The New York Times is perfectly entitled to muse over whether US President Donald Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a good idea.
The NYTimes editorial on the subject goes further however.
Since when was the Western Wall “another piece of leverage” to be conceded?
Newsflash New York Times: The Western Wall won’t “eventually be declared part of Israel.” It’s already part of Israel and is the holiest site that Jews can pray. It doesn’t only abut “some of Islam’s most sacred sites.” Whether the NY Times likes it or not, the Western Wall happens to abut the Temple Mount, Judaism’s most sacred site.
It’s not only the White House that expects the Western Wall to be part of Israel. Is there really anyone apart from the worst extremists who believes that the Western Wall won’t remain under Israeli control whether there is an agreement or not?
This isn’t “taking Israel’s side on an explosive issue” – it’s reiterating one of the few consensus issues that exists in any so-called peace process.
If the New York Times believes that Israeli control over the Western Wall is up for debate or is afraid of upsetting the Muslim world over Jewish holy sites, then its editorial board really has no moral compass.
But that’s not all.
The NY Times editorial also twists and distorts events from the past few days.
300 Palestinians were not injured by “live fire.” Israeli forces, in the main, employed non-lethal riot control. As the Palestinian Red Crescent reported, dozens of Palestinians were lightly injured by tear gas canisters and rubber bullets. Had Israel used live bullets as its main means of riot dispersal, there would have been far more than four dead Palestinians.
As The Times of London reported:
“We have tried to avoid using live-fire and lethal weapons,” said one Israeli officer. “We know that a death and the following funeral always causes more escalation and have been trying to avoid that.”
The New York Times also conveniently fails to mention that of those four, all of whom took part in violent confrontations with Israeli troops, one of the dead was shot after stabbing an Israeli border police officer. He also happened to be wearing what appeared to be a suicide bomb belt.
But why would the New York Times do anything to dispel the image of Israel as a brutal killer of innocent Palestinians?
This editorial is yet another example of the inherent anti-Israel bias at the New York Times.
Please send your considered comments to the New York Times – [email protected]
