NY Times Israel Bashing
NY Times Israel Bashing
A front-page story in the New York Times about donations to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria has “no

There is apparently no hope that major news outlets can retain true objectivity, especially on issues related to Israel.

, news, few facts and much misinformation," says CAMERA. (for
INN report of article, click here.)

The "news" story unabashedly seeks to convince its readers that the tax-exempt status of most charitable donations to the "West Bank settlements" harms the "peace process" and American interests, and should be stopped.

The NY Times article is replete with insinuations clearly indicating the authors' identification and sympathy with the pro-Palestinian-state side in the Middle East conflict. For instance: "HaYovel is one of many groups in the United States using tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories — effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace."

In fact, however, "Jewish permanence" in settlement blocs has been recognized by former President Bush as acceptable, even as he pushed for a two-state solution. Does the Times mean to imply that a future Palestinian state must be Judenrein in order for there to be peace?

Only 6% Think PA State Will End Conflict

In addition, the statement of "fact" that a Palestinian state is "widely seen" as necessary effectively shunts aside the parallel fact within Israel, at least, it is even more "widely seen" that a Palestinian state would actually do nothing for peace. A Brain Base poll conducted just six weeks ago among adult Jews living within the Green Line found that exactly 6% of them thought that Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while 34% said it would not be fruitful.

The poll also found that only 7% of Israelis feel that the best solution would be a full Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria within the framework of an agreement with the Palestinian Authority – and that only the same number think that the Palestinians are at all interested in peace with the State of Israel.

The assumption throughout the article, therefore, that Jews must disappear from Judea and Samaria is a snub of general Israeli perception as much as it is racist.

Authors Admit Non-Story

The Times writers themselves admit in several places that the issue is not as significant as they would apparently like. The article states: "The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique — Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups…. Most contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere… The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities… The Times’s review of pro-settler groups suggests that most generally live within the rules of the American tax code. Some, though, risk violating them [emphasis added] by using the money for political campaigning and residential property purchases, by failing to file tax returns, by setting up boards of trustees in name only and by improperly funneling donations directly to foreign organizations" – charges that are insinuated throughout but are either not proven or are not illegal.

CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) writes that though the article is ostensibly about indirect American contributions to Israeli non-profits, "there is not one word about the New Israel Fund, which supports radical Israel-based organizations that work to undermine the country's standing in the world and its ability to defend itself." The organization also notes factual errors in the Times article about American tax laws and other issues, and adds that it was apparently publicized simply in order to "bash Israel" the same day that Prime Minister Netanyahu was meeting with U.S. President Obama.

Possibly most telling regarding the slant of the story is the first "Letter to the Editor" published by the paper in response. A reader writes to compliment the paper for reporting on this "scandalous use of American taxpayers’ funds," and ends with a call to stop economic and military aid to Israel altogether!

The Only Hope

As there is apparently no hope that major news outlets can retain true objectivity, especially on issues related to Israel, pro-Israel news organizations such as this one have no choice but to redouble efforts, with the help of their readers, to repeat the truth again and again, and disseminate it as "far and wide" as possible.