web analytics
August 28, 2014 / 2 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘editorial’

Reporters Distance Themselves from UK Newspaper’s Backing of Morsi

Monday, December 10th, 2012

At least two writers for the Guardian newspaper have distanced themselves from an editorial in the Guardian in which the paper criticizes the liberal opposition to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi who seeks the ratification of a constitution protesters say does not protect individual rights from religious persecution, according to the CiFWatch organization.

In the editorial, the Guardian characterized the opposition as merely seeking power, saying the crisis was not about the constitution but a “power battle” against a “democratically elected president.”

In response, the paper’s Cairo correspondent wrote on his twitter account, I “totally disassociate myself from this @guardian editorial on #Egypt - it’s offensive & wrong.”

A contributor to the Guardian‘s “Comment is Free” opinion section, Rachel Shabi wrote “What is the Guardian thinking with this awful, misleading editorial on #egypt?”

Adam Levick, the managing editor of the CiFWatch website, wrote that, “The Guardian is not only supporting a racist, antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-West Islamist movement, but are remaining loyal even when a more liberal alternative is possible. ”

CiFWatch monitors bias against Israel in the British publication the Guardian as well as other UK publication. It is affiliated with CAMERA. Its entries are often featured on the Jewish Press website.

Ha’aretz Editor: “I Hate Israeli Settlers”

Thursday, November 8th, 2012

In an interview published on November 7 by Israel’s Globes online business magazine, Ha’aretz editorial board member Gideon Levy spoke frankly and openly about his “hatred” of Jews making their lives in Judea and Samaria.

“I have no problem being the most hated person in Israel,” Levy told Globes.  His newspaper has dedicated itself to bringing down the settlement enterprise in the biblical heartland, and consistently promotes policies which would decrease the size of Israel’s territory and empower local Arabs.

“I need another Intifada, or to write another book,” Levy told Globes.  He said it is “hard for me” when there is no upheaval in the day’s news, and said he loves action and danger.

Such is his distaste for religious Jewry in the biblical heartland, that he proudly declares his hate for Israel’s “settlers”.

“They don’t just bother me. I have feelings of hatred towards them,” Levi said. “They embarrass me, they humiliate me in the things they say and do, with their very existence.”

Levy has won several international and Israeli journalistic awards for his coverage on behalf of Palestinian rights.  He lives in Ramat Aviv with his Swedish long-time girlfriend, Catrin Ormestad.

To Tell The Truth: An Unlikely Scenario

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Despite public surveys that show the general public largely opposed to negative campaigning, the overwhelming majority of candidates in contested races have refined this strategy almost to an art form.

And why not? After all, many of these same polls also conclude that this type of campaigning – whereby the candidate too often distorts his or her opponent’s record while spewing venomous personal attacks – works, as seeds of doubt regarding the opponent’s fitness for office are planted in voters’ minds.

But imagine if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney discarded this strategy in favor of saying what they really think and what they offer the American people.

Under this unlikely scenario, here is what I’d like them to say. We’ll begin with President Obama:

I have been accused by some political detractors of supporting economic policies that have a distinct socialist bent.

Well, if governing with compassion by advocating the creation of a society that benefits the American people by equalizing the social status of all Americans makes me a socialist, I proudly plead guilty.

If ensuring that as many Americans as possible have the basic necessities of daily living, even at the cost of taking more from those who have made it and giving that share of the pie to those who, for whatever reason, have not, makes me a proponent of income redistribution, I will proudly wear the title of the “Robin Hood of American politics.”

If the cost of solving today’s economically challenging times is to spend beyond our means, a strategy nobody really likes but one that is sometimes necessary, then I will propose in a second term more stimulus spending and more entitlement programs. Yes, there are times in a nation’s life when the government must spend, even when resources are scarce, to protect the have-nots.

I realize that some describe this policy as an irresponsible means of spending other people’s money and mortgaging the fiscal future of the next generation. But, if reelected, I will continue my policy of deficit spending to rescue America from an economic catastrophe that I inherited from my predecessor – something I apologize for reminding you of yet again.

