The New York Times Propagating Anti-Jewish Sentiment? Time to Boycott?

Well I suppose it was bound to happen. The New York Times has finally done it. They crossed the line into anti-Jewish sentiment, which is really just one step away from Anti-Semitic rhetoric. You're probably saying to yourself "really?" Would the New York Times really shoot themselves in the foot by doing something so impulsive, so stupid? The answer would have to be a resounding yes.

What was it that drew my attention? It was a tag line to an article which read "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Unfortunately I didn't have enough foresight to take a screenshot of the homepage when I saw it, with the tagline that appeared in the upper right hand side of the page where links to editorials are usually posted. But that's really just academic, seeing how they have left the article itself intact (if they change it I have downloaded the page and taken screen shots of the article).

The piece, currently titled "The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse" contains the sentence "Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade." So it's hardly a stretch that some greenhorn online web editor trying to grab attention would state what they did in the tagline for the piece.

But the real kicker is that in a tweet exchange between myself and one Andy Rosenthal, apparently a New York Times editor, perhaps the very one that wrote this editorial, he tries to not so cleverly deny it. While my first tweet may have mistakenly stated that the line Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support was the title. It was not. That line was the tag line that accompanied title. So why would Mr. Rosenthal deny it? Was he just nitpicking? I have a hard time believing his argument is simply semantic.

Indeed, after I posted a tweet that stated @NYTimes publishing editorials with anti-Jewish undertones? Has the time arrived to start a #boycott? #AIPAC2011, I think somebody woke up to the fact that indeed, Houston, they have a problem. In their minds, the problem is probably that some intern web editor posted something that might cause them trouble. What they really don't realize is that this little slip of the tongue was Freudian, for lack of a better word. And that indeed, the very wording indicated a much deeper problem that they are most likely completely unaware of, something I'll examine in more detail shortly.

Indeed, it gives critical insight into the editorial mind behind the New York Times, and the political agenda that drives it. That unspoken guideline by which anybody who wants to write for the New York Times needs to follow, as described by Noam Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent. And that guideline is, if I can speculate, that Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support. But why would Washington need to pander to Jews for their support? Unless, oh maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms, but the Times has given me no choice, unless the driving ideology that guides the Times believes that somehow, the Jews have so much power that they control Washington? Now where have we all heard that one?

I think my delicate nuance has provided enough information to direct anybody in the know to the next logical assumption.

Unfortunately, this leads to two issues which need addressing. One is a sad reflection on the state of the New York Times, and the other is a concerning reflection on society in general in its liberal approach to criticizing Jews.

• The sad item is, most likely, the Times doesn't realize just how far off the wall they've gone. Much like Thomas Friedman calling on Palestinians to march on Jerusalem every week as opposed to simply take the same step that Binyamin Netanyahu took, as he noted in his speech, two years ago. Which is to state that they (the Palestinians) will recognize a Jewish state. What Mr. Friedman has suggested is an act that, far from convincing Israel that it would need to make more non-reciprocated concessions and give the Palestinians a state, would cause the Israelis to be even more frightened of the Palestinians, any agreement, and any concessions, and most likely lead to bloodshed. But seeing how Mr. Friedman is adopting the tactics of the dictator Bashar Assad, I think we can write him off as an irrelevant, incapable has been Middle East correspondent.


• The concerning item, is that as we've seen over the past few months, the blurring of lines between anti-Israel rhetoric and blaming Jews, or attributing to them some greater power, or the acceptance of dinner table anti-Semitism, which are all becoming the norm, if not downright fashionable. Whether its CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez, ex White House Press Corps Secretary Helen Thomas, fashion guru John Galliano, Danish Director Lars von Trier at the Cannes Film Festival, or Oliver Stone, there just seems to be a deluge of people from all walks that feel expressing hatred of Jews or attributing to them super human powers in an evil mission to suppress the truth has become, well, every day.

So when borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric reaches the front page of the New York Times website (even if its only for twenty minutes until someone takes note of a poor man's tweet from half way around the world), its about time we stand up and say "enough." Binyamin Netanyahu is invited to congress, gives a fabulous speech which represents the positions of the majority of Israelis, and connects with the representatives of the American people, and the New York Times attributes it to the desire of these same politicians to pander to the Jewish vote, because as the New York Times knows, only the Jews vote in America, isn't that right Mr. Rosenthal?

Why is it that the New York Times can't believe that these representatives were actually representing the beliefs of their constituents, and expressing their own whole hearted agreement with what Mr. Netanyahu said? Heck, I'm sure I could probably troll the hate sites and by this time find hundreds if not thousands of comments to the fact that "the New York Times admits that the American congress bowed to their real leader." Is that what you really meant New York Times?

As many of us that have watched the New York Times over the past couple years have come to understand, the paper is no longer a bastion of objective reporting. No, they have an ideological agenda that matches that of President Obama, in which apparently, the Palesitnians are to be given a state at any cost. That damn the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Baharain, Yemen, and others, (which barely get a token mention every few weeks in the NYTimes) it is the Israelis that are criminals for "occupying" the Palestinians, who I may add have yet to recognize a Jewish state no less agree to partition, which the Arab world rejected in 1947 before there was ever a Palestinian people, just people they called Palestinians relating to the native population without distinction between Jew and Arab.

When the New York Times slides into borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric, even if a large number of its readers and subscribers are themselves Jewish, it would seem to be the time to begin a boycott movement. The owners and editors of the New York Times need to be told that they need to clean up their act. Stop working as a mouthpiece for a political agenda, start writing objective news, and stop taking sides. And most important, wake up to the fact that whether it is an conscious, agenda driven process or an unconscious one, they are sliding further down the hole of that dark art of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and contributing, much like Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Oliver Stone and the others, to a global environment that blames the Jews.

I have not decided how active I am going to pursue this. But in the meantime, I strongly suggest that the New York Times write up a Journalistic Code of Conduct that will help them bring an end to the nasty turn their editorial line has taken, print a front page apology, and show they are taking concrete steps to pull themselves out of the cesspool and back into the world of journalistic integrity (though if they ever manage it they'll probably be pretty lonely there too).

If you find this issue concerning I suggest you join in writing to the editor, informing them you shall terminate visits to their web site and terminate subscription to their services, until they have remedied this most ominous of developments. That you will share the information I have provided above with friends and family, and suggest they do the same.

And with that said, the below is a sample of tweets from my exchange with Mr. Rosenthal.

Immediately after seeing the New York Times homepage with tagline Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support, I posted the following tweet.



I followed this tweet with a number of others including one that asks if the time for boycotting the New York Times.

About 20 minutes later I returned to the NY Times homepage to find the link and tagline gone, even though the link I had posted on my Facebook account still led to the article. I thought, OK, perhaps I had a small victory. And I posted the following Tweet:



Shortly thereafter I was mentioned in the following Tweet:



Me and Mr. Rosenthal had a further exchange where he said "@RichardTelAviv Oh. Yes, that is a sentence in the editorial. It wasn't the title. Was confused. In any case, we didn't remove it.. And finally closed the thread with "@RichardTelAviv We change our homepage all the time, every day. BTW, if you wish to keep up a dialogue, stop the insults. Thanks.

I sent one last tweet saying @andyrNYT Insulting? Moi? I'm not the 1 that said "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Being Jewish I find that insulting and concerning.

And with that, I leave everybody to their conscience.