The New York Times: Censorship and Apathy to Jewish Sensitivities, Again

My comment submitted online in response to The New York Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development", was censored by The Times' "moderators". I again protested to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, who claimed in an earlier e-mail to me that he advocates "robust debate":

Dear Clark,

I would like to provide you with another real time example of New York Times' censorship of a comment submitted in response to The Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development", of today's date:

"Demonstrators in Tehran are bludgeoned into submission, yet Obama remains silent. Obama can't be bothered with genocide in Darfur. But when the tiny Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarah neighborhood is designated for housing units, which, heaven forbid, might be inhabited by Jews, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren is summoned to the State Department.

Never mind that Arab residents of Jerusalem are free to purchase housing anywhere in the city, and hundreds have done so. Where is the perspective of the Obama administration? Dare we ask?"

Abusive? Not on topic?

And once again, where is The Time's sensitivity to anti-Semitism? Is no one at The Times aware of the anti-Semitic connotations pertaining to the title of Maureen Dowd's op-ed, "Pharisees on the Potomac", of today's date? See, for example:

"Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has changed in meaning and has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Jews today (who subscribe to Pharisaic Judaism) typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

Unintended by Ms. Dowd? Probably, but why was the matter not given sufficient thought by those who proofread this op-ed? If there was any question at all, as there should have been, why was the title not amended?

Clark, months ago I was promised answers by your staff, which never came. If you don't care to discuss candidly these topics, i.e. censorship and material that is offensive to The Times' Jewish readership, just let me know.

I later sent a second e-mail to Mr. Hoyt:

Dear Clark,

Further to my comment of yesterday's date, I would like to note the single comment chosen as an "Editors' Selection" among all readers' comments submitted in response to The Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development":

"The US needs to have a broader concept of its interests and realize that by continuing to subsidize Israel, it is complicit in what Israel does.

Let Israel exercise its sovereignty, but if, in doing so, Israel acts immorally, short-sightedly and contrary to the interests of the United States, we need to distance ourselves from them. We should have done so long ago.

Cut them off financially and militarily. As a sovereign state, they can find help elsewhere."

Given the tone of this single "Editors' Selection", it is little wonder that my comment was censored.

I kindly request to know the names of The New York Times' "editors" who made this "selection" and who censored my comment.

Once again, I await Clark Hoyt's response with bated breath. A pity that the Times' "wedding pages", the subject of his July 12 column, "Love and Marriage, New York Times Style", apparently are more important than censorship and anti-Semitism.