Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s purported meltdown on the Iron Dome funding issue, switching her “No” vote to “Present” (that is, from opposition to neutral) triggered the latest outrageous anti-Semitic reporting by The New York Times, which was followed by an imperious and equally objectionable refusal to apologize when called out on it.
The Times congressional correspondent initially reported on AOC’s switch, which was accompanied by her seeming to break out in tears, thusly:
Minutes before the vote closed, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tearfully huddled with her allies before switching her vote to “present.” The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis.”
The reaction was swift and widespread, with many pointing out that The Times story, without offering any factual basis whatsoever, axiomatically attributed support for Israel to biased pro-Israel “pressure.”
Yet the final vote on the Iron Dome funding bill was strongly bipartisan at 420-9 in favor. That’s a 97 percent margin, folks. So if one were inclined to speculate on undue, “unprincipled,” outside pressure being visited on members of Congress, shouldn’t the focus have been on the nine outliers who deviated from virtually all of their colleagues?
And this is not even saying anything about the fact that the Iron Dome is wholly defensive. It protects civilians from rockets launched by Palestinians and Hezbullah and threatens no one.
Moreover, the reaction of The Times to the criticism was highly instructive. It neither sought to defend its reporting nor acknowledged that it went too far. Instead, in the arrogant manner of those secure in their bigotry, they simply removed the phrase referencing “influential lobbyists and rabbis” in later editions. But the reference to progressives having “been caught between their principles and still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party” remained.
Even upon reflection, The Times is unable to acknowledge that principle can play any role in support for Israel, no matter how many people express it. Sad, very sad.