I know a place where they write the news just the way
your Jewish aunt loves to read it. You want Israel for breakfast, lunch
and dinner? You want to kibbitz like youre in a Likudnik Kibbutz?
This is the joint. Looking for a place where you can lounge around like
a lizard with a cobra-eating snake like the infamous Sharon of Sabra and
Shatila? I know a place on West 43rd Street in the big apple.
The joint is owned by the Sulzberger family. What Hebrew National is to
sausage, the New York Times is to reporting. Its a Strictly Kosher
Menu. But even the goys come in for a bite of this uniquely American-Jewish
ethnic journal. What options do they have? The Daily News?
The New York Times is a marketing marvel. It gets away
with advocating Israeli mass murderers like Sharon. So when some outside
crime reporter, like our hapless State Department, stumbles on the undeniable
evidence of three hundred plus Palestinian bodies that shouldnt have
been used for Israeli target practice, the reporters at the Times always
have a pit where they bury what they dont like to print.
The questions they ask themselves before printing a story
is Where? Who? Why? When? Is it good for Israel? So when the government
of the United States published its annual review of human rights in 195
countries, including ample details about excessive Israeli force, there
was no room for a separate article on the subject. David Sanger, the Times
reporter charged with burying this Israeli story, managed to do the nasty
duty without resorting to a single quote from the actual document.
First, Sanger needed a place to ditch the story. If you
want to bury a story, first bury it in the headline. Isnt Sanger
slick or what? His headline "U.S. Finds Rights Abuses in China, Colombia
and Israel" (NYT, 2//27/2001). Then put it on Page A9. Sulzberger
would appreciate that. Leading with China, Sanger writes that the report
"offered a harsh assessment of how Israel dealt with Palestinian uprisings
last year". So, Sanger thinks the folks at state were harsh? Poor
little victimized Israel. He then immediately moves on to Colombia. Than
back to China.
Sanger did some snooping at very high levels before reporting
this story. He managed to find out that Colin L Powell and Condoleezza
Rice "had time to review the findings and in a few sensitive chapters,
particularly on Israel, to alter some wording". Does this mean that
the Jewish Lobby and the Israeli embassy had screened the report and negotiated
with the State Department before releasing it to the public? Later in the
article there is this quote from a former Clinton administration official.
"The key was Israel" one said "and there they left the main
conclusion, which is that there was excessive force on the Israeli side,
and human rights violations on the Palestinian side as well." The
key? What is this? Can these New York Times "grave diggers" stop
talking amongst themselves, already? The key to what? To the coffin? Dig
a deep pit for this story.
That same day the Israeli Labor party, led by Shimon
Peres, had decided to embrace the war mongering Sharon and set him up as
the head of a unity government. The New York Times was very satisfied with
this result lauding Sharon for committing to "a broadly centrist course".
So, Sharon is a centrist? Is it time for another bounce on Grandpa Ariks
lap? If this particular foreign war criminal was not Jewish, he would not
be allowed a transit visa to Malta. If he was Austrian, he would be doing
time. Every time they try to wash this guy, some of the stain sticks to
the crew at Sulzbergers joint. If you work for a paper where the
publisher supports a well-documented war-criminal just because they happen
to share a faith tradition, you should walk. But that kind of intellectual
courage would be a miracle on 43rd Street...
For journalistic courage, a New York Times reporter,
Seth Mydans, had to travel to Thailand to locate an editor, like Ammat
Jongyotying who is unwilling to bow to political corruption, even at the
cost of his life. (A Courageous Editors Lonely Quest, NYT, 2/27/2001).
Well, Seth certainly had no hope of locating courage on 43rd
Street. A New York Times journalist is more likely to be promoting repression.
They should have an annual Prize for the American Journalist who did the
most to cover up war crimes and promote repression? I nominates Thomas
Friedman, Deborah Sontag, David Sanger and Jeff Jacoby from the New York
Times Publishing Company. I also throw into the hat every journalist at
FOX and CNN and Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post. The prize
will be a syringe of Palestinian blood engraved with the words Todo Por
La Causa Zionista! The stands will be made from the Isreaeli tank shells
they fire at Palestinian homes.
