RSS
New York Times Pushed Biden to Refuse Arms to Israel
US President Joe Biden addresses rising levels of antisemitism, during a speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Annual Days of Remembrance ceremony, at the US Capitol building in Washington, DC, US, May 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Furious at President Biden for publicly holding up an arms shipment to Israel in wartime?
You might consider also directing your ire at the New York Times, which laid the groundwork for Biden’s decision with two articles.
An April 13 New York Times staff editorial, headlined, “Military Aid to Israel Cannot Be Unconditional,” called on Biden to cut off weapons deliveries.
“America cannot continue, as it has, to supply Israel with the arms it has been using in its war against Hamas,” the editorial said. “A growing number of senators, led by Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, have been urging Mr. Biden to consider pausing military transfers to Israel, which the executive branch can do without congressional approval. They were right to push for this action.”
The Times editorial acknowledged, “Pausing the flow of weapons to Israel would not be an easy step for Mr. Biden to take” but weighed against that the argument that “the war in Gaza has taken an enormous toll in human lives.”
When it was published, I called the editorial “tastelessly timed” and “rife with factual and logical errors.”
The arms shipment that Biden cut off reportedly included 2,000-pound bombs. Israel’s use of those bombs was the subject of a December 2023 New York Times “visual investigation.” That article was also one of seven that were among the entry for which the New York Times won the 2024 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.
Back when the Times investigation was published, I wrote in the Algemeiner, as part of a larger piece detailing the article’s flaws, that the Times piece was part of a campaign to cut off weapons to Israel: “The policy goal is clear: to cut off Israel’s arms supply. ‘But the US has not stopped supplying weapons to Israel,’ the Times narrator says at one point, implying that is what the US should do.”
On May 8 — less than a month after the Times editorial appeared, and two days after the Times Pulitzer for the 2,000-pound bomb article was announced — Biden went on CNN to disclose that he’d hold up arms deliveries to Israel.
Would he have taken the step without the encouragement to do so from the New York Times? There’s no way to know for sure. Often there is a sort of circular feedback loop between the press and sources in Washington, with government officials advocating for a policy option — like a pause in weapons shipments — leaking their point of view to the newspaper to generate sympathetic articles. These same officials then point to these same newspaper articles in internal administration debates as ostensibly independent backing for the policy options they had favored from the start.
A Times article from this week says, “For a time, the United States held a monopoly on these bombs. But now Mark 80s are made and sold by a number of countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Italy, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel makes its own versions.” If that is accurate (you never know with the New York Times), and Israel does manage to obtain the bombs domestically or from another vendor, then it undercuts the claim that cutting off the American shipments will benefit Gazan civilians. The best thing for Gazan civilians and for Israel is a rapid and decisive Israeli victory over Hamas, so if anything, the American decision is counterproductive.
When it comes to political news coverage, Biden has been, with increasing frequency, criticizing the media. “While the press doesn’t write about it — [applause] — the momentum is clearly in our favor, with the polls moving towards us and away from Trump,” Biden said on May 10 at a Seattle campaign reception, according to a White House transcript. Perhaps if Biden applied some of that same skepticism to the New York Times coverage of Israel and Gaza, the US-Israel relationship, and US policy toward Israel, would be in better shape.
Or maybe the trick is somehow to figure out how to get to Biden the Algemeiner columns debunking and answering the New York Times articles, so that he can read them together and make up his mind with more complete, less erroneous information.
Speculation about the decision has focused on a variety of factors, ranging from the influence of Secretary of State Blinken to Arab-American voters in Michigan to an Arab-American National Security Council official. The malign influence of the New York Times, though, shouldn’t be overlooked.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post New York Times Pushed Biden to Refuse Arms to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.
The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.
“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.
GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.
“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”
The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”
The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.
The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”
The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.
The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Shock Poll: Most Jews Approve of Trump’s Job Performance, Strike on Iran
US President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, Feb. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
A new Siena Research poll finds that a majority of Jewish voters in New York approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance and his handling of the Israel-Iran war.
The survey found that a majority of Jewish respondents, 57 percent, approve of the job Trump is doing in his second term as president, compared to 42 percent who disapprove.
Even more striking, 64 percent of Jewish voters say they approve of Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran conflict, signaling strong alignment with his foreign policy stance in a community that has historically leaned Democratic in national elections.
The poll results highlight a notable political shift in one of the most reliably liberal constituencies in the country. In 2020, Trump won only about 30 percent of the Jewish vote nationally, and similar trends held in New York. But since his return to office in the 2024 election, a victory that itself stunned many observers, Trump has emphasized an aggressive pro-Israel posture, including increased military aid and unwavering rhetorical support during Israel’s war with Iran and Hezbollah.
The Israel-Iran war, which erupted earlier this year following escalating attacks between Israel and Iran, and Tehran’s deepening involvement with proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria, has become a key flashpoint in international politics and a central issue for American Jews. Trump has repeatedly vowed to back Israel “without hesitation,” and his administration has taken steps to provide military resupply, expand intelligence sharing, and block UN resolutions critical of Israeli operations.
