The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

An astounding feature of anti-Israel bias in the New York Times is the way it infects nearly every corner of the news organization—not only front-page foreign coverage or the opinion pages, but even the movie reviews, the food section, the dance criticism in the arts section. The latest department of the newspaper to join the anti-Israel chorus is the Times‘ Science section.

That section of the Times is usually a mixture of two main things. There’s rare-animal and outer-space photography destined for middle-school science class bulletin boards. And there’s exercise and wellness tips aimed at prolonging the longevity of, and subscription revenue from, the Times‘ aging readers.

Yet under the online headline “The Plight of the Palestinian Scientist,” a recent Times science section featured profiles of “four Palestinian researchers” who “describe how conflict in Gaza and the West Bank has hindered their careers in science and medicine.”

This is a fine example of how instead of writing a straight-down-the-middle, evenhanded article describing how the conflict has adversely affected both Israeli and Palestinian scientists, the Times is instead emphasizing articles that are designed to be clicked on and shared on social media by sympathizers to one side of the conflict or the other. The Times may argue that altogether its coverage presents a balanced and complete picture of the costs on both sides of the war. But because many people consume the coverage “off platform” — going directly to an individual story via social media or email sharing, rather than reading all Times coverage on a topic — the decision to highlight four Palestinians instead of, say, two Palestinian scientists and two Israeli scientists, gives readers only part of the story.

Israeli scientists, too, after all, have had their work disrupted by military obligations, by incoming rocket, drone, and missile attacks, by having students and family members kidnapped and killed in battle and called up for military service. The Times article mentions none of that, focusing only on the problems of the Palestinians.

For people whose careers have supposedly been “hindered,” some of the Times-interviewed scientists seem to be doing fairly well for themselves. One is a surgeon who the Times says studied and researched at Oxford and Harvard. Maybe without all the hindering he could have made it to train at some more genuinely impressive institution, like Yeshiva University?

The Times coverage is remarkably naive, and seems to think Times readers are, too. The paper writes that “experimental tools can be difficult to import into the West Bank and Gaza, because some equipment needed for research can also be used for military purposes. Israel classifies such goods as ‘dual use’ and requires special permission for civilians in the Palestinian territories to procure them.”

It’s not only Israel, though, that classifies goods as dual use. The United Kingdom, European Union, and United States all have similar systems. The Times doesn’t inform its readers of that, instead making it sound like Israel is uniquely cruel. And the Israeli concern is not merely theoretical, abstract, or imaginary. Israel has been attacked in deadly fashion and in recent years with rockets and through tunnels made from metal and concrete diverted from civilian purposes to military use.

The Times features a 50-year-old organic chemist at the Islamic University of Gaza complaining he’s had a hard time obtaining “chemicals with which to conduct sophisticated experiments.”

The Times does report that “last year, the Islamic University of Gaza, accused by the Israel Defense Forces of being a training camp for Hamas, was destroyed by Israeli airstrikes. Dr. Morjan’s teaching and research have since come to a halt.” The Times has the scientist discuss how “the lack of resources in Gaza has limited his research output,” but it doesn’t ask him to discuss whether Hamas was indeed putting his university at risk by using it as a training camp, or whether one reason for the “lack of resources” is that Hamas has devoted so many of Gaza’s resources to waging terrorist warfare against Israel.

Can the Israelis really be reasonably faulted for restricting the flow of chemicals to the Islamic University of Gaza, in light of the real risks that they might be diverted and used to develop chemical or biological weapons for use against Israel? The Times sure tries, but it is quite a stretch.

There are lots of good reasons to pray for an Israeli complete victory followed by peace in the Middle East. Somewhere low down on the list, but nonetheless there, is the hope that the Times science section can revert to its prewar practices of covering pandas and planets, penicillin and prostates, rather than accusing Israel of causing Palestinians pain.

