"There is no surviving record of how the paper's coverage of the subject was discussed by Times editors during the war years of 1939-45. But within that coverage is recurring evidence of a guiding principle: do not feature the plight of Jews, and take care, when reporting it, to link their suffering to that of many other Europeans.
. . . .
No single explanation seems to suffice for what was surely the century's bitterest journalistic failure. The Times, like most media of that era, fervently embraced the wartime policies of the American and British governments, both of which strongly resisted proposals to rescue Jews or to offer them haven. After a decade of economic depression, both governments had political reasons to discourage immigration and diplomatic reasons to refuse Jewish settlements in regions like Palestine.
. . . .
After the Nazis' slaughter of Jews was fully exposed at war's end, Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, the influential daughter, wife and mother of Times publishers, changed her mind about the need for a Jewish state and helped her husband, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, accept the idea of Israel and befriend its leaders. Later, led by their son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and their grandson Arthur Sulzberger Jr., The Times shed its sensitivity about its Jewish roots, allowed Jews to ascend to the editor's chair and warmly supported Israel in many editorials."
Today, Andrew Rosenthal is editorial page editor of The New York Times. In his biography, it is observed, "In 1964, he won the 3rd Grade Spelling Bee at Public School 183 in Manhattan, on the word 'necessary'" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/media/24askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all). On August 14, 2011, almost a decade following Frankel's thoughtful piece, Rosenthal disseminated the following tweet(http://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT):
"Perry announce speech. Did he miss a GOP cliche? One fave: Isreal [sic] won't have to worry about him. As if it ever has to worry about a US prez."
In the past, I have corresponded with Rosenthal concerning anti-Semitism, the op-ed page of the Times, and grotesque anti-Semitic readers' comments posted by the Times online, some of which were removed by Rosenthal. Concerning Rosenthal's snotty Twitter item, I would begin by observing that although he won a third grade spelling bee, he misspelled "Israel".
More to the point, however, Rosenthal displays appalling ignorance concerning Israel's relationships with past US presidents. Israel's relationships with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama have often been less than amicable. For example, Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, opposed the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel, and when Israel stood on the verge of annihilation during the 1973 War of Atonement, Kissinger's advice to Nixon was "Let them bleed."
Jimmy Carter, never a friend of Israel, as highlighted by calumnies against Israel and banquets with Assad during which human rights abuses were swept under the table, appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski, also no friend of Israel, as National Security Advisor.
Fast forward: Brzezinski, labeled by Obama as "one of our most outstanding thinkers," stated in a September 2009 interview with The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/09/18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message.html) in response to the question how Obama should respond to an Israeli air strike on Iran:
"We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?"
Obama is also advised by Samantha Power, who has advocated that America send an armed "mammoth protection force" to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2008/01/27/obama-and-israel-it-gets-worse/). Israel need not be concerned about Obama's future conduct, particularly if he is reelected?
Back to Frankel and Rosenthal: Compare content and style. Sure, there is a difference between an article and a tweet, but what a difference a decade makes.
No comments:
Post a Comment