Not for the first time this month, The New York Times again whitewashes anti-Western elements in the Middle East. In their article yesterday (“Dueling Narratives in Iran over U.S. Relations“), Michael Schwirtz and Thomas Erdbrink report:

The tensions over the recent breakthroughs were evident in Iran over the weekend. On Saturday, dozens of protesters threw eggs and a shoe at Mr. Rouhani upon his return from an annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations in New York.

At the protest in Tehran, hard-liners surrounded Mr. Rouhani’s car, shouting, “Our people are awake and hate America!”

Asked to explain such statements on Sunday, [Foreign Minister] Mr. Zarif said the Iranian people hated American policies, not the American people.

“American people are nice, peace-loving, generous people who come to the aid of people in need all over the world, and this is what we respect and have a lot of admiration for,” he said.

But the policies of the American government, he said, have “unfortunately been the source of instability in our region for many years.” (Emphasis added.)

Protesters may have shouted at Rouhani that the people “hate America,” but as was widely reported elsewhere, they also shouted a much more vitriolic, extreme chant, “Death to America.”

Indeed, when Mr. Zarif addressed “such statements” Sunday, he was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, who specifically asked him about the “Death to America” refrain, not people “hate America.” Here’s what Stephanopoulos actually asked Zarif (approximately 17:40 minutes into the video):

When you hear those chants that come up so often in Iran, “Death to America, Death to America,” what do you think about that and what can you say to those Iranians who say “Death to America”?

(more…)

CNN said it. And seemingly everyone else followed suit. But did Iranian president Hassan Rouhani actually acknowledge the Holocaust?

Even based on the CNN voice-over on the segment of the interview posted online by CNN, there are serious questions about whether it’s reasonable to conclude Rouhani agreed that the Holocaust — or rather, that the same Holocaust acknowledged by the rest of the world — occurred.

Rouhani seems to have told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the Nazis committed some crime of unknown dimensions against the Jews.

I’ve said before that I am not a historian, and when it comes to speaking the dimensions of the Holocaust, it is the historians that should reflect on it. But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created toward the Jews, is reprehensible and condemnable. Whatever the criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn.

This isn’t exactly an admission of the Nazi genocide documented by historians. After all, even Holocaust deniers have granted that some Nazis killed some Jews. It is not clear from the section of the interview thus far made available by CNN that Rouhani is saying any more than this, even if he does use the Iranian word for Holocaust.

But did he even say “Holocaust”? The Iranian Fars News Agency, for what it’s worth, is claiming CNN mistranslated Rouhani. And the Wall Street Journal‘s Sohrab Ahmari, who speaks Persian, asserts that the Fars transcription and translation is accurate — meaning CNN’s translation is not.

After the the accuracy of the translations were challenged, CNN told The Free Beacon that its translation is accurate, and that the translator who worked with CNN was hired by the Iranian government.

Depending on who’s right, it may turn out that a whole lot of news organizations need to correct a whole lot of misstatements.

Photoshopped.

9/25 Update: After CAMERA communicated with CNN about the erroneous lede sentence, AP amended its story. The piece now states that “The Iranian president’s first speech to world leaders toned down anti-Israel rhetoric,” not that the speech was “absent” of such rhetoric.

An AP story today opens by informing readers that “The Iranian president’s first speech to world leaders was absent anti-Israel rhetoric….”

The problem is, Rouhani in fact leveled some of the harshest, most inflammatory anti-Israel slurs available during his UN speech yesterday, describing Israel as engaging in “brutal repression” and as practicing something even worse than apartheid.

In language that differed little from the predictable anti-Israel venom often heard from Iranian leaders, Rouhani told delegates at the United Nations that

What has been – and continues to be – practiced against the innocent people of Palestine is nothing less than structural violence. Palestine is under occupation; the basic rights of the Palestinians are tragically violated, and they are deprived of the right of return and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland. Apartheid as a concept can hardly describe the crimes and the institutionalized aggression against the innocent Palestinian people.

Much later in the piece, the AP reporter, Lara Jakes, does assert that Rouhani “briefly touched on what he described as Palestine’s depravation and subjugation.” But obviously this understated elaboration does not eliminate the need for an opening sentence that doesn’t misinform.

It’s also worth noting is that, while the Jakes mentions that Rouhani referred to “crimes the Nazis created toward the Jews,” she inexplicably omits any reference to the more controversial part of his statement to CNN — “I have said before that I am not a historian, and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust it is the historians that should reflect on it” — an equivocation that virtually all other reports recognized was relevant to the story.

CAMERA has informed CNN of the error and the omission and called for a correction. We’ll update this post with any further developments.

In President Obama’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he said:

We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course, and given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government in close cooperation with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China.

