reuters' wordsmiths get around the O word by using a long euphemism

Addressing a threat by Cyprus to block parts of the deal unless Turkey stops opposing the reunification of the divided island, the Commission paper will propose that opening five new "chapters" in Turkey's negotiations to join the EU -- another promise made in March -- would be "conditional", the official said. [here]

For Reuters, the island is not occupied but merely divided. It had once been unified and the Republic of Cyprus wanted it to be reunified. But how did it become divided? Reuters coyly hides that information.

The French state-owned broadcaster France24 does the same as Reuters:
       EU president Donald Tusk warned Tuesday that hard work lay ahead to finalise the             deal, after Cyprus threatened to derail it over long-standing disagreements with               Turkey. . . . . [here]

How is that for a euphemism for Turkish occupation of part of Cyprus? Long-standing disagreements, no less!!! But further on, the same article gets a little closer to the fact of occupation without actually stating it frankly:
      The island of Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded its          northern sector . . . [here]
France24 answers the question of how the island became divided. The Turkish troops invaded in 1974 and they are still there. But we must not call it "occupation" for that word is reserved for Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, that the League of Nations recognized as parts of the Jewish National Home in 1922.

Far from calling for Turkey to end its occupation of northern Cyprus, the EU leadership is asking Greece and Cyprus for concessions to Turkey on account of the migrant issue. This is despite the fact that Turkey has actually encouraged the refugee flow across the dangerous waters of the Aegean Sea to Greek islands. After all, people smugglers are putting migrants onto unseaworthy craft and/or without life jackets or otherwise letting people go out to sea to die. The Turkish police do not interfere with this. Turkey is a country with thousands of political prisoners. No doubt the police could stop the people smuggling, if the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu wanted them to. The Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras made this point to EU leaders and they most likely knew of and understood the Turkish encouragement to people smugglers before Tsipras told them. The Greek defense minister had also made this point while on a trip to Israel a few weeks ago:
       Mr. Tsipras insisted that the EU must exert pressure on Ankara to put an end to the              flow of refugees and migrants to Greece [here] 

Is it not obvious to all but fools that the EU is not especially against occupation, even the occupation of part of an EU member state? Is it not clear to all that the EU is really against Israel, against Jews, against Jews having rights and safety, and respect? The EU policy towards Jews in Judea and Samaria could rightly be called apartheid and anti-Jewish racism.
- - - - - - - - - 
5-3-2016 Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, despite the treaties around the founding of that state which Turkey also signed:
"Greek Cypriots will no longer require visas to visit Turkey under an EU-Turkey agreement on visa liberalization but this does not amount to Turkish recognition of Cyprus, a Turkish official said on Tuesday.
"Turkey's cabinet has approved waiving visas for EU citizens once the EU relaxes its visa requirements for Turks, according to a decision published in the Official Gazette. The move is one of the 72 criteria required by Brussels.
"The official confirmed the deal would also apply to Greek Cypriots."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See how Turkish president Erdogan operates outside of his own country:
4- 1-2016 Report in Foreign Policy of thuggish, unacceptable behavior by Erdogan's bodyguards in Washington at the Brookings Institution which had invited Erdogan to speak [here]
7-17-2016 Steve Kramer writes on BDS and particularly discusses the EU hypocrisy in regard to boycotting Israel [here]

Congressman Ackerman Denounces J Street

UPDATING 1-31-2011 at bottom

Congressman Ackerman (D-NY) has denounced J Street for supporting the Arab/PLO/Palestinian Authority-sponsored resolution that the PLO/Palestinian Authority submitted to the UN insecurity council. This proposed resolution denies the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria, parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, recognized as part of the Jewish National Home in international law. Ackerman's criticism of J Street does not go as far as I would like, but it is an acknowledgement that this fake outfit is no friend of Israel. For those who may be unaware, J Street is funded by super rich George Soros, some mysterious millionaires in Hong Kong and an assortment of Arabs and pro-Arab and pro-Iranian lobbyists in Washington. J Street was founded in order to create support for Pres. Obama's anti-Israel position within the Jewish community in the USA. The head of JStreet, Jeremy Ben-Ami said this explicitly.