In response, his approval ratings among Jewish voters, particularly Orthodox and pro-Israel segments, appear to have climbed sharply.
“This marks a significant departure from previous voting patterns,” said Lauren Saperstein, a political scientist at NYU focused on Jewish American voting behavior. “Trump has successfully tapped into security concerns, especially in light of the Iran threat, and that’s resonating with voters who may have disagreed with him on other issues in the past.”
Past data has suggested Orthodox Jewish voters tend to favor Republican candidates more heavily, while Reform and secular Jews lean Democratic. The new 57 percent approval figure indicates broader support than Trump has previously received from the Jewish electorate in New York.
Democrats, for their part, have struggled to maintain a cohesive stance on the Israel-Iran conflict. Many Democrats criticized Trump for deciding to strike at Tehran’s nuclear facilities, arguing that the president unnecessarily risked causing a broader regional war. Within the Democratic Party, divisions over Israel policy have widened, with younger progressives more likely to criticize the war and push for conditions on US aid to its longtime ally.
The poll results could have significant implications for upcoming congressional races in New York, where Jewish voters represent a sizable and politically active bloc. Several House districts in Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island could be influenced by the shift in sentiment, particularly if Democrats are seen as divided or insufficiently supportive of Israel.
As the conflict in the Middle East continues, Trump appears to be benefiting from his strong messaging in favor of Israel and against antisemitism.
The post Shock Poll: Most Jews Approve of Trump’s Job Performance, Strike on Iran first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Anti-Israel Mob Never Mentions Women’s Rights in Israel — Compared to the Middle East
Paris 2024 Olympics – Judo – Women -78 kg Victory Ceremony – Champ-de-Mars Arena, Paris, France – August 01, 2024. Silver medallist Inbar Lanir of Israel celebrates. Photo: REUTERS/Arlette Bashizi
In parts of the Middle East, women still live in deeply patriarchal, often brutal systems. Changes exist more on paper than in practice. Power remains in the hands of men, religious systems, and political elites — and this repressive treatment often goes unchallenged.
This happens in places like Gaza under Hamas, in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran under the ayatollahs, and even in Saudi Arabia, where “reforms” like women driving made headlines in 2018.
Let’s be clear: not every Muslim-majority country treats women this way. In places like Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey, many women work, study, and participate in public life. But even there, legal protections and personal freedoms often lag behind. And in the four examples mentioned — Gaza, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia — women face severe, institutionalized oppression. These are not fringe cases; they reflect the governing ideologies of millions.
Now contrast that with Israel.
In Israel, the only liberal democracy in the region, both Jewish and Arab women live with rights and freedoms unheard of in most of the Middle East.
In Israel, women:
- Vote and run for office
- Serve as Supreme Court judges, ministers, professors, doctors, and CEOs
- Join the military, even in combat roles
- Protest publicly without fear of being shot or jailed
- Choose how to dress, where to work, whom to marry, and what to believe
- File police reports and expect legal protection
Women in Israel are not just present, they lead. They command battalions, fly fighter jets, debate in the Knesset, run start-ups, and shape policy. Gender equality is not perfect — no country is — but legally, all women are fully protected.
And this is the part that’s almost never said: Arab women in Israel also enjoy more rights than in any Arab country. They study in top universities, vote freely, become doctors, lawyers, and leaders. Yes, some face traditional cultural pressures in their communities, but under Israeli law, they are citizens with equal rights, and legal recourse when those rights are violated.
Can the same be said for women in Gaza, ruled by Hamas? For women under the Taliban in Afghanistan? Or for the brave Iranian women imprisoned for removing their headscarves?
If you are a self-respecting feminist in the West, this should be a moral line: Israel is the only place in the Middle East where women are truly free. In Tel Aviv, if a woman is raped, she can go to the police. She’ll be heard, investigated, supported.
In Tehran, she might be blamed. In Riyadh, she could be imprisoned. In Kabul, she might be killed. In Gaza, she might be forced to marry her rapist.
So ask yourself: if you support women’s rights, why are you aligning with regimes or movements that strip women of their humanity?
Something is deeply broken when women in free societies chant slogans for groups that would silence, veil, and imprison them. When feminists march with Palestinian flags, are they aware that under Hamas, there is no LGBTQ+ freedom, no feminist activism, no legal protections for women?
You don’t have to support every policy of the Israeli government to recognize this truth: Israel is the only country in the Middle East where a woman can live as a full, free citizen.
Western feminists need to wake up. When you champion groups like Hamas or regimes like Iran “for the cause,” you are betraying the very values you claim to fight for.
Until that realization comes, I ask just one thing: If you truly care about women, why on earth are you standing against Israel?
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
The post The Anti-Israel Mob Never Mentions Women’s Rights in Israel — Compared to the Middle East first appeared on Algemeiner.com.