Naturally, the mainstream media is seized with joy that Obama is embracing the “moderate” Iranian leader. The Los Angeles Times declares “President Obama, at United Nations, seeks ‘diplomatic path’ with Iran” and ABC News exclaims “At UN, Obama Welcomes Signs of Iranian Moderation.”

But is Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani really moderate? Not so much.

Roozbeh Farahanipour, a young activist arrested, imprisoned and tortured during the 1999 student uprising against the Islamist regime in Tehran, wrote:

Don’t be fooled by Hassan Rouhani’s guise and his words of temperance, which mask a history of unabashed fanatical Islamic radicalism.

[…]

In a matter of weeks after the announcement of Rouhani’s bid for candidacy, he was suddenly pegged as a “moderate” and “reformer.” […] In the blink of an eye, his history of deceiving the international community, supporting international terror and oppressing Iran’s citizens, disappeared from the headlines and common discourse.

Rouhani, who headed the Islamic National Security Council from 1989 thru 2005, including during the 1999 uprisings, is quoted as saying at that time:

“These students are too pathetic and worthless for us to have to begin changing our directives. The continuance of this mess is not acceptable for our regime and the people. I issued strict orders against these elements [the students] to confront and severely deal with these opportunists. Wherever they are, we will handle them and suppress them. People will witness what today’s security and disciplinary forces, the heroic members of the Basij (auxiliary militia) will do to these rabble-rousers and thugs, if they dare to imagine that they can continue their so-called peaceful campaign. The agent that has united our people today, is simply indestructible; that agent is Islam and Islamic rule which is the absolute symbol of the Supreme Leadership.”

And how did the regime forces, under the order of Rouhani, “handle” and “suppress” the students? According to Farahanipour, “many students were being shot to death in their dormitories or thrown out of their windows, I was thrown into solitary confinement.”

Murder and repression… Moderate?

Rouhani has defended his duplicitous strategy as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. At the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, Rouhani explained:

“While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were [simultaneously] installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear] facility in Isfahan, but we still had a long way to go to accomplish the project. In fact, by creating a tranquil environment, we were able to finish the work in Isfahan.”

Lying and cheating… Moderate?

Iran’s official FARS News Agency quoted Rouhani’s message of support to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, an American-designated terrorist group:

“No doubt, your tireless and dedicated efforts and those of Hezbollah warriors on the scene of resistance promise the decisive victory of the resistant Lebanese and Palestinian nations over the Zionist regime, which has always been supported by the Islamic Republic.”

Support for terrorist groups… Moderate?

According to Syrian state news agency SANA, at a Tehran meeting with Syria’s Prime Minister, Rouhani expressed his protection for Syria’s bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad, just days before Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons on his people:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran aims to strengthen its relations with Syria and will stand by it in facing all challenges… The deep, strategic and historic relations between the people of Syria and Iran … will not be shaken by any force in the world.”

Backing brutal dictators… Moderate?

In his speech to the United Nations, President Obama said, “President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” If Obama believes this statement, why doesn’t he believe Rouhani’s previous statements, above?

And why doesn’t the media? Murder and repression, lying and cheating, support for terrorist groups, backing brutal dictators… Where’s the coverage?

Rouhani at the annual military parade in Tehran with some of his moderate friends.

Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP

Israel Hayom Plays Broken Telephone
Israel Hayom’s three versions of a report on Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal becomes increasingly confused. (Presspectiva)

What Israel has done for the Palestinians
Has Israel really done nothing for the welfare of Palestinians in the last 46 years?. (Presspectiva)

BBC WS adds clarification to Doucet remarks in Peres interview
BBC corrects claim by Lyse Doucet that Israeli PM never said what it had itself reported him as saying. (BBC Watch)

BBC’s educational resource website describes Yom Kippur attack by Syria and Egypt as ‘pre-emptive’
Politically motivated distortion on the BBC’s resource website for teachers . (BBC Watch)

Perpetrator: always Israel
The Spanish-language media tends to distort information when Israel is the victim. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Europa Press: distorting the information
The Spanish wire agency does its best to portray Israel in the worst possible light . (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

A Holy Land Without Christians?
The population of Christians in “Israel/Palestine” has actually increased, not decreased. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Where’s the Coverage? Rouhani’s Own Words Prove He is No Moderate
The latest untold story. (Snapshots)

Counter-terror idea by Simon Jenkins in response to Nairobi: Stop building malls.
In response to the massacre of civilians at a shopping centre in Nairobi, Kenya by the Islamist group al-Shabaab, the Guardian’s veteran journalist proposes an unusual anti-terror idea: cease the construction of shopping malls! (CiF Watch)

This past week has had its share of Islamist violence.

Boko Haram Islamists massacred 159 in Nigeria.

Suicide bombers in Iraq killed 96 attending a funeral.

A bombing of a church in Pakistan killed 81.

