Follow by Email

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Israel Bonds Advertises in The New York Times

Open Letter to the Development Corporation for Israel

Dear Madam/Sir,

This morning I was astounded to see that the Development Corporation for Israel is advertising online in The New York Times to sell Israel Bonds, notwithstanding that this newspaper has become a leading proponent of the new anti-Semitism and that many of its subscribers have cancelled their subscriptions for this reason.

As you are surely aware, Thomas Friedman last week wrote a New York Times op-ed (see: in which he declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

This was not an isolated instance of the new anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head at The New York Times. In fact, it came on the heels of Sarah Schulman's recent New York Times contributor op-ed entitled "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'", in which Israel is assailed for safeguarding gay rights allegedly in order to disguise abuse of Palestinian rights.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just refused an offer by The New York Times to write a contributor op-ed for them. Explaining Prime Minister Netanyahu's refusal, Netanyahu's senior adviser, Ron Dermer, provided concrete evidence that antagonism to Israel on the opinion pages of The New York Times has reached epic proportions:

"I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, 'positive' and 'negative,' with 'negative' meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were 'negative.'

The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid. Yet your decision to publish that op-ed came a few months after your paper reportedly rejected Goldstone's previous submission. In that earlier piece, which was ultimately published in the Washington Post, the man who was quoted the world over for alleging that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position."

Needless to say, the obsessive hostility to Israel of New York Times columnists Roger Cohen, Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman and Robert Mackey has become legendary.

Moreover, The New York Times has persisted in posting vile anti-Semitic online readers' comments by its "moderators," notwithstanding its purported policy that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive" (see:

Let there be no doubt: The New York Times is anti-Semitic (see:, and I have asked readers of my blog to boycott corporations and organizations that advertise in The New York Times (

As such, I ask that the Development Corporation for Israel immediately cease to advertise with The New York Times. I cannot ask my readers to boycott corporations advertising with this anti-Semitic newspaper when the Development Corporation for Israel uses this newspaper's services.

I await your urgent response, which I will post on my blog.

Yours sincerely,

1 comment:

  1. Your demands are entirely reasonable and logical.
    Opposing them stand the Israel apologists, the J-Street and left-of-J-Street Jewish individuals who bend over backwards trying to demonstrate their bona fides towards their non-Jewish colleagues by out-voicing the anti-Semites. And then their words are bannered for all to see: See! I am only quoting Jews or Israelis. So how can my op-eds, articles and letters be construed as anti-Semitic?

    One must be clear, consistent and dogged in one's criticisms - as you are Jeff. The case is extremely serious. And you are right in pointing out that the NYT has a pre-scripted agenda and bends the news to fit it. Their line is shameful and potentially highly dangerous.