RSS
New York Times Exemplifies The ‘Moral Confusion’ Which Netanyahu Warns Of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York City, US, Sept. 22, 2023. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
In Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech Friday at the U.N. General Assembly, he spoke of “moral confusion,” in the contest between Iran and Israel, in which “good is portrayed as evil, and evil is portrayed as good.”
Netanyahu didn’t call out by name the New York Times’s coverage of the conflict, but the description aptly applies, as two recent examples of Times coverage of Iran demonstrate.
A September 25 Times “news analysis” by Steven Erlanger is headlined “Iran’s Dilemma: How to Preserve Its Proxies and Avoid Full-Scale War.” The headline signals what is coming: a story that looks at the situation from Iran’s point of view.
“Iran has so far refused to be goaded by Israel into a larger regional war that its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, clearly does not want, analysts say,” the Times article reports. That portrays Israel as trying to goad Iran into a regional war, instead of the reality, which is that Israel simply wants to exist in peace.
Who are these “analysts” the Times is relying on? The first one mentioned is the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian. “In New York this week, Mr. Pezeshkian was blunt. Israel was seeking to trap his country into a wider war, he said.” The Times swallows that spin without the skepticism it warrants.
The Times reports, “Iran faces clear dilemmas. It wants to restore deterrence against Israel…It wants to preserve the proxies that provide what it calls forward defense against Israel — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen…” This idea that Iran is on “defense” against Israel rather than trying to wipe the Jewish state off the map is farfetched.
Then the Times article refers to “one reason that Iran had so far not retaliated for the assassination of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was in Iran.” Iran has indeed retaliated, or at least attempted to; fortunately, most, though not all, of the attacks have failed or been blocked by Israel.
Finally the Times acknowledges in passing that “Since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 and the installation of the Islamic Republic, Iran has tried to spread its influence throughout the region and has vowed to destroy Israel.” That’s useful context, but the Times leaves out that Iran has also vowed to destroy America, literally “death to America” is the slogan chanted and displayed at government-sponsored rallies.
The Times quotes an “Iran expert” and former Obama administration official at the Brookings Instiution, Suzanne Maloney, who claims, “Israel is trying to bait Hezbollah into an attack that would produce a full-fledged war.” Israel, which has already been attacked by thousands of Hezbollah rockets and drones and which would be happy to be left alone by Hezbollah, is given no opportunity to rebut this preposterous claim.
The Times explains further, “The proxies represent Iran’s strategy of forward defense, to protect the Iranian homeland.” This is laughable, and, in the case of Hamas, obscene, as if the October 7, 2023 rampage against Israel was a matter of “defense” aimed at protecting “the Iranian homeland.”
Even the commenters on the New York Times website thought this was a bit much. “The chutzpah of this article knows no bounds,” wrote one reader, a “BRJ” from New Jersey. “Iran is not the victim here. They are the world’s largest exporter of terror. If they are so concerned about Israeli attacks on Iranian soil, then perhaps they should stop vowing to destroy Israel and funding and supporting its proxy armies that surround Israel.”
The Times did no better in a news article by Farnaz Fassihi reporting Pezeshkian’s U.N. speech.
The Times reports: “Mr. Pezeshkian defended Iran’s support of the militant networks known as the ‘axis of resistance’ in the Middle East which have taken up arms against Israel, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He called the networks ‘popular liberation movements of people that have been victims of four generations of the crimes and colonialism of the Israeli regime.’” That leaves out that these terrorist groups have also been attacking American ships and bases in the region, along with commercial shipping traffic.
The same Times article offers tilted context: “In April, after Israel struck Iran’s Embassy in Damascus, Syria, Iran retaliated by launching hundreds of drones and missiles against Israel. And Tehran vowed revenge after Israel assassinated Hamas’s political leader, Mr. Haniyeh, but after intense diplomatic efforts military commanders said Iran would retaliate at a time and place of its choosing.” The Times frames the Iranian attack as a retaliation rather than a continuation of a long-running effort to destroy Israel and America, and also frames Iran’s second supposed lack of retaliation as a choice rather than as an execution failure.