Just so everyone is clear about the New York Times campaign
to sell Sharon by demonizing his victims. In another article, there is
this little sentence about the Talibans "pure Mohammadan state".
Now, that is a terminology that they know is very insulting to Muslims.
Make, no mistake, 43rd Street has the largest cluster of bigots
and racists in the American publishing trade. They breed them to hate in
I dont see how any American, Jewish or otherwise,
can support an exclusionary Jewish State that the Zionists have been advocating
for nearly a century. We dont even allow restrictive zoning covenants
in this country. These are the same guys that get bent out of shape when
they see a nativity scene on public grounds. I also dont understand
any journalist who would cover up foreign war criminals. Israel is currently
conducting the only belligerent foreign occupation on the planet. And the
New York Times is always willing to pitch in to vilify the victims and
pave the way for more lethal "unity government" repression.
The "liberal" New York Jew exists only in Jewish
fiction and Jewish movies. American Jews were silent about Israels
relationship with Apartheid South Africa. They have excused and applauded
every Israeli crime against the Palestinians. Voices of dissension in the
Jewish community are cast aside, humiliated and shunned. The Jewish powerhouses
in the Media have created a sound proof arena where Arab and Muslim Americans
are prevented from voicing their opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
This has to be longest running act of deception in the history of journalism.
That kind of intense deception, cannot withstand an ounce of dissension.
The biggest New York Times stories is about to happen. It will take a few
of their journalist breaking the "code of silence" to reveal
the recruiting tactics used to get a monolithic rigidly pro-Israeli view
to dominate both their newsroom and editorial rooms. Do they hire just
based on faith? It does seem to be that almost all their journalist, especially
those covering the Middle East and Washington, are Jewish. How did that
come to pass in one of Americas most diverse cities? OK, if it is
just going to be Jewish writers and editors, well why not identify it properly
as an ethnic paper? Like the Jewish Times of New York. That would be a
little more honest, although I suspect the content would remain as tainted
as ever. Its hard to leave that kind of legacy behind in the information
age. The old gray lady needs a new wardrobe. I recommend a hookers
outfit and a lower profile.
Perhaps the New York Times, due to the liability of
extensive tainted archives on this subject matter, has decided that coming
clean on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would do irreparable damage to
their vaunted trade name. Half its Journalists could be easily implicated,
and even the ones writing the garden section on Sunday know the score.
Or maybe they just want to write what their constituency wants to read.
No, this is just too systematic and precise an operation. This thing is
run like a Mossad operation. My gut feel is that they are Arab-haters,
because the Palestinians didnt just up and disappear to make room
for "ancient Brooklyn Hebrews with Polish and Russian faces
returning to their land in Nablus and Jaffa and East Jerusalem. They hate
the Palestinians, because against all odds, including their abysmal leadership,
they have tenaciously clung on to the land of their ancestors. The New
York Times is that rare municipal paper in the world today that stills
adheres to an ideology. It is institutionally ingrained with a putrid morality
that demands every Times journalist sell the party line on Israel. If flouting
journalistic ethics is the price to be paid, than ethics be damned.
I write this without reservation. The journalists at
the New York Times are accomplices to murder, in much the same way that
Pravda Journalists assisted Stalin and his henchmen. They and Sulzberger
are accomplices to land grabs from an innocent pastoral people. It takes
craven cowardice and treason to force-feed lies to the American public
about the continued daily repression of the four million Palestinians still
living in Palestine and disallowing the return of millions of others. To
accomplish this task they have not failed to take every opportunity to
malign all those of Arab heritage and Islamic faith, including American-Arabs
and the American Muslim community.
Those of us who are acutely aware of this insidious campaign
by the likes of Sulzberger, must be ready to defend ourselves and challenges
The New York Times Publishing Company, The Washington Post Company, and
the five networks, by every legal means available. We must explore their
discriminatory hiring practices, We must challenge them to stop selling
defective merchandise that is faulty by design and does not shy from inciting
racial hatred and religious bigotry. We need new faces at our newspapers,
more diversified news sources and a few journalists who still care about
ethics and truth and the American way. Enough already with Kosher News