RSS
The New York Times Leads the Way in Negating Amsterdam Pogrom
Footage of last week’s violent attacks on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam has now been circulated widely.
Clips show Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chased down the city’s canal-lined streets by mobs armed with fireworks.
Many of us have seen the horrifying video of a young fan pleading with his attackers that he is “not Jewish,” as they pummel him with kicks and punches, and also the brutal scenes of Israelis beaten unconscious by thugs shouting slogans like “Free Palestine” and “This is for the children.”
Dutch authorities have confirmed — and messages shared on encrypted apps like Telegram reveal — that the attack on Israeli fans was meticulously planned. Contrary to some claims, this wasn’t a reaction to hooligan behavior by a handful of Maccabi supporters.
More disturbing than the sickening antisemitic violence that happened on the 86th anniversary of Kristallnacht is the media’s indifference to — and, in some cases, tacit justification for — these attacks.
Take The New York Times’ coverage, which initially described the incident as “violence tied to a soccer game,” implying it was run-of-the-mill football hooliganism. Even as the headline referenced the antisemitic nature of the attack, the Times slyly pinned this view on “Israeli authorities,” despite identical conclusions from Dutch police.
Israeli Jews attacked on the streets of Amsterdam. But @nytimes does its best at both sidism, failing to note who the attackers are.
This was not “violence tied to a soccer game” from two sets of fans. This was a pre-planned pogrom against Israelis. pic.twitter.com/JQ6sfhGBU4
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 8, 2024
Incredibly, a video of a mob hurling projectiles at a Maccabi supporter was still reported as part of “clashes” between rival teams, sanitizing the brutal one-sided attack into a benign scuffle, while Tel Aviv fans singing “Am Yisrael Chai” was termed an “anti-Arab provocation” by the outlet:
Saying “Am Yisrael Chai,” an oft-used Jewish expression of solidarity and affirmation of peoplehood, is now apparently an anti-Arab provocation according to @nytimes.
What is it about Jewish peoplehood that The New York Times finds so offensive?https://t.co/WykXTSBCez pic.twitter.com/4jrP4zXTAh
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 10, 2024
Then, four days later, The New York Times took its “both sides” narrative even further, publishing an “explainer” suggesting that, even if Israelis were attacked, they somehow invited it. The article opens with an assertion that the mob surrounding a casino — where Israelis were seeking shelter — was there because someone “stole and burned a Palestinian flag.”
Later, the piece even suggests that it only “appears” the attacks were motivated by antisemitism.
Equally worrying is The New York Times’ platforming of Sheher Khan, a Muslim Dutch politician who argues that Israelis should be banned from Amsterdam to avoid “inevitable” demonstrations and confrontations.
Rather than challenging Khan’s grotesque proposal with a call to protect Israelis and Jews from antisemitic mobs, the Times practically endorses it, citing the “political backdrop” as reason enough.
Here’s @nytimes with an “explainer” on how Israeli soccer fans were attacked in Amsterdam. But, naturally, it’s less about explaining and more about subtly implying, right from paragraph one, that these fans somehow “had it coming.” https://t.co/EsRbQLwrZT pic.twitter.com/bY1udfbC8q
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 11, 2024
Unfortunately, The New York Times’ coverage reflects a broader trend.
Reuters, the Associated Press, and The Guardian also rushed to frame the violence as soccer “clashes,” ignoring the condemnation of what Amsterdam’s mayor Femke Halsema likened to “antisemitic hit-and-run squads.”
“Apparent.”
It was all too apparent to the Israeli Jews attacked in Amsterdam, @Reuters.https://t.co/vIVDgBrdYT pic.twitter.com/Nu041auBvm
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 8, 2024
Israelis are attacked, not at the soccer match, but on the streets of Amsterdam in a premeditated and targeted lynch.
But @AP turns the Israelis into the provocateurs.https://t.co/X6zfoVXGLB pic.twitter.com/dbXyVYQKpy
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 8, 2024
“Reportedly attacked.”@guardian is so used to falsely portraying Israelis as the sole aggressors, it can’t even categorically state when Israeli Jews are targeted by a lynch mob in Amsterdam.
What next? Israelis “reportedly attacked” on Oct. 7?https://t.co/em4nNK6cBI pic.twitter.com/GanKIbf5XY
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 8, 2024
The worst reactions, however, came from certain media personalities indulging in grotesque victim-blaming.
For example, former MSNBC host and self-styled moral arbiter Mehdi Hasan took to X to all but justify the pogrom as a natural consequence of the war in Gaza.
There is a coordinated attempt on this hellsite tonight to accuse me of antisemitism because I pointed out (the fact) that Israeli football hooligans started the violence in Amsterdam. That’s not a justification of the violence that followed of course and these attacks on me are…
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 10, 2024
Guardian columnist Owen Jones felt compelled to add “context” to the attacks, claiming that Israeli fans chanted “genocidal bile,” effectively suggesting they deserved to be targeted. This angle was eagerly echoed by Novara Media’s Rivkah Brown, who confidently branded Maccabi fans as among the real “culprits.”
