Good. I am glad that Netanyahu has not agreed to play court Jew for the urbane annihilationists at the New York Times. No single news organization has done more to influence and spin the narrative against Israel than the NY Times. And though, thankfully, their power and influence is on the wane, the damage they have done and continue to do cannot be understated.
Having worked in the news biz for a large part of my professional life, I know, from the inside, how powerful they are. Their take on news is religiously followed and mimiced by big and small news outlets and newspapers nationally and internationally. It has always been this way. But with the advent of new media (like this blog), the old paradigm is giving way, and we can expect dinosaur media and their centralized influence to go the way of the horse and buggy. But for now, we still must contend with these morally bankrupt propagandists. If such charges could be brought, the NY Times would be indicted for aiding and abetting the enemy and crimes against truth, objective reporting and humanity in its biased, dishonest, and libelous coverage of Israel (among other things).
Bravo, Bibi. Do not legitimize the lies.
NETANYAHU SAYS HE WON'T ALLOW THE NEW YORK TIMES TO EXPLOIT HIM Tom Gross Dispatch
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has turned down an offer to write an op-ed piece for The New York Times, signaling the extent to which he is fed up with the increasingly extreme editorial attacks on the state of Israel by the "paper of record".
In declining the request on behalf of the prime minister, Netanyahu's senior adviser Ron Dermer - in a letter obtained by The Jerusalem Post's diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon - said Netanyahu had decided to "respectfully decline."
Dermer wrote that this was partly a result of the fact that 19 of the paper's 20 op-ed pieces on Israel since September have been extremely unfriendly. (Many Times pieces, especially those by Roger Cohen and Tom Friedman, have been more hostile towards Israel than editorials I have read in the Arab press during the same period -- Tom Gross.)
"WE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS 'BIBIWASHING'"
"We wouldn't want to be seen as 'Bibiwashing' the op-ed page of The New York Times," Dermer said in his letter, in reference to a piece in the Times last month titled "Israel and Pinkwashing" in which a New York humanities professor was invited by the Times to attack Israel's record on gay rights.
Given the fact that gay organizations say that Israel probably has the best record of any country in the world when it comes to the rights of homosexuals (extending rights to gays decades ago that were only afforded in many Western countries more recently), and given the fact that some of Israel's Middle East neighbors carry out the death penalty against gays, even the most staunch defenders of The New York Times were shocked at the lengths the Times is now going to demonize Israel.
Dermer's letter came a day after Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote that the resounding ovation Netanyahu received in Congress when he spoke there in May had been "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." Friedman, not for the first time, has been accused of employing anti-Semitic motifs in his efforts to denigrate the government of Israel. (Both Dermer and Friedman are subscribers to this email list.)
Even the Times's one positive piece about Israel since September - Judge Richard Goldstone's piece rejecting the charge that Israel could be compared to apartheid South Africa - came several months after The New York Times reportedly refused to run Goldstone's previous submission retracting his misrepresentations about Israel.
In that earlier piece (which was instead picked up by The Washington Post), Goldstone, who had previously been cited all over the world (including on numerous occasions in The New York Times) for alleging that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position. Yet apparently for The New York Times op-ed page, Goldstone's retraction was news "unfit to print."
THE TIMES REFUSED TO RUN BIPARTISAN PIECES IN SUPPORT OF NEGOTIATED PEACE
The New York Times has consistently refused to publish pro-Israel op-eds. For example, the Times reportedly refused to run a bi-partisan piece in September co-written by the majority leader of the House of Congress, Eric Cantor (a Republican) and the minority whip Steny Hoyer (a Democrat), expressing joint support for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and opposition to the Palestinian Authority's unilateral statehood bid that contravened the Oslo peace accords.
"In an age of intense partisanship, one would have thought that strong bipartisan support for Israel on such a timely issue would have made your cut," said Dermer, in his letter to the Times.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party congressmen Steve Rothman called on Tom Friedman to apologize for writing last week that the congressional ovation Netanyahu received in May was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."
"Thomas Friedman's defamation against the vast majority of Americans who support the Jewish state of Israel is scurrilous, destructive and harmful to Israel and her advocates in the U.S.," the Democratic congressman said. "Friedman is not only wrong, but he's aiding and abetting a dangerous narrative about the US-Israel relationship and its American supporters."
As commentator Isi Leibler pointed out, "Despite Jewish ownership, throughout its history, The New York Times has rarely displayed affection or sensitivity towards Jewish issues. As far back as 1929, during the Arab riots in Palestine, the local Times correspondent, Joseph Levy, boasted that he was a committed anti-Zionist."
And of course The New York Times's cover-up of the Holocaust, was beyond disgraceful, as I have pointed out several times, for example, here and here:
* Reporting Auschwitz, Then & Now: The lamentable record of The New York Times
* All The News That's Fit To Print?