The New York Times has a habit of misrepresenting Arabs and Muslims in its journalism. That is because it often asks non-Arabs and non-Muslims to speak on their behalf instead of letting them represent themselves.

If you look at the editorial page, it is the same deal. For instance, while Israelis are always represented by Israelis; the Palestinians rarely get to write editorials. Instead, the Times will let Fouad Ajami and Jordan’s King Abduallah speak on behalf of Palestinians. Two men whom are either ignored or disdained by the Palestinians.

The Times did this today with a story on Mauritanians political class. Instead of interviewing actual Mauritanians, the Times reporter who just landed in the country decided to make a sweeping and false judgment:

Mr. Aziz has cultivated the small Islamist base, shutting down the Israeli Embassy here and making gestures toward Libya.

This isn’t true. Of course, the New York Times would like you believe that the only people in the world opposed to Israel are Islamic fundamentalists. In their dreams. Most of the world is now opposed to Israel.

The Times’ misrepresenting of public sentiment toward Israel it double-fold. Not only does it pretend that those opposed to Israel are just a bunch of religious fanatics, but it also often will pluck some obscure Arab “artist” who happens to favor normalization with the Usurping Entity and will exaggerate his prominence in the region. I have seen this more than once, some indistinguishable Arab is made to be the preeminent poet or something all so serve the ideological agenda of the times.

Does the New York Times thinks if it ignores Arab and world opposition to Israel it will just dissipate? In their dreams!

And, for the record, it was not the Islamists in Mauritania called for an end to relations with Israel but secular Arab nationalists. But such truth is too inconvenient to report.