by Richard H. Shulman, July 25, 2017

Part 1: Muslim Attacks And The Media's Take On Them

Apparently at the Israeli embassy in Jordan, a Jordanian stabbed the Ambassador's security guard. The guard shot that Jordanian and another one dead. The Ambassador and his guard have diplomatic immunity. Jordan detained the guard from leaving Jordan, but then relented (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 78/25/17, A4).

Jordan violated international rules on diplomatic immunity. The Times and the media in general did not point that out. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA did on 7/24:

"This isn't between Israel and Jordan. It's between Jordan and world order. Jordan's gross violation of the diplomatic immunity of an Israeli official stationed at Israel's embassy jeopardizes the safety of diplomats around the world. It sets a precedent and expectation in the "street" that rulers can ignore the most fundamental of international laws. Where are the leaders of the world? Russia, China, India, Germany, UK, USA, etc. all have diplomatic missions in countries with unpredictable regimes.

"If Jordan gets away with this, the diplomatic chaos that started in Amman may spread to the rest of the world. It's a time for worldwide rage at Jordan. Here's the irony: if CNN and BBC had opened their news broadcasts this morning with reports of calls by world leaders for Jordan to honor international law, the King of Jordan could have easily sent the Israeli home, explaining that he had no choice."

Dr. Lerner added the next day that the U.S. encouraged Israel to give in to Jordan, on this. He considers this U.S. action an addition to the extensive proof that Israel must never let its national security and sovereignty depend on third parties, which usually urge that Israel accede to the guilty Arab side. However, since Israel brought the security guard home, I don't see an erosion of Israel's rights via U.S. diplomacy.

The media keep falsely accusing Israel of violating international law. The Arabs keep violating international law, but the media mostly overlooks it.

After many, many Arab riots on the Temple Mount, Israel finally installed security cameras and metal detectors. The Arabs who pray in Al Aqsa Mosque and their representatives object to the security measures. Now they riot over those measures. The media fail to explain the objections to reasonable security measures.

Here is my explanation. The media often describes Palestinian Arabs as "outraged." It gives no explanation for that, leaving the incorrect impression that they might have justification and that maybe Israel mistreats them. The explanation for that is their religious upbringing that teaches that the Arabs should be ruling the world. Instead, they are a backward part of the world. Especially grating to them is that some of them are ruled by the people they hate most, Jews.

Being outraged, and incited by their religious and political leaders who, to the rest of the word, feign innocence, they riot. They riot because they are a violent lot and they use any means to advance their religion. They also learned that if they persist, the media and foreign governments will pressure Israel to accede.

In particular, they don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Mount or anything else. They feel they are superior to people of all other faiths.

Israel announced that it was removing the metal detectors and security cameras in favor of technologically superior measures. It was not quoted to the effect that the new measures would take at least six months to install. IMRA did report this (7/25/17). People are given a false sense of security.

What is Jordan's role? The Times misstates it as "an important ally" of Israel. No, it is any enemy of Israel that cooperates with Israel for mutual security. Israel has saved the regime more than once.

Jordan's role in the Temple Mt. controversy is a mixed one. It knows that the Palestinian Arabs threaten the security of the monarchy. Islamist sentiment is strong in Jordan. I believe that the government of Jordan puts on an Islamist face in dealing with the Temple Mt., while trying to minimize terrorism from Jordan.

The Times reports that Israel "accused the P.A. of rewarding the man who stabbed the Israeli family in the W. Bank." What we already know is that the P.A. does reward P.A. Arabs who physically attack Jews. We also know, but the Times fails to inform its readers, that while Abbas assures Pres. Trump he has stopped such payments, he reassures his own people that he continues the payments. Some assailants have admitted that the payments were their motive.

A P.A. official rejected any P.A. responsibility for terrorist attacks. How deceitful! The P.A. rewards them and encourages them and makes its people believe that Israel stole their country.

The media that keeps raising (false) moral issues against Israel, fails to raise legitimate moral issues against the P.A.. Paying murderers forfeits any case the P.A. Arabs may have. It demonstrates their barbarity.

The Times article misleads readers about what ethnicity Jordanians are. It refers to "...Jordan — whose population includes many people with Palestinian roots..."

The area before the Palestine Mandate has no Palestine country. Palestine was merely a geographical concept. The people in what was to become the Mandate include Bedouin and settled Arabs. They were the same people on both sides of the Jordan River and as in some of the surrounding countries.

Part 2: Muslim Attack At Mount: the Rest of the Story

On Friday, July 14, three Israeli Arabs attacked Israeli police on the Temple Mount. Within hours, IMRA exposed the media's misleading statement that P.A. head Abbas condemned the attack. Instead, Abbas had condemned the fatalities and all violence from there. Abbas therefore was finding Israeli police at fault, too, for killing the assailants. Abbas does not share our sense of justice.

Times Misstates What Abbas Said: Next day, the New York Times (Isabel Kershner, A8) also asserted that Abbas condemned the attack. Does the Times not see the truth reported by IMRA and other independent media? Why didn't it quote Abbas rather misstate him? Such fair reporting, however, would impede publisher Sulzberger's mission, which he told his staff is advocacy journalism. Public figures who advance the Times' views are made to look good. Being anti-Zionist apparently is enough for the Times to whitewash Abbas, despite his promotion of jihadist murder.

Label News Agency In P.A. "Independent": Ms. Kershner described Maan News as "an independent Palestinian news site." Independent? In a dictatorship? If Maan flouted the P.A. line, it would be subject to shutdown, arrests, and beating, as has happened. Does the Times depend on biased sources such as Maan?

Misleading Background On Jerusalem: "The Old City is in E. Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war and then annexed, a move that was never internationally recognized." The Times never explalns that Jordan captured Judea-Samaria from the Palestine Mandate and then annexed it, a move that was not recognized internationally.

What is the difference between the two non-recognitions? Jordan seized the land by aggression. Since foreign countries were not so anti-Zionist then, their non-recognition was honorable. Since the Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN partition suggestion, and since the Arabs did not recognize any Israeli boundaries, Israel had no official borders. It had to fight genocide and for any land. It has the right to annex Judea-Samaria, an unallocated part of the Mandate.

Therefore, the regular Times background explanation is misleading by making Israel seem to have no rights to the land. Considering the paper's anti-Zionist ideology, I think it misleads deliberately.

Terrorism From Mosques & On Muslim Holy Days: The attacks came from a mosque and on a Friday, as they often do after the imam incites the faithful. Earlier, three other Arabs attacked Israelis in the Old City during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Nevertheless, Muslims act shocked if enemies fire back at mosques or during Ramadan. If a Muslim place or holiday is too holy to be attacked, then it is too holy for launching jihadist attacks. Westerners should not fall for Muslim hypocrisy about holy places and times.

Abbas Courts Violence: In further reaction, P.A. head Abbas urged Muslims to defy an Israeli ban on entering the mosque until security issues are resolved. Such advice invites clashes. Will the Times note his irresponsibility? After all, the Times often criticizes Israel as irresponsible or unethical, falsely so. Will it note the P.A. ploy of giving the West the impression that it opposes the attack, while setting up the masses to commit violence? Next day, the Times ignored this further development, which reflects badly on the Muslim side.

Israeli Security Measures: PM Netanyahu decided to install cameras on the Mount and to require that Muslims, not only non-Muslims, pass through metal detectors. Those measures are long overdue. (IMRA, 7/15). Most violence there is initiated by Muslims, so why the prior exemption of Muslim visitors from metal detectors? This shows how insufficiently hardline is PM Netanyahu, often labeled hardline. The label is libelous. It is used to manipulate audiences.

Richard H. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at This article is a combination of two separate articles. Part 1 was submitted July 25, 2017; part 2 was submitted July 16, 2017. This article is archived at

Return _________________________End of Story___________________________ Return