The Times describes Pezeshkian’s speech as “unusually reconciliatory in tone and words,” crediting him for not engaging in Holocaust denial. Yet the quotes in the article have Pezeshkian describing the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists as “popular liberation movements,” and have Pezeshkian accusing Israel of engaging in “barbarism.” How that is “reconciliatory” is beyond me. It sure does validate that Netanyahu was onto something real when he identified the issue of “moral confusion.”
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 Exemplifies The ‘Moral Confusion’ Which Netanyahu Warns Of first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Here Is the Documentary on Campus Antisemitism That Harvard Doesn’t Want You to See
An “Apartheid Wall” erected by Harvard University’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. Photo: X/Twitter
There is nothing like a 999-page court subpoena to make you realize just how important your work truly is.
In the aftermath of October 7, 2023, a disturbing reality has emerged on American university campuses: that of antisemitism running rampant, and Jewish students fearing for their safety and their lives. US colleges and universities allowing students and professors alike to not only side with terrorists — but also to allow for the harassment of Jewish students and the violation of their civil rights — demanded to be documented, shared, and addressed.
As a producer who has worked at HBO and CNN, I’ve always believed in the power of storytelling to illuminate truth and inspire action. Frontline Warriors, my second documentary with AISH, represents exactly this kind of vital storytelling. But because we made it, we are now being subpoenaed by Harvard in the ongoing lawsuit against them, executed by Shabbos Kestenbaum, who was featured in the film. We have retained a lawyer regarding the subpoena, which, due to its length and character, seems far more like a scare tactic, rather than a genuine request for information.
This subpoena also came just two weeks before Harvard itself published the findings of a task force that concluded Jewish students had “faced bias, suspicion, intimidation, alienation, shunning, contempt, and sometimes effective exclusion from various curricular and co-curricular parts of the University and its community — clear examples of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.”
For over six months, my co-producers Rabbi Steven Burg, Rabbi Elliot Mathias, and I worked tirelessly to bring this urgent project to life. What began as a deep concern over rising antisemitism on college campuses evolved into a compelling documentary that follows three extraordinary Jewish student leaders at Harvard (Kestenbaum), Columbia (Eden Yadegar), and UCLA (Eli Tsives), as they confronted hatred with remarkable courage. Tsives, just this month, was physically assaulted on the UCLA campus and not for the first time — all of it caught on camera.
What makes Frontline Warriors stand apart is our unwavering commitment to truth. Every shocking claim made in the film, and there are many that viewers might find almost unbelievable, is meticulously backed by documentation, clips, or other evidence. This verification process consumed countless hours of our production time, but it was non-negotiable. In an era where truth is increasingly contested, we refused to give critics any grounds to dismiss these students’ experiences.
We accomplished this on what I can only describe as a “shoestring budget” — a true independent documentary effort without major studio backing. The distribution has been equally grassroots, with premiere screenings and events organized across the country. Our team, including the students featured in the film, has traveled extensively to share this story, driven by the conviction that these voices must be heard.
Now, for the first time, the film is available online for everyone to see. This accessibility marks a crucial turning point in our mission to raise awareness about campus antisemitism. But importantly, this isn’t merely a depressing chronicle of hatred. Unlike many documentaries that simply expose problems, we deliberately included solutions and a hopeful future outlook.
One of the most powerful moments in the film comes when it’s noted that what we need isn’t just punishment for antisemitic acts, as necessary as accountability may be. What we truly need is “educated, literate, strong, empowered Jews at the earliest age possible.” The film ultimately makes the case for embracing and educating the next generation as the most effective response to hatred. There is a mission for all Jews that is bigger than simply fighting antisemitism; we must show others that being unabashedly Jewish, inwardly and outwardly, is what will inspire others. By showing those who hate us that they cannot diminish our flame, we will eventually win.
