CNN and The New York Times: The End of Ethical Journalism

In a lead May 17, 2015 CNN article entitled "Israeli settlers reportedly chop down 800 Palestinian olive trees" by Don Melvin, we are told:

"The official Palestianian news agency is reporting that Israeli settlers have chopped down and seized about 800 Palestinian-owned olive trees near the town of Shuyukh, east of Hebron.

The report, by WAFA, the Palestine News & Information Agency, cited 'a local source,' whom it did not identify. Israel has yet to comment on the report.

The source, described by WAFA as 'a local activist,' told the agency that residents of the Israeli settlements of Bani Kadim and Asfar broke into an olive orchard near the town and chopped down the trees, which belonged to people who lived in the area."

However, as observed by The Elder of Zion:

"OK, how can we tell that this is garbage? By looking at the wording in Wafa. It says 'Israeli settlers Sunday chopped down and seized about 800 olive trees belonging to Palestinians near the town of Shuyukh, east of Hebron, according to a local source.'

What does 'chopped down and seized' mean? 400 chopped down and 400 seized? Or did they chop down 800 olive trees and then put them onto a convoy of trucks to cart them away?

It takes a long time to chop down a mature olive tree. New saplings, which are often planted by Palestinians in order to steal public land, are relatively easy to uproot, but this says 'chopped down and seized.'

No photos. No videos. No named sources. No corroboration. WAFA reports a story that matches none of the normal standards of journalism- and CNN parrots it under the guise of only reporting what anti-Israel Arab media is saying."

CNN knows no shame.

And then there was a May 16, 2015 New York Times article yesterday entitled "In Vatican, Abbas Is Praised as ‘Angel of Peace’" by Elisabetta Povoledo, which begins:

"Pope Francis praised Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as an 'angel of peace' during a meeting at the Vatican on Saturday. The Vatican also expressed hope that Israel and the Palestinians would resume talks 'to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict' that has roiled the Middle East for decades."

However, as reported by The Weekly Standard in an article entitled "Media Gets Pope’s Abbas Comments Wrong" by Tom Gross:

"If anyone needs further evidence of why the news agencies often can’t be trusted to report accurately on Israel and the Palestinians, and why major news outlets such as the New York Times and the BBC should stop repeating agency copy without verifying it, here is an important example from this weekend.

According to Italian and Spanish news outlets and according to the Vatican’s own website, Pope Francis told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he could be an angel of peace. 'May you be an angel of peace,' he urged Abbas, effectively saying that if Abbas would take the decision to accept one of the peace offers that various Israeli prime ministers have made to him, or at least make a serious counter-offer, he could be an angel of peace. The pope did not say that Abbas – infamous for ordering the Munich Olympic massacre, among many other atrocities – was 'an angel of peace'

And yet the BBC and New York Times were among dozens of prominent news outlets that claimed he did."

Yes, there is a difference between asking Abbas to be an angel of peace and declaring Abbas to be an angel of peace, and yes, we live in a world gone rotten.

New York Times Editorial, "The Vatican and the Palestinians": Wearing Its Hatred of Israel on Its Sleeve

"I think this is something that is going to happen. We have to look at it realistically: in the end there will be a Palestinian state. I see things firstly from our own perspective. I don't think we should be ruling over another people and running its life. I don't think we have the strength for that. It is too heavy a burden on our people, and it gives rise to serious moral problems and serious economic problems."

- Ariel Sharon, Haaretz interview, April 2003

In an editorial entitled "The Vatican and the Palestinians," The New York Times comments on a treaty signed on Wednesday by the Vatican, which officially recognizes the state of Palestine. The Times begins by declaring:

"The practical effect of the Vatican’s decision to sign a treaty recognizing the state of Palestine is debatable, but it is a symbolic victory for Palestinians who are struggling to keep alive their dream of a Palestinian state, which has been thwarted by the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

The "dream of a Palestinian state . . . has been thwarted by the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu"? Well, I also believe in the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I hope will live in peace and prosperity beside Israel. However, I am also cognizant of the covenant of Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. I have also not forgotten the some four thousand missiles fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities last summer.

And then there is the fact that Palestinian Authority President Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Moreover, although the Times is enchanted by the Vatican's recognition of a Palestinian state, nowhere is there mention by the Times that Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Why should there be a Palestinian state, but not a Jewish state?

The dream of a Palestinian state is being thwarted by Netanyahu and not by the Palestinians? I don't think so.

The Times editorial observes:

"On the eve of the March 17 elections, Mr. Netanyahu said flat out that no Palestinian state would be established during his tenure, and while he later softened his position, the possibility of any serious negotiating initiative seems dead."

True. But it was Menachem Begin from the Likud who evacuated Sinai and signed a peace treaty with Egypt. And it was Ariel Sharon, known for much of his political life - mostly in the Likud - as a hardliner, who stated his support for a Palestinian state and evacuated Gaza.

Yes, Netanyahu is a political animal, wanted to be reelected in March, and is more than capable of contradicting himself. But if and when the time comes and the Palestinians are willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with the 1967 lines (taking land swaps into account), a Palestinian state will indeed arise.

Meanwhile, however, missiles fired at Israeli civilians and attack tunnels leading into Israeli agricultural communities on the border with Gaza don't help.

Yes, the Times wears its hatred for Israel on its sleeve.