The protection of Social Security in its current form from insolvency and the maintaining of Medicare and Medicaid for our nation’s seniors and disabled are areas I will pay particular attention to in a second term. And if adequate resources in the national treasury are lacking to fix these impending problems, I will yet again tax the wealthy Americans among us.

And my justification for this is simple: If the ultra-conservative chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, concluded that it is within the government’s right to force one American to provide health insurance for his or her fellow American through higher taxes – as he ruled recently when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of my universal health care legislation – then surely Congress and I can see to it that certain Americans, namely high-income earners, pay whatever is necessary to secure a better future for the most vulnerable among us.

If a judicial champion of conservatism like John Roberts says that any type of taxation can be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative branches of government, its imposition on anything those branches deem necessary to improve America’s human condition should logically be supported.

And speaking of government’s legal right to impose necessary revenue enhancers on taxpayers, government must have the same right to impose mandatory regulations – similar to my administration’s health care legislation’s rules – on businesses that unfairly profit off the backs of American workers. And my administration, in protecting workers’ rights, will determine what constitutes unfair profits and act accordingly.

My general philosophy of good government at work is this: The longstanding general business principle of putting greed over equality and profit over compassion must go by the wayside. For as President Woodrow Wilson once said, “we are all caught in a great economic system which is heartless.”

* * * * *

In the national security and foreign policy realms I will continue to punish the guilty, as my order to kill Osama bin Laden and my policy of using drones against terrorists in Pakistan has demonstrated. But my overall goal remains what it has always been: a secure international peace that will stand the test of time, through the values of decency and humaneness that made and that keeps America great.

Rhoda Jacobs Meets With The Jewish Press

Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

Assemblywoman Rhoda Jacobs recently met with the editorial board of The Jewish Press at the newspaper’s New York office. Jacobs, who is the Assembly member for New York State’s 42nd Assembly District, has been in the Assembly since 1979. Her district, which is very ethnically diverse, is primarily made of Flatbush neighborhoods and part of Midwood.

Jacobs, who is assistant speaker of the New York State Assembly, discussed her past accomplishments as well as her plans for the future in the Assembly. Currently, Jacobs is the senior member on several Assembly committees: health, insurance, ways and means and rules. She formerly chaired the social services committee with jurisdiction over all Medicaid legislation. She has an extensive legislative record including preventive health care and child care.

She said that she credits getting re-elected in a minority district because she’s able to provide extensive, compassionate constituent services to all individuals who walk through the doors of her office.

With roots in the Orthodox community and extended family here, Jacobs believes that her knowledge and sensitivity to the Jewish community’s needs are very important. “My staff in Brooklyn is very responsive to local concerns,” she said. “For example, Orthodox families were experiencing power surges causing outages, related to Shabbos usage. We contacted Con Edison and were able to get them to make the necessary adjustments that solved the problem.”

“Some constituents need to feel comfortable and understood, when trying to obtain assistance, for example, in getting help for a chronically ill child or any other problem that may come their way.”

In Albany, she said, she works with colleagues like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senator Eric Adams to advance legislation to protect the rights and interests of the Jewish community and that she also works with her many other colleagues to get them to help them understand and support this legislation.

She also noted her accomplishments in getting budget increases for non public schools, expanding transportation for yeshiva students and more money in tax credits for yeshiva parents.

Jacobs had received a range of endorsements including from The Jewish Press, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senator Eric Adams, Councilman David Greenfield and many other community leaders.

Nostrums And Clichés

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

The New York Times greeted the release of the Levy Report with a not unexpected shrill editorial that captured the sentiment of the Arab world, the consensus of international opinion, and the view of not a few Jewish organizations here in the U.S.

They should all calm down and actually read the report, a closely reasoned exposition on international law and the meaning of “occupation” and why Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem and the West Bank does not constitute the same. While many will no doubt disagree with its conclusions, they will no longer be able to drone on, mantra-like, in support of the Palestinians – at least not with a straight face.

We do not delude ourselves into hoping the political situation will change, but now there is something supporting an alternative point of view for those interested. A new framework for discussion, we believe, is upon us.

