Sunday, October 9, 2022

Response to The Wellesley News editorial supporting genocide against Jews in Eretz Yisrael

Following the publication of an editorial in The Wellesley News effectively supporting genocide against the indigenous people who have returned to their homeland, the Land of Israel, Fred Bauman wrote a thoughtful letter to Paula Johnson, president of Wellesley College.

His letter is reproduced here with the permission of the author.

Dear President Johnson:

The Wellesley News has published an editorial coming out foursquare against the "occupation of Palestine."  This is not even a euphemism for the destruction of Israel, the Jewish state, and the oft-boasted and promised slaughter of its Jewish people at the hands of the two organizations that rule the Palestinians, Hamas and the PA.  More than that, the editorial expresses support for the notorious "Mapping Project," which pinpoints every Jewish organization that has any ties to Israel and calls for them to be "dismantled and disrupted."

It should be obvious even to those who, like you, have a huge interest in not seeing the elephant in the room, that this is where "anti-Zionism" loses every trace of its "who us? We're not against Jews," mask.  Even you and your Trustees surely see  that "dismantling and disrupting" means intimidation, threats, bullying, and if those don't work, vandalism and further violence of the kind that is already too commonly directed against American synagogues, campus Hillels and other Jewish institutions and individual Jews.

Now, I am well aware that The Wellesley News is an independent organization and not under your control.  But that doesn't get you off the hook in the slightest.  That is because campus newspapers do not publish editorials of this kind unless they are quite sure that there is considerable campus support for them.  That editorial tells everyone that Wellesley has become a pretty reliably anti-Jewish campus with a student body that is just fine with calls for what would amount to a second genocide of the Jews.  That is something you are in part responsible for, if only because you have done nothing serious to oppose it.

Half a century ago or so, my good friend, the late Victor Baras, taught at Wellesley.  He was born in a DP (displaced persons in case you aren't familiar with the acronym) camp in Bamberg, Germany.  His parents had survived the Holocaust in Galicia, hidden in the potato cellar of a local farmer, and had headed west with the Red Army and, wisely, past it.  He was a specialist in 20th century European and especially Russian history and politics.  I recall that he used to tell me that he taught his Wellesley students, who at the time were of course horrified that anyone could have become a Nazi, that in fact, in that time and place they would have been enthusiastic Nazis as well.  Their privilege, their idealism, their sense that things were in a bad state, would have led them, he explained, to embrace causes that promised drastic, simple solutions and that focused on one or a few wicked enemies who merely had to be destroyed for all to be well.  And of course the archetype of such an enemy in Christian culture has been the Jew.  So if Vic had been told that in a half century Wellesley students would in fact have, though with a slightly altered rationale, become passionate, idealistic and utterly vicious Jew-haters, I don't think he would have been in the least surprised.

But I do think that, like me, he would have been saddened.  He too would have expected that people like you would have been in denial until it was almost or even wholly too late.  Who wants to reopen that can of worms?  Who wants to admit that the high-sounding rationales for Jew-hate, all the talk about "anti-colonialism" and the like, is dishonest and merely masks the same old murderous evil?  And who, above all, dares to be called "racist" or "neo-colonialist" for having the guts to call haters what they are?  Not you, no more than the respectable leaders of the German universities in the late 1920's and 1930's, who feared being called "socialists" or "Jewish catspaws."    He would even have understood, I believe, that many respectable Jews in high positions in American universities would also have been in denial.  The "Herr Wendriner"  syndrome (look it up if you are interested enough) that Kurt Tucholsky mercilessly savaged, is with us today, leading Jewish figures who are desperate not to be singled out and attacked and who hope that the new Jew-hate is just a passing phenomenon that will mercifully disappear or at least not affect them.

In any case, however slim the chance is that you and your administration and Trustees will ever go past vague and formulaic disavowals of "anti-Semitism." you need to do it.  Perhaps thinking of how contemptible you will look to those who come later, to those Wellesley students in another half century who will look back on you with horror and incomprehension, might help.  Look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourself who you are, who you still want to be.  I have few hopes for you and those like you.  But you still have a chance not to fit the old, ugly, vile pattern of those who avert their eyes when the Nazis ride high.

Fred Bauman

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

Censored by Facebook Again

 When the Associated Press wrote about the announcement by the Israeli army about its investigation of the death of the Al Jazeera propagandist - er, "reporter" - Shireen Abu Akleh, an announcement that its conclusion was that there was a high probability that she was killed accidentally by fire from an Israeli soldier rather than from all those wild shots from Palestinian Arab terrorists, rather than straight reporting or, if it was going to insert opinion and/or analysis, noting there really was no evidence to back that up and it seemed far more likely the fatal bullet was shot by one of the terrorists, the AP article was written as if it was a propaganda piece coming from the organization whose initials are the transposition of those of the Associated Press.

I wrote a letter to the AP and posted it to the AP monitor Facebook group <>. Within minutes, Facebook's AI (Artificially Idiotic) bot had  absurdly deleted it as spam.

I have, of course, appealed that decision, but not only don't expect anything to come of that appeal, but don't expect it to even be acknowledged.

In any case, since Facebook censored it, I'm posting the letter here.

I'm also including, after the letter itself, screenshots of the messages from Facebook informing me of their bot's idiocy.

The letter sent to the Associated Press with the subject September 6 Article "Israeli army: ‘High probability’ soldier killed reporter":

Dear Editor, Mr. Daniszewski, Mr. Federman, Ms. Goldenberg and Mr. Krauss:

The September 6 article ""Israeli army: ‘High probability’ soldier killed reporter" ( takes the results of an Israeli investigation which, if reported on honestly and objectively, would make clear the stark contrast between the morality and integrity shown by the Israeli government and its military and the mendaciousness of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership.

The essence of what happened was that after a rash of terror attacks by Palestinian Arabs who killed at least 19 civilians, including several Americans (something that is downplayed by the Associated Press, as is always the case when Arab terrorists murder Americans), Israel was forced to go into the Palestinian Authority-governed areas, particularly Jenin, to capture perpetrators and to stop additional attacks.

This context was missing from the AP story, but that's just the beginning.

During the course of one operation trying to arrest terrorists in Jenin, the Israeli forces came under constant fire and, during those firefights, a reporter got hit by a bullet and died.

What happened was analogous to a not-terribly-uncommon situation where crimes are committed, police come under fire when they try to arrest the criminals and bystanders get caught in the crossfire. Under those circumstances, it is understood and accepted that, regardless of the source of the bullet, ultimate blame lies with the criminals, not the police.

Analogously, regardless of the source of the bullet, ultimate blame for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh lies with the terrorists, not the Israeli forces trying to arrest them. Yet not once in the myriad articles written by the Associated Press about this incident, has that basic fact been even hinted at!

Immediately after her death, clearly without even a scintilla of evidence, the Palestinian Authority insisted not only that Abu Akleh was hit by an Israeli bullet, but against all reason that she was deliberately targeted. This nonsensical insistence was repeated by the media, including by the AP, which repeatedly treated the unreliable testimony of alleged witnesses as if it was trustworthy while using loaded language to cast aspersions against the very reasoned statements coming from Israelis, who did not jump to baseless conclusions.

The AP repeated that irresponsible "reporting" in this article, for example opining that "the military revealed no new evidence to back its claim that the Palestinian-American journalist might have been killed by Palestinian fire." That "claim" is rather obviously true, while the AP has never pointed out the Palestinian Arab sources have never revealed any evidence to back their insistence that she was hit by an Israeli bullet.

What a double standard!

The article reports "Both Palestinian officials and Abu Akleh’s family accused the army of evading responsibility for her killing," but fails to mention that Palestinian Arab officials repeatedly deliberately make blatantly false accusations or that Jenin is famous for being the site of the massacre that never was, with Saeb Erekat telling CNN that Israel "massacred" 500 people in a refugee camp there.

In the Abu Akleh incident, rather than making irresponsible and baseless accusations, the Israeli army acted extremely responsibly, investigating what happened for four months, handicapped by the very suspicious way the Palestinian Authority hid all the forensic evidence, and did something that the Palestinian Authority would never do: announce that it appeared she was probably hit by a bullet fired by an Israeli.

Given the lack of any forensic evidence and the explanations included in the AP article, it would appear the main basis for that conclusion was that a soldier reported he had shot in that direction at the time she was apparently hit, while - not very surprisingly - none of the terrorists reported firing in that direction at that time. Of course, none of the terrorists would report doing that, even if they deliberately killed her.

Perhaps, in straight reporting, it might be assumed that latter reality would be understood by the reader and omitted. However, given all the gratuitous commentary that infuses AP reporting about Israel, to leave out any reference to that reality compounds the irresponsibility.

Later, the article again casts doubt on clearly responsibility statements from Israeli sources and gives undeserved credibility to unreliable sources, the article pretends "the military provided no evidence to support its claim that a fierce gunbattle was under way at the time that Abu Akleh was shot" while writing "amateur videos as well as witness accounts have shown no evidence of militants in the vicinity and the area appeared to be quiet for several minutes before she was shot." Of course, if anyone in Jenin produced a video showing what the AP euphemistically calls "militants" (being afraid to accurately referring to Palestinian terrorists) in the vicinity or gave testimony to that effect, that person would almost certainly find his or her life suddenly became very difficult, to put it euphemistically.

Although I've never served in the military myself, it seems pretty obvious that it would be very possible for a soldier under fire to not notice a potential threat suddenly coming into view was "wearing a helmet and vest marked 'press.'" It would also have been responsible for the Associated Press to note that Palestinian Arab terrorists are known to disguise themselves as members of the press and thus it can be dangerous for an Israeli soldier, in a violent situation, to assume someone "wearing a helmet and vest marked 'press'" is not going to attack.

In contrast to casting doubt on just about anything from an Israeli source, the AP repeatedly quotes unreliable sources, such as a spokesperson for Holocaust denier Manhoud Abbas dismissing Israel's report as "another Israeli attempt to evade responsibility" and saying "all evidence process that 'Israel is the culprit, that it killed'" Abu Akleh, despite the fact no such evidence has ever been produced or the obvious fact that the Palestinian Authority has kept all the forensic evidence to itself (except for the bullet it claimed was responsible but which, curiously, was too damaged to prove anything) if that evidence backed up his accusation the PA certainly would have shared it.

The article repeats something the AP has included in many earlier articles, a statement that investigations by the AP and other organizations have found that "Israeli troops most likely fired the fatal bullet," but again failed to mention that all those conclusions were based on testimony from highly unreliable sources. In contrast, it unreasonably casts doubt on the obvious conclusion by the United States that if she was hit by an Israeli bullet, there was no evidence that it was anything other than a mistake. The AP does that by adding a statement that "it did not explain how it reached that conclusion."

The article continued in that irresponsible vein and then finished by stating Israeli police "beat mourners and pallbearers" at Abu Akleh's funeral without pointing out the supposed mourners both hijacked the casket and attacked the Israeli police trying to restore order.

It then concludes by opining "the Palestinians want the territory [Judea and Samaria] to form the main part of a future state."

Curiously, to use the AP's own language, the article "did not explain how it reached that conclusion," despite the fact that, given their repeated rejection of proposals that would have given them just that and that it conflicts with the content of the charters of the main Palestinian Arab groups, including the PLO, Fatah and Hamas, the evidence strongly indicates that statement is grossly incorrect.

One should be able to expect better of the Associated Press.


Alan Stein

The screenshots from Facebook's censorship and threat:

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

Facebook Deleted This ... and threatened to cancel me

I sent the letter below to the Associated Press with the subject August 29 article "Palestinian toll mounts as Israel steps up West Bank raids" and posted it to the AP Monitor Facebook group ( with the introduction consisting of what I wrote in this paragraph up until the word "and."

Within a few minutes, while checking for a friend's post on Facebook, I saw a warning that my post had been censored for either violating community standards or being spam (neither made any sense to me) and threatening me with exile if I repeated such offensive behavior.

And then, as soon as I clicked on a box to appeal, expecting to then get a way of explaining why, everything vanished.

(Plug: Check out the AP Monitor group. Join it. Participate it. Spread the word. Fight the pervasive anti-Israel bias.)

This is the letter I sent to the (systemically anti-Israel) Associated Press:

Dear Editor, Mr. Daniszewski and Mr. Krauss:

The absurdities in the August 29 article "Palestinian toll mounts as Israel steps up West Bank raids" ( begins with the very first sentence, which misleadingly implies that Israel killed at least 85 Palestinian Arabs in its counterterrorism actions in the Palestinian Authority, an implication contradicted by the very next paragraph, which notes (a) the figure comes from the Palestinian Authority, a notoriously unreliable source and, more importantly, (b) it includes terrorists who were killed inside Israel in the course of carrying out terror attacks.

The third paragraph refers to Abu Akleh (without using her name), an unnamed lawyer, and local youths getting killed and implies they were killed by Israeli actions, although that's far from certain and, if one actually analyzes what was written, the youths who were killed were probably engaged in violence at the time.

The fourth paragraph repeats the lie that the nearly three million Palestinian Arabs who have self-government "live under a decades-long occupation." I somehow doubt the Associated Press would write that Canadians live under an occupation were the following to occur, something clearly almost impossible to conceive since, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, Canadians are relatively peaceful: The Canadian government harbors terror groups and rewards terrorists for murdering American citizens. This forces the American government to repeatedly enter Canadian territory to capture terrorists who have murdered Americans and also to prevent additional terror attacks. This is analogous to what Israel has been forced to do in the Palestinian Authority governed territories, but, as I wrote, I doubt that in such a case the Associated Press would repeatedly refer to Canada as being occupied by the United States.

Later in the article, referring to Abu Akleh and an unnamed 58-year-old-man, states "The Israeli military says both might have been hit by Palestinian gunfire but has not provided evidence to substantiate its claims." This is clearly biased, deliberately casting doubt on the information from the Israeli military and cleverly omitting the fact that there is no evidence to contradict those very reasonable and sober Israeli statements.

Abu Akleh is referred to a third time a few paragraphs later, and refers to supposedly but hardly "independent" investigations concluding that her death was likely caused by Israeli fire, without mentioning that those investigations all relied on highly unreliable sources who would be in danger if they said anything to suggest the bullet that hit her came from one of the Arab terrorists in Jenin.

The article later refers to so-called "rights groups," and quotes Ori Givati of Breaking the Silence, but fails to mention the heavy financing of those groups by anti-Israel NGOs and governments which implicitly and sometimes explicitly condition funding on creating reports demonizing Israel.

The section regarding the death of Salah Sawafta was effectively self-contradictory. On the one hand referring to her being killed as Israeli counter-terror forces (of course, the AP never refers to them that way) being engaged in a firefight with Palestinian Arab terrorists, euphemistically referred to as "gunmen." On the other hand, it quotes an alleged witness saying there were no Arab "gunmen" or "stone-throwers" in the area.

The article also contained the following boilerplate Associated Press use of biased and loaded language, false or incorrect information, misleading terminology and statements to the same effect:

Militant. The Associated Press almost always uses euphemisms whenever reporting on terrorism related to terrorism against Israel. Palestinian and other Arab terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Fatah and the PLO are referred to as "militant" and terrorists are referred to by terms such as "militants" or "assailants."

Occupation. The Associated Press incorrectly refers to disputed territories as "occupied." Legally, there has never been an Israeli "occupation," since under international law all the disputed territories fell within Israel's legal borders upon its declaration of independence in 1948. In practical terms, even what had incorrectly been called "occupation" after 1967 ended with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the early 1990s.

Palestinians. The Associated Press fails to mention that Palestinian is an identity assumed only relatively recently, in the 1960s, by the Arabs living in Palestine. It fails to mention that prior to the creation of the modern state of Israel, it was the Jews who were referred to as Palestinians.

Peace Talks. The Associated Press frequently refers to peace talks being stalled, or being stalled since 2014, but by leaving out context falsely implies Israel and the Palestinian Arabs share blame. It does not mention that Mahmoud Abbas walked out after being offered the equivalent of all the disputed territories - as he himself has acknowledged - back in 2008 and, for all practical purposes, has refused to negotiate seriously ever since. Nor does the Associated Press ever mention that Abbas' foreign minister announced in February, 2016, that the Palestinian Authority would never again negotiate directly with Israel.

"The Palestinians seek the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, for a future state." The Associated Press routinely includes statements along these lines. This is an expression of an opinion, making it inappropriate for a news article. It also flies in the face of the fact that the Palestinian Arabs have repeatedly been offered virtually all of that, including 2000, 2001, 2008 and reportedly 2014, and chose not establish their own state in that territory. It also fails to mention that the PLO itself proclaims, in its own charter, that it has no claim to any of those areas! It ignores the fact that almost all of Gaza was turned over to the Palestinian Arabs in 1995 and turned over the rest of Gaza in 2005. It refers to the portion of Israel's capital that had been occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 as if it were a separate city.

West Bank. The Associated Press invariably refers to the heartland of the Jewish homeland by the name given to it by Jordan when that state invaded Israel in 1948 and militarily captured Judea, Samaria and portions of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and the rest of the Old City. It never refers to it by its historical names, never mentions that "West Bank" implicitly refers to a portion of Palestine to the west of the Jordan River in contrast to the portion on the east bank, that is, Jordan, which comprises 77-78% of Palestine.

It remains curious that the Associated Press repeatedly writes sympathetically about Palestinian Arabs who got killed during Israeli counter-terror operations, but not about the innocent Israeli civilians who get murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists.


Alan Stein

Saturday, May 28, 2022

My Second Ode to the New York Times (by Elinor Weiss)

Elinor Weiss wrote this second ode to The New York Times. It's posted here with her permission.

 My Second Ode to the New York Times

(My second apology to John Keats)

The NYTimes 
Is in a tizzy,
Over a fashion queen 
Named Hoda Katebi.

She loves to hate
The Jewish State
Using BDS
To annihilate.

Ms. Katebi promotes 
Iranian fashion
The Ayatollah’s laws
Have her positive reaction.

Terrorist theocracy
Is a big win
But democratic Israel
A terrible sin.

No questions, no follow ups
To the law student’s views,
Her pro BDS stance
Is a plus for the paper’s news.

Yet the Times does shows fairness 
In its Israel reports
Because the bias is shared
Among all the cohorts.

From food, to movies
Business and fashion
The pieces have a common
Hate Israel passion.

Consistency is there
For all to see
Israel is covered
Without accuracy.

So Hoda Katebi,
Writer and speaker
A future lawyer
Whose goal 
Is to make Israel weaker.

Is the kind of person
The paper admires
That its journalists promotes
That its editors aspires.

Friday, May 20, 2022

Ode to The New York Times

(Posted here with the permission of the poet.)

Ode to The New York Times

By Elinor Weiss

(with apologies to John Keats)

The New York Times

Seems to hate the Jews

But for many of us

That’s really not news.

Take the Holocaust

The terrible genocide

When Jews were slaughtered

Simply a paragraph inside.

But now it’s not correct

To be an anti Semite

So the grey old lady

Tries to make it look right.

It turns its words

Against the Jewish nation

Israel is demonized

As a repulsive sensation.

Reporters like Yazbek

Filled with hate

Write  lies about

The Jewish State.

Yazbek loves Hamas

Terrorists supreme

Yazbek’s views of Jews

Are quite extreme.

She justifies violence

Against Israelis

The pay to slay ethics

Is never reported in the daily.

Terrorist attacks

Against Israelis in the cities

Don’t merit the Times’ journalists

Sympathies or pities.

The Times is clueless,

It doesn’t seem to know

That Hamas wants all of Israel

To go.

Any evil,

Anything bad,

Is blamed on Israel,

Just sad, sad, sad!

Misleading subheadings,

Misuse of words

So that its readers will think

Israel as a turd.

But to be fair

When holidays come around

Jews hating being Jewish

Are the ones Times has found.

You can be sure to read

Why Hanukkah is overrated

Or a put down on Passover

Jews against God are celebrated.

Defaming Jewish holidays

Encouraging Israel’s demise

Anti semites at the New York Times?

Definitely not a surprise!

Israel Updates: 3 People Reported Killed in Attack-headline and article in The New York Times

Daniel Trigoboff submitted the following letter to The New York Times on May 6, 2022. Not surprisingly, given their heavy anti-Israel bias, they chose not to publish it. It's posted here with the permission of Dr. Trigoboff.

The article itself is on The New York Times website at, with the headline "At Least 3 People Reported Killed in Israel Attack" and subhead "The attack follows a wave of violence by Arab assailants that has already killed 14 people in Israel since mid-March."

Dear Editor,

There’s so much wrong with the headline and content of this NY Times article that the question of a deliberate anti-Israel cant is strongly raised. To begin with, the 3 people referenced in the headline were not “reported” killed; they were in fact murdered, there is no doubt about their unfortunate deaths, reported as such by multiple media sources. For a constructive comparison, did The NY Times headline about the 9/11 attacks state that “Almost 3,000 People Reported Killed in Attack?” Of course not.

And, who killed the three people in Israel? Why did this headline omit the widely known and publicized identifications of the murderers as Palestinian Arab terrorists? Why the passive voice? Why not use an accurate headline like “Israel Updates: Palestinian Arab Terrorists Murder Three Israeli Civilians, Wound Six?”

In the body of the article is the heinous misrepresentation of the Temple Mount as “the Aqsa Mosque compound”, supposedly revered by Muslims and Jews alike, and then a statement that Jews refer to it as the Temple Mount, as though the Muslim Arab nomenclature is universally accepted except by Jews. Absolute balderdash on steroids. In fact there is the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and the flat plaza which surrounds them which was the site of the First and Second Temples. This elevated plaza which sits on the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site, whereas the Al-Aqsa Mosque is only the third holiest site to Sunni Muslims, not to Shia Muslims. In no sense is Judaism’s holiest site, this plaza, a part of any “Aqsa Mosque compound” which does not exist.

In fact it can be argued that by terming it this way, The NY Times is using discriminatory settler colonialist language since Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock were built on top of the site of the First and Second Temples by Arab invaders, who arrived and displaced indigenous Jews many centuries after the Temples were built and then destroyed. 

In considering these faults in this article’s headline and content, I am reminded of the famous Ian Fleming quote: “Once is happenstance, twice is circumstance, three times is enemy action.” What is cause of the obvious enmity borne towards Israel by The NY Times?

Daniel H. Trigoboff, Ph.D.