You are being lied to about Amsterdam.
Israeli football hooligans attacked local residents and property, and loudly chanted and sang genocidal bile.
The Western media and politicians stripped all this context away – and engaged in rampant, shameless, unhinged deceit. pic.twitter.com/G6g3eNF94j
— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) November 9, 2024
Let’s not be too surprised by Jones, though. This is, after all, the same man who, after watching 47 minutes of footage from the October 7 Hamas massacre, concluded that Israel still hadn’t provided enough proof of horrors like the gang-rape of women and the deliberate killing of children.
What took place in Amsterdam was a brutal wave of antisemitic violence. That’s the reality. And it should be just as simple for the media and their pundits to call it what it was — a modern-day pogrom. Enough with the equivocating.
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 The New York Times Leads the Way in Negating Amsterdam Pogrom first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Proposes Resettlement of Gazans as Netanyahu Visits White House
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed the resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, calling the enclave a “demolition site” and saying residents have “no alternative” as he held critical talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.
“[The Palestinians] have no alternative right now” but to leave Gaza, Trump told reporters before Netanyahu arrived. “I mean, they’re there because they have no alternative. What do they have? It is a big pile of rubble right now.”
Trump repeated his call for Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the region to take in Palestinians from Gaza after nearly 16 months of war there between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which ruled the enclave before the war and remains the dominant faction.
Arab leaders have adamantly rejected Trump’s proposal. However, Trump argued on Tuesday that Palestinians would benefit from leaving Gaza and expressed astonishment at the notion that they would want to remain.
“Look, the Gaza thing has not worked. It’s never worked. And I feel very differently about Gaza than a lot of people. I think they should get a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land. We’ll get some people to put up the money to build it and make it nice and make it habitable and enjoyable,” Trump said.
Referring to Gaza as a “pure demolition site,” the president said he doesn’t “know how they [Palestinians] could want to stay” when asked about the reaction of Palestinian and Arab leaders to his proposal.
“If we could find the right piece of land, or numerous pieces of land, and build them some really nice places, there’s plenty of money in the area, that’s for sure,” Trump continued. “I think that would be a lot better than going back to Gaza, which has had decades and decades of death.”
However, Trump clarified that he does “not necessarily” support Israel permanently annexing and resettling Gaza.
Trump later made similar remarks with Netanyahu at his side in the Oval Office, suggesting that Palestinians should leave Gaza for good “in nice homes and where they can be happy and not be shot, not be killed.”
“They are not going to want to go back to Gaza,” he said.
Trump did not offer any specifics about how a resettlement process could be implemented.
The post-war future of Palestinians in Gaza has loomed as a major point of contention within both the United States and Israel. The former Biden administration emphatically rejected the notion of relocating Gaza civilians, demanding a humanitarian aid “surge” into the beleaguered enclave.
Trump has previously hinted at support for relocating Gaza civilians. Last month, the president said he would like to “just clean out” Gaza and resettle residents in Jordan or Egypt.
Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, defended Trump’s comments in a Tuesday press conference, arguing that Gaza will remain uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
“When the president talks about ‘cleaning it out,’ he talks about making it habitable,” Witkoff said. “It is unfair to have explained to Palestinians that they might be back in five years. That’s just preposterous.
Trump’s comments were immediately met with backlash, with some observers accusing him of supporting an ethnic cleansing plan. However, proponents of the proposal argue that it could offer Palestinians a better future and would mitigate the threat posed by Hamas.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages back to Gaza while perpetrating widespread sexual violence in what was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Last month, both sides reached a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar.
Under phase one of the agreement, Hamas will, over six weeks, free a total of 33 Israeli hostages, eight of whom are deceased, and in exchange, Israel will release over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are serving multiple life sentences for terrorist activity. Meanwhile, fighting in Gaza will stop as negotiators work on agreeing to a second phase of the agreement, which is expected to include Hamas releasing all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the enclave.
The ceasefire and the future of Gaza were expected to be key topics of conversation between Trump and Netanyahu, along with the possibility of Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing relations and Iran’s nuclear program.
Riyadh has indicated that any normalization agreement with Israel would need to include an end to the Gaza war and the pathway to the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, perhaps the most strategically important subject will be Iran, particularly how to contain its nuclear program and combat its support for terrorist proxies across the Middle East. In recent weeks, many analysts have raised questions over whether Trump would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which both Washington and Jerusalem fear are meant to ultimately develop nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu on Tuesday was the first foreign leader to visit the White House since Trump’s inauguration last month.
The post Trump Proposes Resettlement of Gazans as Netanyahu Visits White House first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Reimposes ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran, Aims to Drive Oil Exports to Zero
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday restored his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that includes efforts to drive its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Ahead of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump signed the presidential memorandum reimposing Washington’s tough policy on Iran that was practiced throughout his first term.
As he signed the memo, Trump described it as very tough and said he was torn on whether to make the move. He said he was open to a deal with Iran and expressed a willingness to talk to the Iranian leader.
“With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. Asked how close Tehran is to a weapon, Trump said: “They’re too close.”
Iran‘s mission to the United Nations in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump has accused former President Joe Biden of failing to rigorously enforce oil-export sanctions, which Trump says emboldened Tehran by allowing it to sell oil to fund a nuclear weapons program and armed militias in the Middle East.
Iran is “dramatically” accelerating enrichment of uranium to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level, the UN nuclear watchdog chief told Reuters in December. Iran has denied wanting to develop a nuclear weapon.
Trump‘s memo, among other things, orders the US Treasury secretary to impose “maximum economic pressure” on Iran, including sanctions and enforcement mechanisms on those violating existing sanctions.
It also directs the Treasury and State Department to implement a campaign aimed at “driving Iran‘s oil exports to zero.” US oil prices pared losses on Tuesday on the news that Trump planned to sign the memo, which offset some weakness from the tariff drama between Washington and Beijing.
Tehran’s oil exports brought in $53 billion in 2023 and $54 billion a year earlier, according to US Energy Information Administration estimates. Output during 2024 was running at its highest level since 2018, based on OPEC data.
Trump had driven Iran‘s oil exports to near-zero during part of his first term after re-imposing sanctions. They rose under Biden’s tenure as Iran succeeded in evading sanctions.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency believes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other OPEC members have spare capacity to make up for any lost exports from Iran, also an OPEC member.
PUSH FOR SANCTIONS SNAPBACK
China does not recognize US sanctions and Chinese firms buy the most Iranian oil. China and Iran have also built a trading system that uses mostly Chinese yuan and a network of middlemen, avoiding the dollar and exposure to US regulators.
Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy, said the Trump administration could enforce the 2024 Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum (SHIP) law to curtail some Iranian barrels.
SHIP, which the Biden administration did not enforce strictly, allows measures on foreign ports and refineries that process petroleum exported from Iran in violation of sanctions. Book said a move last month by the Shandong Port Group to ban US-sanctioned tankers from calling into its ports in the eastern Chinese province signals the impact SHIP could have.
Trump also directed his UN ambassador to work with allies to “complete the snapback of international sanctions and restrictions on Iran,” under a 2015 deal between Iran and key world powers that lifted sanctions on Tehran in return for restrictions on its nuclear program.
The US quit the agreement in 2018, during Trump‘s first term, and Iran began moving away from its nuclear-related commitments under the deal. The Trump administration had also tried to trigger a snapback of sanctions under the deal in 2020, but the move was dismissed by the UN Security Council.
Britain, France, and Germany told the United Nations Security Council in December that they are ready — if necessary — to trigger a snapback of all international sanctions on Iran to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
They will lose the ability to take such action on Oct. 18 when a 2015 UN resolution expires. The resolution enshrines Iran‘s deal with Britain, Germany, France, the United States, Russia, and China that lifted sanctions on Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.
Iran‘s UN ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, has said that invoking the “snap-back” of sanctions on Tehran would be “unlawful and counterproductive.”
European and Iranian diplomats met in November and January to discuss if they could work to defuse regional tensions, including over Tehran’s nuclear program, before Trump returned.
The post Trump Reimposes ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran, Aims to Drive Oil Exports to Zero first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Stops US Involvement With UN Rights Body, Extends UNRWA Funding Halt
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to US engagement with the United Nations Human Rights Council and continued a halt to funding for the UN Palestinian relief agency UNRWA.
The move coincides with a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long been critical of UNRWA, accusing it of anti-Israel incitement and its staff of being “involved in terrorist activities against Israel.”
During Trump‘s first term in office, from 2017-2021, he also cut off funding for UNRWA, questioning its value, saying that Palestinians needed to agree to renew peace talks with Israel, and calling for unspecified reforms.
The first Trump administration also quit the 47-member Human Rights Council halfway through a three-year term over what it called chronic bias against Israel and a lack of reform. The US is not currently a member of the Geneva-based body. Under former President Joe Biden, the US served a 2022-2024 term.
A council working group is due to review the US human rights record later this year, a process all countries undergo every few years. While the council has no legally binding power, its debates carry political weight and criticism can raise global pressure on governments to change course.
Since taking office for a second term on Jan. 20, Trump has ordered that the US withdraw from the World Health Organization and from the Paris climate agreement — also steps he took during his first term in office.
The US was UNRWA’s biggest donor — providing $300 million-$400 million a year — but Biden paused funding in January 2024 after Israel accused about a dozen UNRWA staff of taking part in the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Palestinian terrorist group Hamas that triggered the war in Gaza.
The US Congress then formally suspended contributions to UNRWA until at least March 2025.
The United Nations has said that nine UNRWA staff may have been involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack and were fired. A Hamas commander in Lebanon — killed in September by Israel — was also found to have had a UNRWA job.
An Israeli ban went into effect on Jan. 30 that prohibits UNRWA from operating on its territory or communicating with Israeli authorities. UNRWA has said operations in Gaza and West Bank will also suffer.
The post Trump Stops US Involvement With UN Rights Body, Extends UNRWA Funding Halt first appeared on Algemeiner.com.