For more info on J Street, see the Jikileaks website. The link to Jikileaks is near the top of our blogroll. We welcome Congressman Ackerman's position on this matter and hope that he will continue to expose the two-faced nature of J Street.
See his press release below:

News from Congressman Gary Ackerman

5th District – New York
Queens & Long Island

January 25, 2011

Contact: Jordan Goldes, 718-423-2154

ACKERMAN BLASTS J-STREET SUPPORT FOR UN CONDEMNATION OF ISRAEL

U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), the presumed Ranking Democratic member of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia issued the following statement today:

“After learning of J-Street’s current public call for the Obama Administration to not veto a prospective UN Security Council resolution that, under the rubric of concern about settlement activity, would effectively and unjustly place the whole responsibility for the current impasse in the peace process on Israel, and—critically—would give fresh and powerful impetus to the effort to internationally isolate and delegitimize Israel, I’ve come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated.

It is not Israel that is refusing to enter final status negotiations. It is not Israel that has refused again and again to make unilateral gestures of good faith (recall the hundreds of West Bank security checkpoints and roadblocks removed, and the 10 month settlement freeze). It is not Israel that is now trying to force the peace process back in to the same dead-end from which the Obama Administration has spent the past month trying to extract itself. But astonishingly, it is Israel that J-Street would put in the stocks in the public square.

The decision to endorse the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council, is not the choice of a concerned friend trying to help. It is rather the befuddled choice of an organization so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.

America really does need a smart, credible, politically active organization that is as aggressively pro-peace as it is pro-Israel. Unfortunately, J-Street ain’t it.”

- - - - - - -

UPDATING 1-31-2011 Jeremy Ben-Ami, faker in chief at JStreet, apologized to Congressman Ackerman for insulting him after the congressman's criticism last week [here]

British Minister Suggested a Boycott of "Settlement" Products to the "Palestinian Authority"

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

We have said before that the United Kingdom is a great enemy of Israel. Of course, I realize that many British people in all four components of the kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are sympathetic to Israel, even very sympathetic. But the British government has been hostile to Jews and Israel for many years, although this hostility is usually covered by a mist of slick hypocrisy, sanctimonious posing and the like. Yet the hostility goes back to the beginning of British mandatory rule in Israel, designated as the Jewish National Home by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations. Since then the UK govt has perpetrated several velvet-gloved assaults on the Jews and Israel. Among the highlights are the 1939 "White Paper on Palestine," the refusal to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the death camps like Treblinka, etc., the use of the British armed forces to keep Jews out of the Jewish National Home during the Holocaust, when the Jews most needed a home, the pressure by British diplomats on southern European countries not to let Jewish refugees embark from their ports to escape Nazi genocide, the acquiescence by Britain's Foreign Office in the 1941 Farhud massacre of Jews in Baghdad, the post-WW2 refusal to let Jewish Holocaust survivors into the Jewish National Home, the encouragement to Arab states and the palestinian Arab leadership to fight against the rise of a Jewish state [as envisioned in the Jewish National Home principle]. The last item entailed supplying weapons to Arab armies and actual intervention in combat against the Jewish forces by British tanks, artillery, fighter aircraft, and ground forces.

The rise of Israel and its survival and demonstrated ability to defend itself caused great disappointment among highly placed persons in London and throughout the Empire. The failure of conventional warfare by the Arab armies in 1948-1949 led to an intensified psychological and cognitive warfare effort against the Jews and the Jewish national state. This effort culminated in production of the "palestinian people" notion, a people invented for political/diplomatic purposes, a people that had never existed in history as a people or nation. The harm done to Israel and the Jews by this invented notion is incalculable. Of course, it cannot be easily proven that British psywar experts invented the "palestinian people," but there is much evidence for this assertion.

