The same paper that dissects every bigoted innuendo by Donald Trump somehow loses that ability when it comes to the political leaders of Israel. 

While the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that the killing of an entire family in Gaza was a “mistake,” the New York Times allows the Israeli military to explain that “civilian casualties are unavoidable in Gaza’s teeming neighborhoods.” And, hammering home the propaganda point, the paper says Israel “takes numerous precautions to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties.”

Netanyahu’s political calculations in attacking Gaza are no secret in Israel. So why do they hardly get mentioned in the American mainstream media?

Benny Gantz’s best hope of becoming Israeli PM is to threaten to make a center-left minority government with outside help of Palestinians. The threat would cause Netanyahu’s defense line to crumble at last, and Likud members would join Gantz. So Palestinians are just a pawn in the game, never allowed near real power.

We are actually having a debate about anti-war policy in the Democratic Party. Pete Buttigieg is soaring in fundraising in part due to strongly interventionist stances in last debate, while Sanders and Warren are getting slammed by establishment voices for alleged isolationism. And Tulsi Gabbard is smeared as a Russian asset for condemning “regime change” in Syria.

The New York Times is actively whitewashing the U.S. role in Syria with a childish piece of propaganda telling its readers we armed only honest trustworthy Boy Scouts, not these current horrible racist murdering dregs.

American Jews who condemned Israel’s slaughter of Gaza protesters don’t understand that Judaism is now the Jewish state and it won’t survive if Palestinian refugees are allowed to return, which is why no Israeli Jews questioned the slaughter, Daniel Gordis writes, urging American Jews to stick by Israel to stay Jewish.

Francine Klagsbrun writes in the New York Times that the Palestinian refugee problem was created by Palestinians who decided to leave “of their own accord” in 1948. This is Nakba denial. With the choice of rightwing Zionists Klagsbrun and Hillel Halkin to review books on Israel lately, the New York Times is demonstrating its commitment to support Israel in ideological battle.

The New York Times wants Netanyahu out because “elements of the Democratic Party have grown increasingly suspicious of Israel, if not hostile,” and replacing Netanyahu “may halt this dangerous shift.” Palestinian human rights are no account here. Though Israel’s politics have only shifted right, Israel-watchers say.

When Donald Trump race-baits minorities, the New York Times offers his targets space to respond. But the Times published Netanyahu’s smears of Palestinian political parties as terrorists without giving them space to respond and repeatedly diminished their achievement in the election, in which they finished behind the two leading Jewish parties.