NYT Is A Jewish-Owned Paper, But It Really Doesn't Support Jews
During World War II, as it has since recognized, the New York Times, a Jewish-owned newspaper, did almost no reporting on the Holocaust, giving stories of Nazi atrocities against Jews short shrift and burying them far back in the paper.
The shocking thing is that even now, the NYT seems ashamed of its Jewish ownership, fearing perhaps that it might adversely affect its circulation and cost it public esteem. The paper is gutless. It doesn't practice fairness toward its own co-religionists.
The Times' desire not to be seen as Jewish-owned is in evidence again this week, as the paper fails to support Israel in its fight to prevent Arab terrorists from realizing their objective of destroying Israel, now the most populous home of Jews on Earth.
We see that clearly in today's editorial on the present conflict in the Middle East. The last paragraph of the editorial, which is a plea for premature diplomacy, declares, "These differences need to be worked out over the next few days, so that the killing and human suffering can stop as soon as possible. Washington is right to press for the release of the Israeli soldiers held hostage. But this should not be a precondition for the earliest possible cease-fire. Many lives and the stability of the wider region depend on achieving a quick halt to the fighting."
So, here, the NYT adopts the same position as the corrupt U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, a cease-fire without condition, which President Bush has already wisely rejected. Annan added insult to injury this morning by suggesting that perhaps the U.N. force should number more than the 2,000 currently doing nothing to rein in the terrorists in South Lebanon.
Israel went to war on behalf of three kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It cannot stop the fighting short of the release of these soldiers, nor should it stop short of its other main objective, the ridding of South Lebanon of the Iranian surrogate, Hezbollah.
Also, on the New York Times Op-Ed Page this morning, one of the paper's many liberal columnists, Nicholas D. Kristof, argues essentially that Israel should cut back on its response to terror, because if it doesn't it will further inflame the Arab world against it.
How weak-minded Kristof is! Like many liberals, he doesn't have the strength to think realistically. The fact is that nothing the Israelis do, including their withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, can do anything to keep the extremist forces from continuing to seek the utter destruction of Israel.
Just as with the Crusaders long ago, the Israelis are present in the Holy Land by force alone. I suspect that is not going to change. To stay there, they must periodically demonstrate their willingness, when attacked, to respond with force.
There is, meanwhile, elsewhere on the NYT Op-Ed Page another column, by Edward M. Luttwak, which is a much more satisfactory analysis holding that the present war is not likely to be regionalized, because neither Iran nor Syria are willing to jeopardize themselves by directly attacking Israel. They would much rather let their underlings in Hezbollah, which they finance and supply, do it for them.
The Iranians continue to fulminate against both Israel and the United States, warning of the dire consequences were either country to attack Iran.
Just in recent days, for instance, the Iranian Intelligence Minister, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ezhei, was quoted as saying, "If America or any other country attacks Iran, it will be endangering its interests and its economic, political and societal life. The same country that intends to attack Iran needs to know that it will pay an exorbitant price. America doesn't have the courage to take such action against Iran, since in this event, we will endanger all its crucial interests. The geographical borders of our war against the Americans will not be limited just to American soil. To the contrary, we will target all of this country's interests all over the world."
We should not wait to kill off this man, just as we didn't wait with al-Zarqawi. Already, Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq through providing the latest bombs to the Shiite thugs there, just as it is supplying the rockets that are now being fired by Hezbollah against Israel. It holds back from more direct open involvement, but it is just as guilty of murder as the murderers.
Since Iran continues to work on a nuclear weapon, which it does not have yet, time is short. It's my earnest belief that America ought to strike Iran preventively, and that such an attack would necessarily have to include nuclear weapons. How dare this sniveling little coward, the Iranian Intelligence Minister, suggest that America doesn't have the courage to act. We should, if necessary, have the courage to destroy the present Iranian regime, by any means necessary. Just like Hitler, its talk may, when it feels it has the capability, lead to action.
