In an almost surreal and sweet little piece, the NY times defangs the infamous and maligned leader of Neturei Karta in America, Dovid Weiss, and quotes him saying he is just misunderstood. Ahw, isn’t that sweet. And then they print something that is so outrageously and patently false, that it reminds me why I cancelled my subscription to that fish-wrapper rag in the first place:
“We’re constantly disparaged, belittled, but we’re the ones trying to make peace with the Arabs,†Rabbi Weiss said. “But we don’t look at the Zionists with animosity. We just wished they would give us a chance.â€
Weiss is not a Rabbi, we checked his ordination and it is a farce. He pathologically hates all Jews that do not agree with him, as evidenced by my many, many, encounters with him. He literally hates Jewish students on campuses, and chooses to embrace the most hateful humans who proclaim death to Jews and Israel. In fat he fits the definition well of someone with schizophrenia characterized by “impairments in the perception or expression of reality and by significant social or occupational dysfunction.”
But lest I digress. the real culprit is the NY Times and FERNANDA SANTOS for publishing this garbage. Any amount of digging and fact checking would show that these clowns are not who they say they are, and not sweet and cudly, and most certainly harbor hate and emnity for all Jews beyond their sick cult. They are littel better then terrorists who use their outlandish exploits to gain attention for their cause, without regard for the cost to human life.
Weiss: “But we don’t look at the Zionists with animosity” Was he kidding? That does not pass the giggle test. Their group called Zioinsts “satanic,” they went around the world blaming the Danish cartoons on Israel and Zionists, and publicly call for the destruction of Israel. They demonize the majority of Jews who do support the Jewish state.
‘It is the very fact of the Times’s dispassion – rather than any ostensible bias…’. Um no. They are either biased or worthless or both. Either they take the time and energy to actually DO the reporting necessary to adequately cover the topic, or they do their usual half-assed job and claim that it was an ‘investigative report’ or else put it in the style section and then twitter ‘Well what do you expect? It’s styling!’
The NYT does not report ‘objectively’. On anything. They’ve got their own style guidelines of what to say about a host of issues, how to say it and when to add this ‘hidden hand’ of their very own august imprimatur on the news. Often wrong, but never in doubt. So yes, they have served as useful propaganda tools for the rich & the powerful. But no they’re not be particularly truthful when it comes to reporting on world conflicts or the struggles of the poor, powerless or the simply ‘out of favor’. And yes, religion, religiosity, faith, the true faithful have always been looked down upon by the Times. Precisely due to their bogus and utter fraudulent claims to ‘objectivity’.
So you must be new to the Times right David? In any case the NYT are certainly not alone, and Every paper has a certain well known biases. This is why you need to read more than one, and take each with a grain of salt.
And yeah, Durban! Well we should recall that debacle. This is the world that Abe Foxman sees that others just simply would like to forget or imagine that that well planned assault was somehow an anomaly. All across the globe there are continuous assaults and murders of Jews for simply existing. That’s a nasty little fact that any generation neglects at their supreme peril. Cheers, ‘VJ’
Wow, I would really be grateful if someone would give me a link to the article as it must have originally appeared. The only one I could get a hold of must have been truncated or seriously sanitized, because not only did the one I read seem to lack any assertions that were “surreal†or “outrageously and patently false,†but was apparently without a single statement that was either remotely supportive of Weiss or N.K., or dismissive of his critics. Instead, it seemed to have provided a straightforward, dispassionate, rather bland description of Weiss’s beliefs and activities, and the position of his Orthodox detractors. On the other hand, it is true that the Times didn’t demand Weiss’s birth certificate as proof that he is, in fact, a Jew, nor did it “investigate†his claims or challenge their veracity. I wonder if anyone can identify a single assertion in the article that is false or deceptive or in any way anti-Jewish. I have the sneaking suspicion that there are none, and that the problem with the piece will ultimately be attributed to its tone. That would make it part of a regrettable recent trend; complaints about “tone†seem to have replaced “taken out of context†as the new catchall objection for those without any actual evidence of the transgressions they allege.
It is the very fact of the Times’s dispassion – rather than any ostensible bias –that is the true source of the seething derision directed toward the “mainstream media†by conservative supporters of Israel, members of the Christian Right, and the like. These critics seemingly believe the purpose of a free press is to freely serve as mouthpieces for the causes they espouse, and to feed information to the public in support thereof. Thus, the Times undermines the G.W.O.T and gives “comfort to the enemy†because it continues to report the daily atrocities in Iraq, rather than focusing on how many people weren’t murdered in sectarian violence each day. Likewise, the paper reports details of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict without focusing on the “real†story of how Israel is a victim of Arab aggression, and is thus culpable by the very fact of its neutrality. For those who believe God is on their side, politics, religion, and culture are battlegrounds for good and evil; objectivity merely serves to imply some measure of equivalence between the two, and is to be opposed for that reason alone.
Alas, there’s a word for journalism that dispenses with objectivity in pursuit of some “higher†good: propaganda. And though the Times may not have scaled the journalistic heights of Ynet or the Jewish Press, I’d still say it serves a rather useful function.
The article wasn’t as gushy as I thought after reading your lead-in, but it was poorly researched and really worthless anyhow. Yet another NYT effort to make itself the paper that has All the Vaguely Anti-Jewish News that Fits.
I totally agree with you. These people are frauds. Its disgusting that they get treated as legitimate Jewish voices.
I have unfortunately also met their ‘rabbis’. I met 3 of them during the U.N. racism conference in Durban. Jewish delegates were subjected to some of the worst anti-Semitism seen since Nazi Germany. I asked the ‘rabbis’ if this made them uncomfortable. They told me that it was G-d ordained for the Jews to suffer humiliation and loathing at the hands of gentiles. It was punishment for our sins. They totally reject the concept of auto-emancipation. They are in every possible ways self-hating Jews.
I had another run in with them in London earlier this year at the anti-war rally. It was on Shabbat. But they were there. They were even carrying posters. This is not allowed in terms of Jewish law. So really how Jewish are they.
But this made me giggle.