In an editorial last Tuesday entitled, “Wrong Time for New Settlements,” The Times said in part:

Palestinian hopes for an independent state are growing dimmer all the time. Israel is pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank and asserting control over new sections of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as their capital. Meanwhile, peace talks – the best guarantee of a durable solution – are going nowhere.Now comes another, potentially disastrous, blow. An Israeli government- appointed commission on Monday issued a report asserting that Israel’s 45-year presence in the West Bank is not occupation. The commission endorsed the state’s legal right to settle there and recommended that the state approve scores of new Israeli settlements…. Although non-binding, the commission’s recommendations are bad law, bad policy and bad politics. Most of the world views the West Bank, which was taken by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 war, as occupied territory and all Israeli construction there as a violation of international law.

As the details of the Levy Commission analysis become better known it will not suffice for the Times and others to simply fall back on traditional nostrums and clichés. It’s certainly telling that the Times attempted no discussion of the merits of the report.

Separate and apart from its merits in terms of legal analysis, the report can serve as an incentive for the Palestinians to get back to the negotiating table. If the Palestinians sense a hardening of Israeli resolve in terms of refusing to accede to the Palestinian narrative, perhaps they will return to the negotiating table without preconditions.

The Times doesn’t mention Palestinian recalcitrance as being any sort of impediment to resumed talks – only Israel’s settlement policy. Really helpful would be a Times editorial that for once eschewed condemnation of Israel and instead implored the Palestinians to at long last embrace reality and make a deal.

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Inaccurate Characterization

In his July 6 “Charming Nation” column, Dov Shurin wrote that the only death caused by Saddam Hussein’s Scud attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War was that of a man who suffered a heart attack – a man Shurin characterized as an opponent of Shabbat road closures.

The truth is that man was not someone who opposed any Shabbat laws. He was a fine, Orthodox, God-fearing Holocaust survivor who had seen most of his family killed in Europe. His heart gave out when the Scuds started falling and air raid alarms were sounded.

He happened to have been a friend of mine and it was very disturbing to read Shurin’s claim that he had been against Sabbath observance.

Amy Wall
New York, NY

The Times Already Lost It

Re “Is the Gray Lady Losing It?” editorial. June 29):

The question really should be “When did the gray lady lose it?” While certain sections of The New York Times continue to be credible, the news, editorial and op-ed pages lost any credibility years ago. The motto of the Times should be changed to “All the news we choose to print” from “All the news that’s fit to print.”

Those looking for accuracy and balance should turn to a paper like the Wall Street Journal.

Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, MD

The Roberts Decision

Reams of analysis and debate will doubtless be generated in response to the incoherent and inexplicable legal finding by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts validating Obamacare (“Not the Supreme Court’s Finest Moment,” editorial, July 6).

The 2,700-page bill was passed through bribery, intimidation and funding falsehoods, though no one in Congress actually read it. Former speaker Pelosi’s (in)famous diktat “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” speaks to the hubris of the Democrats in Congress.

This mammoth legislation is the harbinger of an anticipated flood of new regulations to be administered by thousands of new bureaucrats enforcing the new rules still being written.

As for Chief Justice Roberts, his decision to deliver such a convoluted decision will set back the Supreme Court’s reputation for years.

Fay Dicker
Lakewood, NJ

Handful Of Fanatics

Re “Haredi Men Arrested in Yad Vashem Vandalism” (news story, June 29):

Neturei Karta is a small (albeit vocal) group that is in no way representative of the haredi community as a whole.

On the one hand, from a haredi perspective the Holocaust is seen as just another chapter in the history of persecution, albeit more efficiently executed and more recent. That is why haredim generally do not observe such commemorations as the Warsaw Ghetto anniversary, subsuming it instead in the general mourning on Tisha B’Av. This does not, however, mean haredim in any way approve of such offensive vandalism as was perpetrated by this handful of fanatics.

On the other hand, there is certainly a feeling in the haredi community that a wholly exaggerated cult of the Holocaust has become a sort of substitute religion for those estranged from Torah Judaism. Haredim object to this negative definition of one’s Jewishness by reference to the hatred of others rather than pride in one’s heritage.

Only someone completely prejudiced against haredim could consider these nutcases as being in any way representative of the greater haredi community – but unfortunately such an attitude is all too common.