For me personally, stepping back into a producer role for this project has been deeply fulfilling. It’s where my training and expertise lie, and where I’ve consistently found my greatest professional satisfaction throughout my career. The opportunity to apply these skills to such an urgent cause, in my position at AISH, has been especially meaningful.
As we now move into pre-production on our third documentary (with the topic to be announced soon), I reflect on the importance of Frontline Warriors not just as a film, but as a call to action. It stands as testimony to the bravery of Jewish students who refuse to be silenced, and as an urgent message to all who value tolerance and truth on our nation’s campuses.
This is more than a documentary, it’s a movement. And in today’s climate, I can think of few things more important to watch, share, and act upon. After all, with the recent subpoena, this seems to be the documentary that Harvard doesn’t want you to see.
To watch Frontline Warriors, click here.
Jamie Geller is an award-winning producer who launched her career at HBO and CNN. As Chief Communications Officer and Global Spokesperson for Aish, she develops and produces groundbreaking documentaries, including October 7: Voices of Pain, Hope and Heroism and Frontline Warriors: The Fight Against Campus Antisemitism.
The post Here Is the Documentary on Campus Antisemitism That Harvard Doesn’t Want You to See first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How We Should Respond to Kanye and Other Acts of Antisemitic Hate
Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, dressed in a full black leather KKK outfit during his interview with DJ Akademiks that was shared on YouTube on March 31, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Kanye West just released a “Heil Hitler” song — another one of the antisemitic incidents we’ve had to face recently.
Anger, hate, and disgust are all words that come to mind when considering the current situation in the US and abroad. We are being pushed to these emotions, and we lack the appropriate response. I have been advocating for this cause every week for two years now, since Oct. 7.
Nazi-level Jew hatred is making a resurgence, and is rising at alarming rates. What can we do about it other than be students of history?
The immediate reaction might be to seek vengeance and fight back. Many individuals have demonstrated this on the UCLA campus and elsewhere. Jews are also arming themselves to protect themselves and our community from violence, while adhering to local laws.
But for the vast majority of us, who cannot fight back at this time, it is imperative that we mobilize. We must actively engage with our Jewish communities and continue to grow them. Power is in numbers. We must illuminate them and bring them into the mainstream. We must find people who are not involved, and spread our light with them, and bring them into our community.
For those unable to physically engage in defense, I urge them to understand that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that a calculated group-wide response can be the adequate response. Although it may sound clichéd, it is not. We must remain united, informed, and continuously support and connect with local and Federal politicians. We must fight and combat antisemitism and antisemites wherever they may lie, and tell the truth about the Jewish people and Israel. That is the only way we can ensure our survival.
We have witnessed the fall of empires in the past, and with this, disgusting, viral, vial, steady, and exponentially increasing Jew hatred. I do not see why our time will be an anomaly. We are seeing Congressmen and women who actively support radical Islamic jihadist groups, either directly or indirectly. It is not entirely out of the question that in our lifetimes, the America we know as a safe place for the Jewish community will cease to exist — when the people who hate us will be more numerous than those who believe in our rights, and take over.
Therefore, it is imperative that we take a stand and actively engage with our local Jewish communities and local politicians. We must harness the power that we possess in numbers to mobilize, strengthen our unity, influence policy, and ultimately safeguard our democracy and preserve our Jewish identity and freedom.
Isidore Karten is a Jewish community leader at Park East Synagogue, and founder of Club 3g.
The post How We Should Respond to Kanye and Other Acts of Antisemitic Hate first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hasan Piker: How an Israel-Hating, Terror Supporting Streamer Seduced The New York Times
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Hasan Piker is among the most popular personalities on the gaming-video streaming platform Twitch.
Piker — whose significant career break came conveniently via his uncle, Cenk Uygur, founder of the left-wing commentary show The Young Turks — brands himself as a “political commentator.” Over 2.5 million viewers regularly tune in, though it’s unlikely they’re seeking nuanced political insight. After all, Piker’s brand of “commentary” has included dismissing Hamas’ documented atrocities from October 7, praising Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as “a pretty brilliant person,” and even laughing during Hamas’ gruesome display when releasing the bodies of the Bibas family.
Yet none of these disturbing actions have deterred mainstream media outlets like The New York Times from publishing an inexplicably flattering profile of Piker. Remarkably, the article spends more words lauding his gender-bending fashion sense, fitness regimen, and “handsome” appearance than critically examining his troubling ideological views.
Titled “A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere’,” the article enthusiastically proclaims in its subheading: “Hasan Piker pumps iron, likes weapons, and wears pearls. His brand of masculinity has won him many fans online — and has been a useful vehicle for his politics.”
Indeed, the NY Times appears genuinely captivated, initially depicting Piker as a provocative renegade who appeals to a legion of young male followers entrenched in the so-called “manosphere” — a digital subculture known for hyper-masculine content:
Hasan Piker thinks being a man is simple.
Like many successful internet personalities targeting a generation of young men, Mr. Piker, a 33-year-old Twitch and YouTube streamer, embraces a typical ‘bro’ persona: he likes weapons, inhales supplements, uses nicotine pouches, and endlessly debates the legacy of LeBron James. Yet unlike many contemporaries, Piker—an avowed socialist—is equally comfortable donning French maid drag as playing basketball.
The first hints of Piker’s troubling views surface subtly, with the article merely stating he “criticizes … the Israeli government,” juxtaposed oddly alongside his support for organized labor, universal healthcare, and LGBTQ rights.
It’s only midway through — after considerable focus on Piker’s fitness routines and intermittent fasting diet consisting of “precisely chicken breast with low-carb pita, mezze, and sauces” — that the Times bothers to hint at what this “criticism” entails:
A vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, Mr. Piker has been labeled anti-American across the political spectrum for saying the U.S. ‘deserved’ the September 11 attacks. His recent accusations that Israel is committing ‘genocide’ in Gaza and his diatribes against the Zionist movement have led supporters of Israel, including liberals like Representative Ritchie Torres of New York, to call Mr. Piker antisemitic.
Predictably, the Times immediately offers Piker a convenient rebuttal: “I find antisemitism to be completely unacceptable,” along with his disingenuous claim that “I find the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism to be very dangerous.”
Yet the Times is evidently aware of Piker’s Jewish and Israeli problems — initially publishing a photo of his “bulking” chicken meal consumed in his studio, inadvertently showing a viewer comment on Piker’s Twitch stream stating in block capitals: “I’D F*** THIS IDF BITCH TO DEATH.”
In writer Jack Crosbie’s rush to flatter Piker, it seems he didn’t bother examining the photos closely. And in typical New York Times fashion, the image was quietly edited later to crop out the damning viewer comments, leaving only the innocuous chicken meal behind.
And yet, the Times’s profile of Piker is merely the latest example from an outlet seemingly intent on rebranding Palestinian extremists as progressive. Just weeks ago, the paper dedicated its opinion page to an impassioned defense of the Oscar-winning joint Israeli-Palestinian documentary No Other Land, which HonestReporting had criticized for misrepresenting facts on the ground.
While the essay argued for a so-called joint “co-resistance” between Israelis and Palestinians, we revealed how one of the writers had a starkly different interpretation of “resistance” on October 7. That day, as Hamas terrorists, aided by Gazan civilians, invaded Israel, massacred over 1,200 people, and took 251 hostages back to Gaza, the writer shared footage of terrorists paragliding into Israel and opening fire, accompanied by a text overlay likening them to Jews smuggling weapons into Nazi ghettos during the Holocaust.
Hasan Piker isn’t merely another controversial figure pushing boundaries — he’s emblematic of a deeply troubling trend: the glamorization of extremism through superficial charm and savvy branding. And, disturbingly, The New York Times is leading the way.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Hasan Piker: How an Israel-Hating, Terror Supporting Streamer Seduced The New York Times first appeared on Algemeiner.com.