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 Tackles ‘The Plight of the Palestinian Scientist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Demonstrators wearing masks depicting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Democratic presidential nominee and US Vice President Kamala Harris hold signs, in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, in Dublin, Ireland on Oct. 7, 2024. Photo: Clodagh Kilcoyne via Reuters Connect

The political philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin, a master of sardonic aphorisms, is purported to have defined an antisemite as “someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary.” This wry observation perfectly encapsulates the peculiar persistence of this ancient prejudice, and came to mind this week after Israel decided to close its embassy in Ireland — a country whose history and present attitudes reflect a relentless and disproportionate criticism of the Jewish State.

Ireland’s longstanding track record on Israel is troubling. But since the October 7th massacre in southern Israel, and the war that has ensued with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, Irish officials have dramatically escalated their rhetoric against Israel, taking it to new levels, perpetuating their long tradition of singling out the Jewish people and their state for unique contempt.

Truthfully, this antipathy to Jews and sympathy for antisemites is hardly new. Ireland’s dubious stance during World War II, during which it maintained “neutrality” as Europe struggled against the Nazi onslaught, reached a new low in 1945 when Irish Prime Minister Éamon de Valera infamously visited the German ambassador to offer his condolences after Hitler committed suicide in his bunker. This gesture only highlighted Ireland’s indifference to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, still fresh in their graves, leaving an indelible stain on its moral record.

This week, Irish leaders insisted they’re not antisemitic, but their actions tell a different story. Despite complex explanations to justify their positions, and claims that their stance is driven by human rights concerns for Gazans and has nothing to do with Israel, the facts speak for themselves. As the late Isaiah Berlin observed in another of his famous aphorisms: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” In this case, Israel is the hedgehog, and it knows one big thing: Ireland’s rhetoric and actions are steeped in antisemitism.

Insistent justifications notwithstanding, nothing can obscure the fact that Ireland disproportionately criticizes and targets Israel while turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Israel’s enemies and countless other actors around the world. This selective scrutiny faced by Israel and Jews has sadly become the norm.

Ireland’s history of antisemitism is, frankly, troubling. And it’s not just about De Valera’s infamous 1945 visit to the German ambassador. In 1980, Ireland became the first European country to recognize the PLO, led by the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” That’s the same PLO whose charter at the time openly called for the total destruction of Israel.

In 2018, Irish lawmakers proposed the “Occupied Territories Bill” in parliament to criminalize Israeli imports originating in Judea and Samaria, the Biblical heartland of the Jewish people. Meanwhile, imports from China — whose treatment of Uyghurs and Tibetans has been widely condemned as a humanitarian crisis — continue uninterrupted and unchallenged. The contrast is glaring and hard to explain away. When it comes to Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, Ireland seems to operate by a different set of rules entirely.

Ireland’s president since 2011, Michael D. Higgins, is often at the center of controversy when it comes to Israel and Jews. This week, Higgins — whose role is mainly ceremonial and meant to be apolitical — accused Israel of breaching the sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria, even alleging, without a shred of evidence, that Israel intends to establish settlements in Egypt. These baseless claims prompted Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar to call Higgins an “antisemitic liar” — a harsh but telling response to the Irish president’s repeated inflammatory remarks.

In September, Higgins made the deeply sinister accusation that Israel had leaked a congratulatory letter he sent to Iran’s newly appointed president, Masoud Pezeshkian, to make him look bad. It didn’t take very long for the truth to emerge — Iranian officials had proudly posted the letter on social media. But the implication that Israel acted underhandedly revealed more than just poor judgment. It points to a pattern of reflexively pointing the finger at Israel and portraying it in the worst possible light, regardless of the facts.

It’s all part of a broader narrative in which Ireland consistently singles out Israel for condemnation, claiming to be concerned about human rights while ignoring far graver human rights abuses elsewhere. Take this week’s discovery of a mass grave in Syria containing the remains of 100,000 victims of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime. Where was Ireland’s outrage as Assad targeted minorities and perceived enemies for years, killing them in full view of the world? The silence was and remains deafening. But when it comes to Israel and Jews, Ireland is never short on criticism.

