Skip to main content

View Diary: Team Shalom/Progressive Zionist Fry'd Daze (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NY Times gets rejected. (0+ / 0-)

    Apparently, Netanyahu was invited to write an op-ed, but declined. The letter from his senior adviser is a must read.

    Here is an excerpt:

    Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, 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.   According to the New York Times op-ed page, that was apparently news unfit to print.

    Your refusal to publish “positive” pieces about Israel apparently does not stem from a shortage of supply.   It was brought to my attention that the Majority Leader and Minority Whip of the U.S.  House of Representatives jointly submitted an op-ed to your paper in September opposing the Palestinian action at the United Nations and supporting the call of both Israel and the Obama administration for direct negotiations without preconditions.   In an age of intense partisanship, one would have thought that strong bipartisan support for Israel on such a timely issue would have made your cut.

    http://www.jpost.com/...

    •  I guess (0+ / 0-)

      Only having the son of one member of the New York Times as a member of the IDF is proof they they don't love Israel.

      What does bibi want? The entire NYT staff as part of the IDF?

      •  Is this a serious response? (0+ / 0-)

        If so, it's a pretty lame one with respect to the editorial bias of the paper, and its record of 95% negative commentary over the last 3 months.

        Not to mention that the story you offered is almost 2 years old and involved a correspondent with no record of bias.

        •  Making the offer was what one could ask the NYT (0+ / 0-)

          to do. He can take it or refuse it as he wants, but the point is that the invitation was made and he can't hereafter complain that he didn't have an opportunity to put that many words of his version of whatever in that paper.

          •  Huh? What are you even talking about? (0+ / 0-)

            He will hardly complain that he was denied an opportunity.  What a strange interpretation.

            •  You can't ask a newspaper to refuse to print the (0+ / 0-)

              words of those who disagree with you, just because they disagree. What you can do is fill what space is offered to you to set forth your position and why the other writers are wrong. That is what newspapers do. If he wants to insult the paper because they print what he disagrees with, all he did was make it clear that his views were intended to be not subject to disputation. Not an idea that any major public newspaper will publicly accept. All it does is make him look foolish, and leave the field to his opponents.  Especially when he provides access to more specialized methods of dispersal which already agree with him.

    •  Netenyahu Can't Tell the Difference (0+ / 0-)

      between being against Netanyahu and his policies and being against Israel. Netanyahu would have coined the term, 'L'etate, c'est moi.", if Louis hadn't got it first. The NYT is pushing for movement toward  security for both Israel and the Territories.  They may be heavy handed and their articles may lack nuance, but that's neither anti-semitic nor anti-Israeli; it's anti-Netanyahu.

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 05:51:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site