New York Times Editorial "Palestinian Statehood": Despicable

An abbreviated inoffensive version of the following blog entry was sent online in response to The Times editorial. It was . . . you guessed right . . . censored.

In knee-jerk fashion, The New York Times , in an editorial entitled "Palestinian Statehood" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?hp), is again quick to blame Netanyahu for thwarting peace negotiations. The editorial observes:

"Since President Obama took office, the only direct negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mr. Abbas lasted a mere two weeks in September 2010."

The editorial board of The New York Times does not bother telling us that in 2010 Netanyahu honored Obama's request for a 10-month freeze in settlement constuction, but that the Palestinian Authority delayed beginning talks with Israel until the last month of the moratorium. A mere trifling detail? What does this say about the desire of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate a peaceful settlement?

No mention by The Times editorial board that although the Palestinian Authority will not brook the presence of a single Jew in their new state, they have gone on record as saying that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Again, just a trivial issue?

The Times editorial board also forgets to mention that when Palestinian terrorists attacked Israeli buses carrying civilians on August 18, 2011 from across the Egyptian border, the Palestinian Authority never forthrightly denounced the terror attack, which killed 8 and wounded 20. Apparently, The Times editorial board also believes that this conduct on the part of the Palestinian Authority has no bearing on their purported desire for peace.

What does this all say about the leanings and objectivity of the New York Times? In the past, I evidenced the past willingess of this newspaper to brook the vilest expressions of anti-Semitism in their online readers' comments. Why, of all minorities, could only the Jews be targeted?

Actually, this most recent depraved distortion of the facts by The New York Times should come as no surprise. Observe a recent tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT) by New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal:

"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."

Apart from misspelling "Israel," Rosenthal displayed appalling ignorance concerning Israel's relationships with past US presidents. As observed in an earlier blog entry, Israel's relationships with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama have often been less than amicable (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/compare-max-frankel-with-andrew.html).

Omri Ceren of Commentary recently wrote in "Contentions" in a post entitled "The Times' Spectacular Bias Against Israel" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/08/ny-times-bias-israel/):

"I was hoping I could begin this post with an opening like 'Day 2 of this nonsense.' But I checked, and technically this is only the second time in three days that the New York Times has displayed spectacular bias against Israel, borne of something between poor judgment and a wholly absent sensitivity to Jewish sensibilities. Again it involves a spy case, again Scott Shane is the author, and again there are brief but pointed insinuations of American-Jewish collusion with Israel.

In contrast to Tuesday’s nonsense, though, there’s nothing particularly subtle about the bias on display. It’s simply a case of the Times throwing around an anti-Semitic dual loyalty accusation – which is also becoming kind of a thing in certain corners of the public sphere – with quite literally no justification. A White House scientist tried to sell classified data to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli spy, and he was arrested and duly convicted.

But the case as such never involved Israel, and the way you tell that is because it says so right there in the story.

. . . .

Now it’s true the convicted spy himself had once worked as a totally legal consultant for an Israeli firm until 2008. But that had precisely as much to do with the spy case as the fact he once attended MIT. And yet the Times’ headline didn’t say the spy case was tied to MIT, because that aspect of his past life wasn’t relevant to the spy case.

Of course, linking the case to MIT wouldn’t have injected a sensationalist century-old anti-Jewish canard – and an ever-popular anti-Israel theme – into public discourse. So that wouldn’t have been as exciting.

Honestly, what the hell is going on over there?"

What the hell is going on over at The Times? Sadly, nothing new. A mere lack of objectivity, or something far more malicious? You decide.