And the hostility towards Israel in Ireland isn’t limited to political rhetoric — it’s seeping into the education system. According to reports, antisemitism has now rooted itself in Irish public schools, with students exposed to biased narratives that single out Israel for condemnation. Jewish leaders in Ireland have expressed growing concern about how these attitudes are shaping the next generation, perpetuating a cycle of prejudice that blurs the line between anti-Israel sentiment and outright antisemitism.

This age-old pattern of singling out Jews for criticism is as old as the Torah itself.

In Parshat Vayeishev, we meet Yosef (Joseph), a young man betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, only to be accused of a crime he didn’t commit. Despite his innocence, the Torah tells us that Yosef was targeted because he is different — he’s an “Ivri,” a “Hebrew” — an outsider in Egypt, easy to blame and accuse, making him the perfect scapegoat.

Ivri is a label that sets Yosef apart and makes him vulnerable to the kind of unjust treatment that has become emblematic of the way Jews have been treated throughout history. Whether it’s Yosef in Egypt, Jews in Christian and Muslim lands, or modern Israel in the international arena, the parallels are striking. Time and again, the Jewish people are falsely accused, maligned, and held to standards no one else is expected to meet.

But being an Ivri isn’t all bad. The Noam Elimelech explains that Ivri denotes someone who stands on the “other side” spiritually — a person willing to stand apart from societal norms and dedicate themselves to a higher Divine purpose. Being separate is not only about vulnerability but also about inner strength. Yosef’s identity as an Ivri marked him as different, and while it made him a target, it also positioned him as a moral mentor in an environment of corruption.

Similarly, Rav Kook sees the term Ivri as an expression of the Jewish mission to remain distinct and steadfast in aspirational values, even when surrounded by hostility. For Rav Kook, Yosef represents the archetype of Jewish resilience — even when accused, maligned, and imprisoned, he remains true to his principles and emerges stronger. The Ivri identity is not a weakness but rather the foundation of the Jewish people’s strength throughout history.

Standing apart has always been part of the Jewish experience. Whether it is Yosef in Egypt or modern Israel in the international arena, being distinct comes with challenges — but it also comes with strength. No matter how loud the criticism or how relentless the accusations, we must hold firm to who we are.

For Israel and for Jews everywhere, the lesson is clear: the negativity of our critics should not define us. Like Yosef, we must rise above the false accusations and the unfair standards. We can’t control the world’s double standards or prejudices, but we can control how we respond to them. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks so eloquently put it: “The only sane response to antisemitism is to monitor it, fight it, but never let it affect our idea of who we are. Pride is always a healthier response than shame.”

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.

The post Why Jews Should Not Let Our Critics — Such as the Antisemites of Ireland — Define Us first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant during a press conference in the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 28, 2023. Photo: ABIR SULTAN POOL/Pool via REUTERS

Amnesty International wants us to believe that Israel has tried (but dramatically failed) to destroy the Palestinians population of the Gaza Strip.

These words — tried, destroy, population — aren’t figures of speech. The group alleges that the Jewish State’s actual intent was to physically or biologically destroy the roughly two million Palestinians living in that territory, erasing that group as a separate and distinct entity.

This is the distillation of Amnesty’s recent report accusing the Jewish State of “genocide” in the war that began with Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre.

If this sounds like an absurd way to describe the unquestionably destructive war — a uniquely challenging overlap of urban and subterranean warfare, fought against a barbaric and antisemitic enemy, in which the estimated rate of civilian casualties appears to be well below that from the US-led campaign to dislodge Saddam Hussein — then wait until you see how Amnesty defends its “genocide” slur.

The relevant international convention defines genocide as a specific set of devastating acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

Clearly, there has been no such destruction. So Amnesty’s accusation hinges on “intent,” with its report citing, as proof of genocidal intent, supposedly incriminating comments by top Israeli officials.

After the Hamas slaughter of 1,200 people in October 2023, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited the Biblical commandment to “remember what Amalek did to you.” With these words, he “called for the total destruction of Gaza, making no distinction between civilians and Hamas as a military target,” insists Amnesty.

Incredibly, the organization then immediately admits it doesn’t actually know what those words mean: “It is unclear from these statements alone whether Prime Minister Netanyahu intended only to refer to the verses of the Bible that are an injunction to remember the acts of the people of Amalek,” which they source to Deuteronomy, “or also to allude to those passages that call for the people of Amalek to be attacked and for none of them, not even children, to be spared,” which they source to Samuel.

Notwithstanding Amnesty’s performance, it is perfectly clear which verse Netanyahu quoted. The words don’t appear in Samuel. They do appear in Deuteronomy. (And not just there. The purportedly “genocidal” call to Remember Amalek — essentially a Biblical precursor to “Never Forget” — also appears in the pleas of Holocaust victims, the memoirs of Holocaust survivors, in Yad Vashem, and on other Holocaust memorials.)

Amnesty likewise claims that Netanyahu showed genocidal intent by describing, just after the Oct. 7 massacre, a war between the children of light and children of darkness. This, claims the report, was “an apparent reference to Palestinians in Gaza,” and thus “racist and dehumanizing.”

But it was not a reference to Palestinians.

“[W]e have gone to war, the purpose of which is to destroy the brutal and murderous Hamas-ISIS enemy, bring back our hostages and restore the security to our country, our citizens and our children,” said Netanyahu. “This is a war between the children of light and the children of darkness.”

Amnesty pulls the same stunt with Yoav Gallant’s reference to children of darkness, though he, too, used the phrase in reference to the fight against Hamas: “We will reach all the terror infrastructure. We will reach all the tunnels. We will reach all the Hamas operatives.” Clearly, this is not evidence of genocide.

Maybe Gallant’s reference to fighting “human animals” was? According to Amnesty, it was “dehumanizing language” that implies Palestinians, as a whole, are “subhuman.”

But if President Joe Biden referred to Hamas as “animals,” if relatives of hostages referred to Hamas as “human monsters” and “savages,” and if other world leaders referred to Hamas as “inhuman” “beasts” and “animals,” is there any indication that Gallant meant something different? To the contrary. He has consistently made clear that the fight is against Hamas, and that the “animals” are Hamas.

Surely, at least, Isaac Herzog “implied that all Palestinians in Gaza were legitimate targets,” as claimed in Amnesty’s report?

In a briefing just after the Oct 7 attack, Israeli President Herzog did respond to a journalist’s question by charging that “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible; it’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.” But did those words mean Israel viewed all Palestinians as “legitimate targets”?

We can find the answer in the very same briefing: “We are very cautious in the way we operate,” Herzog said. “The IDF uses all the means at its disposal in order to reduce harm to the population. For example, many resources are invested in gathering intelligence and in trying to locate the enemy separately from civilian population, in evacuating the civilian population from the center of the battle, in warning citizens, in monitoring [the] humanitarian situation.”

Herzog was even asked if his harsher comment meant to imply that Palestinians legitimate targets. “No, I didn’t say that. I did not say that. I want to make it clear.”

Clear enough. But it was not clear enough for Amnesty, which strained to rescue its case that these comments by Herzog, Gallant, and Netanyahu are proof of genocide. But Herzog knew his harsh words would be broadcast, Amnesty said — as if he didn’t equally know his words about protecting civilians would be broadcast. But Netanyahu referred to a “commandment” about Amalek — though the verse from Deuteronomy about remembrance is indeed a Biblical commandment, and though the belligerent verse from Samuel is not.

It is telling that Amnesty flails to this absurd extent. And it is even more telling that the flailing represents Amnesty’s best shot.

Gilead Ini is a Senior Research Analyst at CAMERA, the foremost media watchdog organization focused on coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The post Amnesty International’s ‘Genocide’ Slur About Israel Is a Complete Lie first appeared on Algemeiner.com.