Jerusalem Day: eyewitnesses who told friends, who then told neighbors who were cited by relatives in opposition websites

The New York Times was of course keen on covering Jerusalem Day from Tehran: but its correspondents in Beirut, Toronto (which borders Iran), and Washington, DC. But let us not be harsh on NYT coverage: it was really based on eyewitness reports. As in: "according to witnesses cited on opposition Web sites." Can you imagine if the New York Times were to cover a story that is hostile to Israel and based on "witnesses cited on Palestinian website? I mean, in that case, the Columbia School of Journalism would picket the NYT for a week, at least. So the supporters of Khumayni's favorite son, Moussavi, chanted: "“No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran.”" In fact, the exact translation from the original Persian should read: ....I will martyr myself for Iran. So between martyrdom promoted by the regime and martyrdom promoted by groupies of the King of Pistachios, Rafsanjani, count me on neither side. You want Arabs to support somebody who is chanting "No to Gaza": no, to a prison where the most impoverished Arabs live, and where Egypt and Israel and US impose the most unfair siege? And you wonder why we will not EVER support or admire the Iranian chauvinist movement (which writes its slogans in English to get the attention of the White Man)? And Ahmadinajad was usual self: an anti-Semitic demagogue. There is no place anywhere for a debate whether Ahmadinajad is or is not anti-Semitic. He clearly is. But what was surprising to me yesterday was the speech by Hasan Nasrallah. I never heard him in private or in public speak in anti-Jewish terms (although Zionist groups in Canada invented something anti-Semitic and attributed to him, and this was promoted heavily in the US but Charles Glass, if I am not mistaken, was the one who exposed the fraud). But yesterday, Nasrallah spoke in terms that were rather offensive and disrespectful to Jewish people. Is that the influence of Ahmadinajad? And the New York Times ended its report with this: "an Arab world that is largely hostile to Iran." What was that? Where is the evidence? Is this now the official policy of the New York Times that the Arab world (they probably think that the mouthpieces of Saudi princes, like Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat or Al-Hayat, speak for Arab public opinion--I mean, that. The New York Times can be that ignorant to conflate Saudi propaganda with Arab public opinion) is hostile to Iran but not to Israel? Does that make Shimon Peres feel better because now he poses as an Israeli Sunni?

PS I make this prediction. That MEMRI will issue a special bulletin about Nasrallah speech with neon lights and big headlines. MEMRI covers only anti-Jewish Arabic expressions by those who are not in the camp of the House of Saud.