The New York Times Says Hold My Beer to the 'Austere Religious Scholar' Takes and Puts Its Anti-Semitism On Parade

p style="font-size: 0.6em">Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gestures as he talks during the closing news conference following the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's Extraordinary Summit in Istanbul, Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017. Muslim nations of the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation had rejecting U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and appear set to counter it with a declaration of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. (AP Photo/Emrah Gurel)

You know what’s not a reasonable response to Donald Trump’s peace proposal between Israel and the Palestinians? Writing a glowing fluff piece on an anti-Semitic, holocaust denying Palestinian Authority leader like Mahmoud Abbas.

Yet, that’s exactly what The New York Times decided to do. Take this ridiculous passage.

Here’s the full excerpt if you don’t want to click above.

Saying Abbas’ “life work” is pursing a viable two state solution is like praising Nicolas Maduro as just a guy trying to bring about economic prosperity. Abbas is not only a terrorist himself, he pays the families of other terrorists who kill innocent Israelis, including children. His government has deprived its own people of medical care, wasted hundreds of millions in aid money to enrich the PA leadership and fund attacks, and they’ve rejected every single viable peace deal placed before them. Abbas does not desire a viable state because his gravy train would come to a halt if it happened. He’d also likely be dead if he agreed to one and his terrorist allies didn’t.

But in that above passage, there’s something even more insidious. Notice the proclamation that one of the Palestinian goals is the “removal of Jewish settlements from the West Bank.” How anti-Semitic must one be to have as a requirement for their “state” that all Jews must be expelled? What if the Israelis made the removal all Arabs from their borders a requirement for peace? Naturally, everyone from the UN to the American media would lose their minds. Replace “Jewish” in the above statement with any other minority, and it’d be called disgustingly racist because it is. But the Palestinians can seek a country with the express desire to murder all the Jews among them and it’s presented as no big deal.

And the Times’ response to all of this was to write the equivalent of saying “meh, seems reasonable to me.”