The New York Times, already slammed for its hard-left reporting, can now take home a new label for its newspaper shelves — that of being about the worst outlet in the world when it comes to covering Israel. This is typical of the enemedia: relentless anti-Israel propaganda, no matter how fact-free. No one should read the New York Times expecting to find actual news, and the only people who still do are leftist lemmings.
“New York Times Suggests “Terrorist” Label for Israel,” by Gilead Ini, Camera, April 12, 2019 (thanks to Mark):
This week’s New York Times story “Terrorist Label for Iran Force” is, as the title suggests, about the U.S. decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror organization.
The Times story is also about Israel. Reporters and editors made sure of that.
And considering the way those journalists shoehorned the Jewish state into the conversation — by suggesting that maybe Israeli intelligence should also be designated as a foreign terrorist group — it is, most troublingly, a story about a newspaper that has lost any measure of self-restraint when it comes to the small, Jewish country that so often dominates its attention.
In three paragraphs, reporters Edward Wong and Eric Schmitt make a case that not only maligns Israel but also misrepresents the rationale given for the American terror designation; mischaracterizes the Revolutionary Guard; and conflates vastly different ways a country might use martial force:
Under a provision of the USA Patriot Act, low-level officials are empowered to deny entry to foreigners who are associated with an organization that the officials decide meet broad standards for terrorism — even when the United States government has not formally applied a terrorism label to that group.
Until now, American officials had never interpreted laws as permitting them to deem a government entity a terrorist organization.
The Trump administration’s decision to breach that constraint with the Iranian group raises the question of whether other government intelligence services that use violence — including those of Israel, Pakistan and Russia — also now meet that standard. If so, should American officials deny visas to people who work with those agencies? State Department officials say the rushed announcement meant such policy details have not been worked out.
It’s a mouthful, so let’s break it down. The first paragraph mentions “standards for terrorism” that the U.S. uses to deny visas to people associated with terror groups.
The second paragraph notes that the American government has for the first time formally applied those standards for terrorism to a “government entity.”
And the third paragraph is where the sleight of hand happens. The reporters downplay the Revolutionary Guard as merely an “intelligence service” that “uses violence.” (It’s much more than that.) They imply that “use of violence” is the American benchmark for defining terrorism and listing the Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. (It isn’t.) They suggest that if the Revolutionary Guard is being punished for running afoul of those terror standards then Israeli intelligence might also be guilty of terrorism, and might also deserve to be sanctioned. (That’s anti-Israel incitement, not objective journalism.) And finally, they tell readers that the State Department hasn’t “worked out” whether that will happen. (No, the administration is clearly not weighing whether to sanction America’s longtime ally.)
These contorted paragraphs are a prime example of how the newspaper’s preoccupation with casting Israel in a negative light comes at the expense of a well-informed public. Straightforward coverage of the U.S. decision about the Revolutionary Guard would leave readers with a clear understanding of the American criteria for designating Foreign Terrorist Organizations, would forthrightly describe the U.S. justification for applying the designation to Iran, and would not mislead about the State Department’s policy direction.
What’s the actual criteria for designating a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), if not use of violence by intelligence services? The Foundation for Defense of Democracies explains that
U.S. law defines “terrorism” as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” To be designated as an FTO under U.S. law, a foreign organization must engage in terrorism or terrorist activities that “threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.”
That’s easy enough. And easy enough for a Times reporter to research. The passages in quotes come directly from the US Code. Similar language appears on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations web page, which notes that in order to be listed, an organization must engage in “terrorist activity or terrorism” and “must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security … of the United States.”
That’s why use of violence by, for example, a French intelligence agency doesn’t put that agency at risk for being designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The U.S. didn’t view their use of force as terrorism, and doesn’t regard their ally’s actions as threatening American security. The same goes for Israeli intelligence — which works closely with American intelligence agencies…..
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.