By the way. the frequent terrorist-sympathizing organization, Amnesty International, again shows its true colors this morning, advocating that two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah be treated humanely, but saying nothing about their return and failing to criticize kidnapping.
The shocking thing is that even now, the NYT seems ashamed of its Jewish ownership, fearing perhaps that it might adversely affect its circulation and cost it public esteem. The paper is gutless. It doesn't practice fairness toward its own co-religionists.
The Times' desire not to be seen as Jewish-owned is in evidence again this week, as the paper fails to support Israel in its fight to prevent Arab terrorists from realizing their objective of destroying Israel, now the most populous home of Jews on Earth.
We see that clearly in today's editorial on the present conflict in the Middle East. The last paragraph of the editorial, which is a plea for premature diplomacy, declares, "These differences need to be worked out over the next few days, so that the killing and human suffering can stop as soon as possible. Washington is right to press for the release of the Israeli soldiers held hostage. But this should not be a precondition for the earliest possible cease-fire. Many lives and the stability of the wider region depend on achieving a quick halt to the fighting."
So, here, the NYT adopts the same position as the corrupt U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, a cease-fire without condition, which President Bush has already wisely rejected. Annan added insult to injury this morning by suggesting that perhaps the U.N. force should number more than the 2,000 currently doing nothing to rein in the terrorists in South Lebanon.
Israel went to war on behalf of three kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It cannot stop the fighting short of the release of these soldiers, nor should it stop short of its other main objective, the ridding of South Lebanon of the Iranian surrogate, Hezbollah.
Also, on the New York Times Op-Ed Page this morning, one of the paper's many liberal columnists, Nicholas D. Kristof, argues essentially that Israel should cut back on its response to terror, because if it doesn't it will further inflame the Arab world against it.
How weak-minded Kristof is! Like many liberals, he doesn't have the strength to think realistically. The fact is that nothing the Israelis do, including their withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, can do anything to keep the extremist forces from continuing to seek the utter destruction of Israel.
Just as with the Crusaders long ago, the Israelis are present in the Holy Land by force alone. I suspect that is not going to change. To stay there, they must periodically demonstrate their willingness, when attacked, to respond with force.
There is, meanwhile, elsewhere on the NYT Op-Ed Page another column, by Edward M. Luttwak, which is a much more satisfactory analysis holding that the present war is not likely to be regionalized, because neither Iran nor Syria are willing to jeopardize themselves by directly attacking Israel. They would much rather let their underlings in Hezbollah, which they finance and supply, do it for them.
The Iranians continue to fulminate against both Israel and the United States, warning of the dire consequences were either country to attack Iran.
Just in recent days, for instance, the Iranian Intelligence Minister, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ezhei, was quoted as saying, "If America or any other country attacks Iran, it will be endangering its interests and its economic, political and societal life. The same country that intends to attack Iran needs to know that it will pay an exorbitant price. America doesn't have the courage to take such action against Iran, since in this event, we will endanger all its crucial interests. The geographical borders of our war against the Americans will not be limited just to American soil. To the contrary, we will target all of this country's interests all over the world."
We should not wait to kill off this man, just as we didn't wait with al-Zarqawi. Already, Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq through providing the latest bombs to the Shiite thugs there, just as it is supplying the rockets that are now being fired by Hezbollah against Israel. It holds back from more direct open involvement, but it is just as guilty of murder as the murderers.
Since Iran continues to work on a nuclear weapon, which it does not have yet, time is short. It's my earnest belief that America ought to strike Iran preventively, and that such an attack would necessarily have to include nuclear weapons. How dare this sniveling little coward, the Iranian Intelligence Minister, suggest that America doesn't have the courage to act. We should, if necessary, have the courage to destroy the present Iranian regime, by any means necessary. Just like Hitler, its talk may, when it feels it has the capability, lead to action.
By the way. the frequent terrorist-sympathizing organization, Amnesty International, again shows its true colors this morning, advocating that two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah be treated humanely, but saying nothing about their return and failing to criticize kidnapping.
posted by Ken Reich at 8:49 AM
1 Comments:
Bravo,well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home