Now British diplomacy shows once again that the UK is as hostile and dangerous for the Jews as are the Arab states as a group. The Palestinian Authority deputy minister of the economy, Abdel Hafez Nofal, revealed that the British minister of trade had suggested to him that the PA institute a boycott of products of Israeli settlements, that is, products of any Israeli community or factory or plant across the 1949 armistice line from the pre-1967 Little Israel, the rump of the Jewish National Home territory left to the Jews after the War of Independence. So a British minister recently prodded the PA into ordering a boycott by its population of Jewish products made in the wrong place, that is, on the wrong side of the armistice line. To be sure, since Arab workers too work in many of the Jewish-owned plants, we could say that the products are also Arab in part. Here is the quote:

. . . Abdel Hafez Nofal, 56 years old, Palestinian deputy minister of the Economy. He is "Mr Boycott": "Everything started when the English minister of Trade said to me, 'We have decided to boycott the products of the settlements. And you?'"
[Il Sole- 24 Ore, 22 October 2010; p12]

. . . Abdel Hafez Nofal, 56 anni, vice ministro palestinese dell'Economia. "Mister Boycott" è lui. «Tutto è incominciato quando il ministro del Commercio inglese mi disse: "Noi abbiamo deciso di boicottare i prodotti delle colonie. E voi?"
[qui]

It is not fully clear whether, when the British minister said "We have decided. . .", that the "we" referred to the British or to the EU. In any case, it is likely that the UK took the lead in the EU in pushing for a boycott.

So here we have another British effort for greater peace and greater international understanding. And treating Jews like the British govt thinks that they ought to be treated. Of course, Britain, like the Arabs, does not want to admit any wrongdoing against Jews. But if the UK admitted its ugly Holocaust record of refusing refuge to Jewish refugees from the Nazis, that might be a contribution to Middle East peace. And if not to peace, then to a greater understanding of history.

CLARIFICATION:
The statement by the PA economics minister may not be totally accurate. This is because neither the EU nor the UK has an explicit, formal policy to boycott goods produced in Jewish communities across the Green Line [the 1949-1967 armistice line]. However, it's obvious that both EU and UK are tending in that direction.The EU requires products from Judea/Samaria to be labelled as such but does not require a distinction between goods made by Jews and goods made by Arabs. On the other hand, the UK government has a "voluntary" agreement whereby foodstuffs made/grown by Jews in Judea-Samaria are labelled differently from foodstuffs made/grown by Arabs in the same area.

Further, the constant vilification of Israel in UK media --not all to be sure, but significantly on the BBC which is a state body with its policy on foreign affairs dictated by the Foreign Office-- indicates the direction of UK state policy. The Guardian, Independent [sic!] and several other UK papers specialize in vilifying Israel, often using traditional Judeophobic themes. Then several ostensibly non-governmental bodies in the UK, such as the university teachers union, advocate a boycott of Israeli universities, whereas the Trades Union Congress [TUC], I am informed, advocates a boycott of settlement products. I have no doubt that these non-governmental bodies are not only influenced by hostile UK media but by govt officials as well as govt operatives within their ranks.

Both the previous Labour govt and the present "Conservative" govt are capable of favoring a boycott of settlements as well as a total boycott of Israel, as some loud-voiced academics already advocate. These "civil society" groups provide a moral cover for any anti-Israel move by the govt itself now or in the future. The British govt may have already taken a decision to implement a boycott of settlement products at some opportune moment in the future. In such an eventuality, it would be helpful if the Palestinian Authority were already implementing such a policy so that the UK govt would not seem to be "more Arab" or "more palestinian" than the Arabs/palestinians. If such a decision has already been taken and conveyed to the PA, as Minister Nofal asserts, then his statement would be both accurate and instructive.
- - - - - - - - -
The palestinian Authority's boycott policy in action [here].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The notion of a "palestinian people," previously unknown to history, including to Arab historians, has its parallels in other states/peoples/nations without a history created for political convenience by Great Powers. Consider "Panama" which was simply part of Colombia, created in order to facilitate building of the Panama Canal by the USA, and Pakistan, formed by Britain out of mainly Muslim regions of India, to fulfill the demand of the Indian Muslims for a separate state so as not to be ruled by Hindus who were the majority in India.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other links on British hostility to Israel and Jews.
here1&here2&here3&here4&here5&here6&here7&here8
&here9&here10