Martin D. Stern
Salford, England

Making Our Own Choices

As the brouhaha over the Internet continues, I would like to make a few comments to those who vehemently oppose the Internet in Jewish homes.

New York City is home to many Jewish institutions but also, lehavdil, to a number of obscene and lewd establishments. Should Jews be prohibited from living in New York because they might be tempted to frequent such places?

We can use our two legs to take us to perform mitzvos, but we can also use our two legs to take us to commit aveiros. Shall we cut off our legs because they might take us to sinful places?

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a vacuum – but we do have the ability to know the difference between right and wrong and the strength, imparted to us by our parents and teachers, to follow a moral and ethical way of life and to make the correct choices for ourselves.

Pesach-Yonah Malevitz
Los Angeles, CA A

Shabbos In Midwood

Is The Gray Lady Losing It?

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

Over the past several years the editorial page of The New York Times has taken on an increasingly desperate tone. There is no doubt that the advent of the Internet and conservative talk radio came at great cost to the Gray Lady, which for some time now has seemed incapable of framing issues in the methodical – if wrongheaded – manner it once did. But the level of shrillness in recent days is completely off the charts. Consider:

Fast and Furious

In a June 21 editorial the Times, addressing the current controversy between Congress and Attorney General Eric Holder, said:

The political feud between the White House and congressional Republicans has now culminated in a House oversight committee vote to cite Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for criminal contempt. His supposed crime is failing to hand over some documents in an investigation of a botched gunrunning sting operation known as “Fast and Furious.”The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.

Self-evidently a “pointless” political assault? Not really. As even the Times itself noted,

The House committee’s contempt resolution focuses largely on internal Justice Department documents that relate to a February 4, 2011 letter sent by the department to Sen. Charles Grassley. That letter falsely denied that the ATF had engaged in a gunrunning strategy that sent weapons across the border.

Nor was the White House invocation of executive privilege all that routine. Most legal observers appear to agree that executive privilege has generally been invoked only in cases where White House involvement was an issue – though of course the Obama White House adamantly denies any such involvement here.

The shrill reaction by the Times seems way out of line. Unless, of course, it fears possible revelation of a White House connection.

Union Dues

In a June 23 editorial on “The Anti-Union Roberts Court,” the Times said:

The Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Knox v. Service Employees International Union is one of the most brazen of the Roberts court. It shows how defiantly the five justices act in advancing the aggressive conservatism of their majority on the court.The court’s moderate liberals were rightly dismayed by the majority’s willingness to breach court rules in pursuit of its agenda….The court’s five conservatives ruled that in 2005, Local 1000 of the Service Employees International Union should have sent a notice to all nonmembers it represented when it imposed a temporary 25 percent increase in union dues for public-sector employees in California to fight to anti-union ballot measures.

The court said the union infringed on the free-speech rights of the nonmembers by not giving them the chance to prevent use of their dues to support expressions of political views unrelated to collective bargaining. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with this narrow judgment only. This produced a 7 to 2 ruling on that specific question.

The Knox case was a complicated one and went beyond “that specific question.” But the Times seemed apoplectic over the Supreme Court’s simply acknowledging the right of individuals who are non-union member employees in a union shop to object to the use of their dues for partisan political purposes. Perhaps what got the Times so exercised was that heretofore reliably liberal justices voted the other way.

Sheldon Adelson

On June 24 the Times took to savaging businessman Sheldon Adelson, whom it views as being a sinister force on the other side of the political divide. When one searches the Times’s website for material on George Soros, the billionaire financier who throws around vast sums of money in support of left-wing and anti-Israel causes, one finds the following biographical note:

George Soros is the famed investor who broke the Bank of England and came to represent the swashbuckling style of hedge fund managers and their entry into the world of global affairs. Mr. Soros, one of the world’s richest men, has plunged deeply into the worlds of politics, philanthropy and economic prophecy.

To be sure, the Times does note some of the ethical and legal challenges to Mr. Soros that have surfaced over the years. But all in all, the paper’s biographical snippet portrays Mr. Soros as something of a dashing figure on the world stage.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/is-the-gray-lady-losing-it/2012/06/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: