The Sexual Assaults on October 7 Omitted
From the White House Fact Sheet
Recently the White House issued a Fact Sheet providing what was supposed to be a comprehensive list of sexual assaults carried out in “conflict zones” all over the world. This Fact Sheet did indeed include a great many places where mass rapes have occurred, including sexual assault victims in Ukraine, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria. But one place was unaccountably, and unacceptably, left out: Israel, where on October 7, 3,000 Hamas operatives from Gaza smashed through the border into the country’s south and proceeded to rape, torture, mutilate, and kill Israeli men, women, and children. A total of 1,200 Israelis were killed, and 260 were kidnapped and taken back to Gaza on the backs of pickup trucks, in cars, and slung over the shoulders of motorcyclists. The sexual assaults were sadistic in nature. Many consisted of mass rapes, followed by mutilation of the sexual organs of the victims, who only then were killed. In some cases, the breasts of women were sliced off and thrown about in a ghoulish game. Men, too, were subject to sexual assault and mutilation, including having their genitalia cut off. The Hamas perpetrators were having a high old time of it — what fun to rape, torture, and murder helpless Yahudim — and they proudly filmed their exploits, so as to be able to show their relatives and friends back in Gaza.
This horrifying assault became known at once all over the world. It certainly made a deep impression in Washington. Yet for reasons we do not know, when at the end of June, the U.S. government released its Fact Sheet on sexual assaults in conflict zones around the world, it left out any mention of the rapes, tortures, and murders of Israeli girls and women by Hamas.
White House Adds Oct. 7 Rape Victims to Fact Sheet on
War Zone Sexual Violence After Backlash From Jewish Dems
by Corey Walker, Algemeiner, June 28, 2024:
The White House has added references to the rampant sexual assault perpetrated by Hamas terrorists during their Oct. 7 onslaught across southern Israel to a fact sheet it recently released on sexual violence in conflict zones following widespread outcry for making no mention of the Israeli rape victims.
The Biden administration updated the fact sheet to include references to Hamas, the Oct. 7 massacre, and the Palestinian terrorist group’s Israeli victims after Jewish Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff (CA) and Dan Goldman (NY) sent a letter to US President Joe Biden criticizing the omission.
On Wednesday, Schiff and Goldman sent a letter to Biden sharing their “deepest concern” that the Israeli girls and women raped and otherwise sexually brutalized by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists were not mentioned in the initial version of the fact sheet. The original version mentioned sexual assault victims in Ukraine, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria….
After receiving the letter from the Jewish lawmakers, the White House swiftly updated the fact sheet to include detailed references of the sexual violence committed against Israeli women on Oct. 7.
The new iteration of the fact sheet mentions the Oct. 7 sexual assaults in the first paragraph and outlines the various ways in which the administration has recognized them….
Congressmen Adam Schiff and Dan Goldman were right to express their astonishment, and deep dismay, at the original version of the Fact List: how could the Israeli victims of mass rape have been completely ignored by those who compiled that list? As soon as their letter was received, the White House, without explaining how such an omission could have occurred, quickly added to the Fact Sheet a reference to the mass rapes, tortures, mutilations, and murders of Israeli girls and women.
That could be the end of the matter. But should it? Many of us would like to know who was in charge of compiling that original Fact Sheet that was made public by the White House. Was the omission of the Israeli victims indeed an innocent oversight? That seems improbable. Was someone hoping to tamp down attention given to Israeli victims of rape — the way the UN Commission on the Status of Women took a long time to react to the stories of Hamas’ rapes and murders? A number of people on the White House staff are known for their deep antipathy toward the Jewish state. Among them is Tyler Cherry, who has been the Associate Communications Director at the White House for the past month, during which time the Fact Sheet was compiled. Did he have a hand in its compilation? Some congressman, or intrepid investigative journalist, should find out And if Tyler Cherry did compile the original Fact Sheet, leaving out the Israeli victims, then wouldn’t that be one more reason — there are several already — for firing him?
=============================================================================================
I have to wonder how much money, if any, the NYTimes gets from George Soros? I suspect that it is considerable since it spits out his mad propaganda in spite of the truth or any semblance of common sense. It's time for America to put a stop to Soros' godless influence.
The New York Times Finds the IDF ‘Ferocious,’
But Not Hamas
The New York Times displays every day in its reporting, in its columns, and in its editorials, its bias against Israel. Ira Stoll takes on some subtler examples of this, in the choice of pejorative adjectives and adverbs the Times deploys in describing Israel but refrains from using when describing Hamas. You can find his piece here:
Jewish Leader Slams New York Times for ‘Dreadful’ Bias as Paper Faults ‘Ferocious’ Israel, ‘Rabidly Partisan’ Adelson
by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, June 28, 2024:
Usually the Times gets faulted for false moral equivalence between the Hamas terrorists and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) defending the Jewish state. In this case, there’s no equivalence; there’s just a straight-out smear of the Israelis as “ferocious” with no parallel negative description of the Gazan attackers.
For the New York Times, the IDF is “ferocious,” but Hamas? There is no negative adjective attached to Hamas, despite the terror group having carried out horrific atrocities — rape, torture, murder — on October 7. What is the reason for this curious omission?
The Times is similarly ferocious in its description of a pro-Israel philanthropist and political donor, Dr. Miriam Adelson. A front-page article about her declares: “She is, in some ways, a political carbon copy of her husband: intensely pro-Israel, rabidly partisan, and a believer in the nobility of using her money, north of $30 billion, and her media empire to buy influence and shape the world.”
“Rabidly partisan?” It’s not enough for the rabid partisans at the Times to call Adelson partisan; they need to escalate it to “rabidly” partisan? The Times published a profile of a pro-Biden Democratic political donor, Jeffrey Katzenberg, without calling him rabid….
What makes Miriam Adelson “rabidly partisan”? The adverb “rabidly” suggests a kind of mad-dog ferocity in her politics.She doesn’t seem to me to be any more “rabidly partisan” than the other big donors in American politics. And if she is to be described by the Times as “rabidly partisan,” don’t the same words apply, with even greater justice, to the far-left billionaire George Soros? But you never hear Soros described in the Times in anything other than glowing terms. His political activism is depicted as admirable, as he criticizes the Israelis and tries to undermine Israel’s support among Americans.
Since the adjectives and adverbs are the main vehicles for the Times’ expressions of bias toward Israel, the author of the article, Ira Stoll, suggests that the Times editors should take special care to excise most of them.
The American Jewish community is already increasingly losing patience with the paper. The CEO of the UJA-Federation of New York, a longtime partner of the New York Times in its Neediest Cases Fund, Eric Goldstein, wrote a letter to the editor of the paper faulting the Adelson profile and a Times online headline that said US Rep. Jamaal Bowman had been “Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money.”…
The role of AIPAC’s money was important, but not decisive in defeating Jamaal Bowman. Of the $25 million his opponent’s campaign received, only $15 million of it came from AIPAC. Bowman, with his increasingly bizarre antics, mouthing the lyrics of the most foul-mouthed hip-hop songs as he strutted across public platforms, embarrassed black voters who were turned off by Bowman behaving as a parody of a thug. And he also had a record of not helping constituents. He was too enamored of himself, thought himself too important a personage to have to bother overmuch with the nitty-gritty of constituent services, and instead tried to make himself, such as his pal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, into a national figure who might someday ride his blackness and progressiveness all the way to the Senate. Instead, he infuriated so many who had previously supported him that he lost the primary in a landslide to George Latimer. And the fire alarm he deliberately set off at the Capitol to delay a vote – and then lied about the incident, claiming he had only intended to open a door – did not help him, either.
The Bowman headline — “US Rep. Jamaal Bowman Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — was factually incorrect, because there were several reasons having nothing to do with Israel that also contributed to Bowman’s loss, and worse still, it summoned up the antisemitic trope of rich Jews who “run the world.”
Will the New York Times learn anything from this latest contretemps? Will it call a halt to its blatantly anti-Israel coverage, and the antisemitic tropes it so unthinkingly employs? Of course not. It’s the New York Times. The Newspaper of Record.The Grey Lady. It answers to no one.
=============================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment