The Stench of Anti-Semitism at The New York Times

OPEN LETTER TO JILL ABRAMSON, EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Dear Ms. Abramson,

I remember in June, when you were named Executive Editor of The New York Times, you were quoted by The Times , following your promotion, as saying:

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

This statement was subsequently retracted from the said article in The Times, after it apparently caused you no small amount of embarrassment. After all, how many people are of the belief in the divinity of a newspaper.

Well, let's talk about the so-called "divinity" of your newspaper, The New York Times. I would argue that in recent years, it has cast aside its wings and has instead embraced the profane adoration of anti-Semitism, as practiced by the new left.

You're a newspaper editor, so naturally you demand proof. No problem.

Just this week, following my complaint by e-mail to Andrew Rosenthal, your Editorial Page Editor, concerning the title of Roger Cohen's latest op-ed, "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power," the title was quickly changed online to "The Dilemmas of Israeli Power." Rosenthal did not write back to me.

Does the initial title of Cohen's op-ed remind you of something? It should. In a 1935 speech to the Reichstag introducing the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler stated:

"The third [law] is an attempt to regulate by law [the Jewish] problem, which, should this attempt fail, must then be handed over by law to the National-Socialist Party for a final solution."

"Jewish dilemmas"? "Jewish problem"? They sound frighteningly alike. Moreover, Hitler, like most other anti-Semites, believed that the Jews wielded too much power.

An isolated incident? Hardly. In May 2009, The New York Times published an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html). I quickly shot off an e-mail to a very senior editor of The Times:

"The Times should have given more thought to the title of Cohen's op-ed. As I tried to illustrate in my e-mail to Clark Hoyt, there is a long anti-Semitic history of depicting Jews as ugly voracious spiders. Netanyahu is no spider, and Obama is no butterfly. The title could only serve to inflame hatred."

The very senior editor, who requested to remain anonymous, replied:

"It was not a good headline, I agree. By the time this column gets to the times website it has already been published in the IHT [International Herald Tribune] on paper and online. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. The headline should have been changes there [sic]."

Does the problem relate only to Roger Cohen? Hardly. Thomas Friedman let loose with an anti-Semitic tirade in his op-ed “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&hp), 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."

It now turns out that The New York Times was only willing to publish one letter-to-the-editor in response to Friedman's racist rant, which was submitted by the American Jewish Committee (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/us-support-for-israel.html). However, The New York Times "sanitized" this reply.

As reported by David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, in The Jerusalem Post (http://blogs.jpost.com/content/new-york-times-columnist-tom-friedman-crossed-line), the following is the original letter-to-the-editor submitted by the AJC to The Times:

“Tom Friedman is entitled to his opinion about the pro-Israel statements of Republican presidential candidates. But his assertion that the standing ovation Congress gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a few months ago was ‘bought and paid for by the Israel lobby’ is both inaccurate and shockingly insidious. Public opinion polls consistently show a high level of American (and, yes, American Jewish) support for and identification with Israel. This indicates that the people’s elected representatives are fully reflecting the will of the voters. Friedman’s identification of a rich and powerful ‘Israel lobby’ conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes. Does he identify with those who traffic in such rhetoric, notably Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who coauthored a book by that name? One surely hopes not.”

Now contrast the above with what was published by The Times:

“Thomas L. Friedman is entitled to his opinion about the pro-Israel statements of Republican presidential candidates. But we strongly object to his assertion that the standing ovation that Congress gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a few months ago ‘was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.’ Public opinion polls consistently show a high level of American (and, yes, American Jewish) support for and identification with Israel. This indicates that the people’s elected representatives are fully reflecting the will of the people.”

In short, The New York Times redacted the AJC's observation that Friedman "conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes."

More, Jill? No problem. As observed by a senior adviser to Netanyahu, Ron Dermer, in a letter to The New York Times, in which he declined your newspaper's offer to publish a contributor op-ed to be written by Netanyahu (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249724), antagonism to Israel on the opinion pages of The New York Times has reached epidemic 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."

And then there was also Sarah Schulman's recent New York Times contributor op-ed entitled "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/sarah-schulman-israel-and-pinkwashing.html), in which Israel is assailed for safeguarding gay rights allegedly in order to disguise abuse of Palestinian rights. Publication of this contributor op-ed caused me to wonder how even Andy Rosenthal and friends could reach this nadir.

Still want more, Jill? Again, no problem. Although online readers' comments to your op-eds and editorials are purportedly "moderated," your so-called moderators have repeatedly permitted the posting of the vilest expressions of anti-Semitism. Just one of many examples:

"There is no country called Israel, just the squatting of tribal criminals from the Eastern Bloc."

I sent repeated e-mails to your former Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, about this disgraceful phenomenon, but he ignored me. I also sent examples of this abuse to the "very senior editor," who removed many of the comments, long after they had been posted, but the posting of anti-Semitic online readers' comments at The Times continued. (See, for additional background and examples: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/10/sanchez-dismissal-spawns-more-anti.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/charles-blows-obama-and-jews-part-2.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/vicious-anti-semitic-readers-comment-in.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-you-were-revolted-by-helen-thomas.html)

Have a good look in the mirror, Jill. You were brought up to believe that The New York Times is a beacon of truth and a substitute for religion? Obviously, you don't have a clue as to what monstrous depths your newspaper has descended.