Terrorists took over a mall in Kenya and killed up to 68.

56 soldiers and policemen in Yemen were slaughtered by Islamic extremists.

It’s anyone’s guess how many died in Syria this past week.

But what really riled European diplomats like Marion Fesneau-Castaing and her boss Lady Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, were a bunch of Israeli soldiers standing around to ensure that demonstrators – including European diplomats – didn’t get out of hand while illegal dwellings were dismantled. Ms. Fesneau-Castaing punched a young Israeli soldier in order to flaunt her sacrosanct diplomatic status. Undoubtedly, she is basking in her “courageous” act of defiance, secure in the safe confines of Israel and far removed from places like Nigeria and Pakistan where real courage is required.

CAMERA has long highlighted the pernicious effect of Palestinian incitement, which, though too-often ignored by the American press, is a central obstacle to peaceful coexistence.

The importance of (ending) this phenomenon was raised this month in separate publications by David Pollack of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and David Horovitz of the Times of Israel.

One interesting passage from the former:

A different but related and very frequent Palestinian assertion is that incitement is a predictable, understandable, and perhaps even inevitable response to the conditions of occupation under which Palestinians now live. As such, they say, incitement is impossible to stop—even if, ironically, that makes it harder to convince Israel to end the occupation. If, however, the occupation were to end somehow, then incitement would arguably cease of its own accord.

This may seem logical, but only until two complicating factors are considered. First, it begs the question of “how to get from here to there”—that is, how to end the occupation while incitement continues. Second, it ignores the historical evidence from all the other cases in which Israel withdrew from an occupation but anti-Israel incitement raged on or intensified, tolerated and even abetted by the Arab governments in charge: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and most recently Gaza. This record suggests that even after a compromise peace deal with the PA, incitement could well continue from a new, more powerful vantage point—unless the deal itself includes some kind of built-in corrective measures against that possibility.

And from the latter:

And nine years after his death, incitement against Israel’s very existence remains widespread — in Palestinian schools and summer camps, newspaper articles and caricatures, TV shows and advertisements, where Israel has no place, where Israeli cities have Arabic names, where the Jews have no Middle East history.

Arafat told president Bill Clinton at Camp David in 2000 that he couldn’t sign a peace deal then because he would be assassinated by his own people for doing so. But that was a consequence of the uncompromising climate that he had most deliberately created.

The New York Times today paints an image of Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s latest Holocaust-questioning president, in front of his computer Tweeting nice things to the Jews:

What is new is Mr. Netanyahu’s explicit comparison of Iran to North Korea — a rhetorical device devised to undermine Mr. Rouhani’s image as a moderate leader who posted greetings on Twitter to Jews for Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.

As we know, though, Rouhani did not “post” any such greetings to Twitter. He doesn’t run a Twitter account.

Factual error aside, the passage is also noteworthy in that it continues a pattern at the newspaper of casting Israeli concerns as “devised rhetoric” or cynical spin, while statements by Israel’s adversaries are often portrayed as genuine, reflecting inner feelings that can evoke reader sympathy.

Our monograph Indicting Israel, which reports on the results of CAMERA’s six-month study of New York Times reporting, provides several examples of this double standard.

In stories about peace negotiations and the Palestinian move for UN statehood recognition, the newspaper asserted that “fruitless negotiations with Israel made [Mahmoud Abbas] feel as if he had little choice — and little to lose — by taking his case to the sympathetic world forum.” The Times further justified Abbas’s move by saying Israel left Mr. Abbas “a sense of having no alternatives.” Palestinians were “despairing” of the negotiations process, and “Mr. Abbas felt let down.”

In contrast with these credulous descriptions of Palestinian feelings, Israel’s position was generally, and appropriately, relayed as a position: “Israel says…,” “Israeli officials argue…,” “The basic Israeli position [is]….”

Or worse: As with the recent example describing Israeli worries as “a rhetorical device devised to undermine,” the newspaper had described Israel’s position about the peace process as spin, as in the passage, “Mr. Netanyahu’s office “seemed eager to sound open” to renewed talks….”

This double standard is subtle, but undoubtedly has an impact on readers’ views.

We don’t need no education… Unless maybe it’s an anti-Israel education?

Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, known broadly for his advocacy of the anti-Israel Boycott Divest Sanction movement but not for his expertise in Middle East history or international law, is sponsoring a curriculum in Ireland, entitled “Palestine and Israel: How will there be a just peace?”

Rob Harris, who lives in Ireland and blogs at eirael.blogspot.com, writes on Crethi Plethi:

Ireland’s public service broadcaster, reported today that Roger Waters is sponsoring a “human rights” educational programme for second-level students, concerning the Middle Eastern Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[…]

The broadcast did not make any mention of Roger Waters’ prolific criticism of Israel. Some commentators, such as Dominic Lawson, deem Waters’ stance to be highly antagonistic toward Israel, and perhaps, more broadly speaking, toward the Jewish race itself.

Waters’ more recent performances of The Wall have been mired in controversy due to the use of what many deem to be traditionally anti-Semitic motifs, principally a pig embossed with a Star of David. Previously Waters stirred controversy when images of Star of David bombs associated with Dollar signs were used at his concerts.

Meanwhile, The Simon Wiesenthal Center is criticizing Amnesty International for selecting Roger Waters to present the group’s upcoming ‘Ambassador of Conscience’ award. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is quoted in a press release:

“Instead of denouncing Roger Waters for his bigotry, Amnesty International places him center-stage of their human rights celebration; the same Roger Waters who brazenly floats a pig with a Jewish Star of David at concerts across Europe, including Germany and Warsaw and who is a leading campaigner promoting a cultural boycott of Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy,” Cooper [said].

[…]

“Today, instead of commending Israel for its humanitarian treatment of injured Syrian combatants and civilians; instead on focusing on the gassing of Syrian children and mounting human rights abuses in the Arab world; Amnesty Iinternational has chosen to elevate someone who abuses Israel and insults Jewish values and symbols,” Rabbi Cooper concluded.

It seems like “human rights” groups and Roger Waters himself do need an education.

Roger Waters’ anti-Israel and anti-Semitic imagery. Left: A pig-shaped balloon featuring the Star of David was released into the sky during a recent concert in Belgium, July 2013. Right: Images of planes dropping bombs in the shape of Jewish Stars of David followed by dollar signs during his 2010-2011 The Wall Live tour.

Remember when Gaza was an “open air prison,” as the Huffington Post called it? Remember when the tunnels, smuggling terrorists and weaponry in and out of the Strip, were “a legitimate trade and passenger route, one that is necessary for survival,” according to The New York Times?

That was when Israel was trucking in tons of goods and the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza was open.

Well, Israel is still trucking food, medicine, clothing, construction materials and other supplies into Gaza. Last week, September 8-14, Israel sent 1,428 trucks carrying 38,545 tons of goods into the Palestinian enclave. So what’s changed? Egypt is cracking down on Gaza, that’s what.

Then how come you don’t hear much about the suffering of Gaza residents? Because it can’t be blamed on Israel.

IRIN, the Integrated Regional Information Networks, describes itself as an editorially independent, non-profit project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). On September 17, IRIN reported:

Residents and officials in Gaza say the repeated closures of the border crossing into Egypt, a key lifeline for Palestinians in the occupied territories, is destroying livelihoods, harming health and lowering basic living conditions.

The border crossing at Rafah has now been closed for seven consecutive days – the second sustained closure in the past few weeks – following instability in the Sinai region on the Egyptian side of the border.

A reopening is promised tomorrow, Wednesday, but the closures, reduced operating hours and the crackdown on smuggling tunnels are squeezing the country’s most important supply line.

[…]

The closures, along with the large-scale destruction of smuggling tunnels that were a major supply route into Gaza, are leading to shortages and higher prices for basic goods.

OCHA estimates that fewer than 10 tunnels are operational, down from 50 in previous weeks and 300 before June [when demonstrations erupted in Egypt, culminating in the removal of President Mohamed Morsi].

So, Egypt –which is not trucking supplies into Gaza– closes the Rafah crossing and shuts down the smuggling tunnels that are “necessary for survival”. Naturally you’ve read about this in The New York Times and the Huffington Post. No?

Ahram Online, the Egyptian news Web site, reported on statements by Ahmed Ali, spokesman for the Egyptian Armed Forces:

According to Ali, the army has arrested around 309 militants and confiscated a number of munitions, including mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

He added that some of the confiscated hand grenades bear the stamp of Al-Qassam brigades –the militant wing of Gaza’s Islamist ruling party Hamas.

“Hamas is also responsible for securing the borders,” said Ali, who added that houses placed on the border with the Gaza strip are a threat to national security.

Ali stated that while no buffer zone has been declared between Sinai and Gaza yet, the army is securing a distance of between 500 meters and 1 kilometer at the border.

Gaza exports terrorism and terrorists to Egypt and Egypt cracks down. Egypt destroys smuggling tunnels, closes the crossing, and secures territory on the border. Naturally, human rights activists around the world are planning large-scale demonstrations and setting off on their protest ships. No?

The Arab press, Jewish and Israeli media have covered this story. To their credit, there has been some reporting on this subject by United Press International but it has not been picked up by most of the popular press which has given it precious little attention.

When Israel tries to protect its citizens from thousands of rockets, missiles and terrorist attacks from Gaza, there’s a hue and cry, outrage and indignation. When Egypt responds to terrorism in the Sinai… Where are the protests? Where are the flotillas? And for heaven’s sake, where’s the coverage?