The "journalists" at the New York Times sure know how to kick up a sand
storm when they target the record of an ex-Senator like Ashcroft. They
are talented enough to dig up every little detail when they have a political
ax to grind. But their real genius is in covering up the record of a proven
"serial arsonist" zealot like Sharon and then repackaging him as a "conservative"
politician. If Sharon is "conservative" and Ashcroft is an "extremist",
and Friedman and Sontag are "journalists", than the New York Times is truly
the daily ruse.
Consider that Sharon, the Idi Amin of Israel, is a man the Likudniks
at the New York Times have no trouble marketing as a "war hero". William
Calley of My Lai fame must be eating his heart out. Thomas Friedman continues
to revere Sharon as "a hero of the Six-day War" and Deborah Sontag is just
waiting in line for a bounce on Grandpa Arik's knee. Another American journalist
who idolizes this serial murderer is Charles Krauthamer. They would all
do well to read "the Crimes of Ariel Sharon" by Alexander Cockburn (NYPRESS.com,
2/1/2001) that amply documents Sharon's murderous record from Qibya to
Gaza to Sabra and Shatila.
But never mind what Cockburn has revealed. It is common knowledge in
the Middle East and Europe. Barak, who has just gone through a little killing
spree of his own, also wants the world to know about Sharon, his ex-boss.
The following list of charges against Sharon come courtesy of
Barak's campaign Website.
- Sharon, in his extreme approach and reckless nature, dragged Israel
an unnecessary adventure in Lebanon. Sharon's recklessness resulted in
an operation that was planned as a swift 48- hour campaign and ended up
lasting for 18 years. An adventure that cost the lives of more than 1,000
Israeli soldiers. Sharon's adventure hurt Israel in the long run, and
even the late Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, said about Sharon: "He (Sharon)
does know how to control himself".
- Sharon, who holds extremely anti- Arab sentiments, has continuously
opposed any steps aimed at achieving peace. Sharon believes in confrontation
and extreme measures towards Arabs and Palestinians. Sharon, in his extreme
approach, will lead Israel to isolation from the international community.
His carelessness will undermine Israel's relations with the U.S. and the
European community. Ariel Sharon will shut the door to peace.
- Sharon Voted Against the Peace Treaty with Egypt. "...Sharon
apologized in front of the crowd for his government's concession, when
serving in the government that agreed to return the Sinai to the Egyptians.
Sharon opposed the Oslo Agreements.
"No peace treaty can be achieved or last with Arafat..." (Yediot. 3/7/97)
- Sharon did not support Peace with Jordan."I did
not vote for a peace agreement with Jordan even though I wanted to. I
did not go to the ceremony even though I had the desire to do so. This
wasn't a planned move on my part, but rather a result of a deep internal
strife that only worsened as time passed, and when the time to vote arrived,
I simply felt I couldn't raise my hand for such an agreement." (10/28/94)
- Sharon's extreme approach is expressed by the following sayings
and quotes: In 1988, Sharon was quoted, (referring to Arab Israelis):
They should be expelled; their homes destroyed." (Yediot, 7/3/88)
- In 1988 Sharon was quoted: "Arab Israelis will not determine who becomes
Prime Minister in Israel. This is a community without rights. Formally
they do, but in reality they do not hold equal rights." (Maariv, 12/27/89)
- In 1990, Sharon was quoted: "as far as I'm concerned, Teibe Arabs should
be the last community to receive gas masks." (Davar, 10/28/90)
- On another occasion he was quoted as saying: "I've been claiming for
years that our main problem has been the Israeli Arab community, and it
will continue to be our most difficult problem. They should be put in
their place." (Davar, 10/28/90)
- In June 2000, Ariel Sharon said: "Thousands of Arabs are taking over
public parks. And in the future, thousands more will flood our roads and
beaches." (Maariv, 6/1/00)
What follows is an AFP (2/2/2001) sample of the European press:
From Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's biggest daily newspaper: "If there is
a logic in that decision
one can imagione what sanctions could be
taken against Israel if Ariel Sharon became the new prime minister." The
decision referred to is the EU sanctions against Austria due to far-right
Freedom Party's rise to power.
The Guardian of England on Sharon: "a figure of the very far right: a
man whose political life has been conducted so far out of the mainstream
that it is hard to think of a sensible analogy."
The New York Times "Ashcroft Message" on February 2, 2001
As Mr. Schumer and other senators like Joseph Lieberman of Conneticut
noted yesterday, Mr. Ashcroft ran into trouble with his old Democratic
colleagues because his views were too far removed from the mainstream of
American thinking. They and others were deeply dismayed, for example, by
his record on reproductive rights and on long-settled issues like the desegregation
of public schools. They were also troubled by his cavalier attitude toward
amending the Constitution and his obvious discomfort with the general direction
of an increasingly diverse American society.
NileMedia's Analysis and Conclusion:
The intent is not to dishonor Attorney General Ashcroft by comparing
him to either Sharon or Haider. We dare say that the New York Times editorial
was about flexing a little muscle to show that it still had clout. Moreover,
we detected no small element of religious bigotry in the Senate hearings.
Rather, the intent is to point out the fact that the New York Times poses
as a liberal progressive force on certain domestic issues and on the other
side of the pond has no problems with a war criminal like Sharon. Indeed,
it is a Publishing Company that has long practiced a vile form of ethnic
bias and religious bigotry when it comes to the Palestinians.
One need only mention the record of Jeff Jacoby, an insolent racist journalist
who works in their Boston Globe offices. As for diversity, they do not
practice it in their newsroom and should not be lecturing anyone on the
subject of the "American Mainstream". They are a decidedly ethnic publication
with a transparent bias on all matters Jewish and Israeli. Their reputation
as a "national" newspaper is all about the power of marketing and branding,
not about substance and certainly not about quality or ethics.
The New York Times is a finely crafted paper with abundant resources
to market their political agenda. Using their peculiar brand of advocacy
journalism, they have delivered the goods for their New York constituency,
where Israel is a municipal issue. Yet, the fact that they can stomach
Sharon has not gone unnoticed by Arab-Americans. This is a daily journal
that insists on infusing faith-based politics into American foreign policy.
Of course, the faith tradition they want to base that policy on is their
We need a policy in the Middle East that will not create adversaries
abroad or broaden the ethnic divide at home. We need a just and even-handed
policy for that troubled region, one that caters to the interests of the
American mainstream and is free of any kind of ethnic bias or religious
bigotry. We can start by not assembling the elements of our policies to
suit the ethnic politics of New York.
The relationships between Arab-Americans and American Jews have become
a mirror image of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel's military muscle
is matched by the political clout of the Jewish lobby. The anti-Arab sentiments
in the press is an incidental by-product of the incessant marketing of
Israel's chauvinist policies towards the Palestinians It is time we had
a foreign policy that looks like it was made in a very diverse America
for a very diverse planet.