Business

December 20, 2011

Israeli officials escalate war of words with N.Y. Times [UPDATE]

by Ron Kampeas, JTA

Tweet

Share

Israeli officials are stepping up their criticism of The New York Times, slamming columnist Thomas Friedman and arguing that the newspaper is an unfit venue for an Op-Ed from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a scathing letter first leaked last week to The Jerusalem Post, Ron Dermer, a top aide to Netanyahu, declined an invitation for the prime minister to write an Op-Ed for the Times. By way of explanation, Dermer cited what he alleged was the newspaper’s anti-Israel tilt.

“It would seem as if the surest way to get an Op-Ed published in The New York Times these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to attack Israel,” he said.

Dermer’s letter came just days after Friedman, a frequent critic of Israeli settlement policies, asserted that U.S. congressional support for Netanyahu was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), a top congressional appropriator, joined a chorus of commentators in decrying Friedman’s allegation. And Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said Friedman had “strengthened a dangerous myth.”

“This allegation is profoundly disturbing,” Oren told JTA. “The term ‘Israel lobby’ implies the existence of a Zionist cabal wielding inordinate economic and political power. Unintentionally, perhaps, Friedman has strengthened a dangerous myth.”

The recent flaps are casting a light on the degree to which the Israeli government believes it has not been getting a fair shake from what is arguably the most influential newspaper in the world.

In September, in an editorial about the push for U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood, the Times declared in an editorial that it put the “greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu” for the stalled Israeli-Palestinian talks, claiming he “has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts.” In another editorial a few days later, the newspaper accused Netanyahu of refusing “to make any compromises with the Palestinians.”

The Times published a response from Israeli Embassy spokesman Lior Weintraub in which the Israeli official noted that during his current tenure, Netanyahu has endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state, pushed for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without pre-conditions, ordered the removal of hundreds of checkpoints and implemented an “unprecedented 10-month moratorium on new West Bank settlement construction.”

Netanyahu “offered to extend the moratorium for an additional three months if the Palestinians would return to the negotiating table. But they did not,” Weintraub continued, adding that in his May speech to Congress the prime minister said that “some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders” and pledged that the Jerusalem issue could be resolved “with creativity and with good will.”

Weintraub argued that “obscuring Mr. Netanyahu’s record in pursuing peace only emboldens the Palestinians to avoid direct negotiations with a genuinely willing and eager partner.”

Dermer in his letter suggested that ignoring Netanyahu’s outreach amounted to bad will. Times columnists, Dermer said, “consistently distort the positions of our government and ignore the steps it has taken to advance peace. They cavalierly defame our country by suggesting that marginal phenomena condemned by Prime Minister Netanyahu and virtually every Israeli official somehow reflects government policy or Israeli society as a whole.”

The letter has created a Washington buzz, with some officials with pro-Israel groups scratching their heads at the strategy. Off the record, they say they agree with Dermer’s assessment of the Times, but wonder at the wisdom of turning down an opportunity to appear on one of the most influential Op-Ed pages in the United States.

David Harris, the American Jewish Committee’s executive director, would not comment on the strategy, but said it was clear that the Times had a problem with Israel, noting some of the trends Dermer listed in his letter: The Friedman column and others critical of Israel by Nicholas Kristof; publishing, without adequate redress, an Op-Ed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that blames Israel for rejecting two states in 1947, when it was the Arabs who rejected the U.N. partition plan; and a column suggesting that Israel’s gay rights advances were merely a function of a propaganda campaign to make Arabs seem backward.

“There has been a clear imbalance on the editorial and Op-Ed pages of The New York Times,” Harris said. “If the Times aspires to a balanced range of views on those pages, it needs to engage in some reflection.”

Friedman in his column listed reasons he believes American Jews like himself are growing uncomfortable with Israel: the closeness of the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, to Russian autocrats and their anti-democratic leanings; the controversy about segregating women from men on buses that serve haredi Orthodox neighborhoods; a slate of laws seeking to limit the influence of human rights groups; and attacks by extremist settlers on Palestinians and the Israeli army.

“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,” Friedman wrote, referring to Netanyahu’s address to a joint session last May. “That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

Friedman on Tuesday told The New York Jewish Week that “in retrospect I probably should have used a more precise term like ‘engineered’ by the Israel lobby—a term that does not suggest grand conspiracy theories that I don’t subscribe to.” Otherwise, Friedman added, he stood by the column.

In response to Friedman’s column, Rothman issued a statement saying that the characterization of the nature of congressional support for Netanyahu reinforced a “dangerous narrative” about supporters of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

“I gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a standing ovation not because of any nefarious lobby, but because it is in America’s vital national security interests to support the Jewish State of Israel and it is right for Congress to give a warm welcome to the leader of such a dear and essential ally,” Rothman said. “Mr. Friedman owes us all an apology.”

Dermer is among Netanyahu’s most influential advisers. He is an American immigrant whose late father, Jay Dermer, and brother, David, have both been Democratic mayors of Miami Beach.

Dermer became a Republican in adulthood, and the no-holds-barred political style he acquired from mentors such as Frank Luntz transitioned easily to Israel’s rough politics when he made aliyah in the mid-1990s. Netanyahu, who himself was raised partly in the United States, bonded with Dermer soon after they were introduced.

JTA Editor in Chief Ami Eden contributed to this report.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Why must we always question the wisdom of defending Israel? The NY Time’s bias is well known and why should Netanyahu play the fool and argue Israel’s case on the Times’s OpEd page? All it would do is give credence to the Friedmans and Kristoffs that populate that page

Comment by Michael on 12/19/11 at 12:25 pm

Are things much different in the LA Times. Their OP Eds are without question slanted against Israel. There is is little balance in the paper.

Comment by Reuvain on 12/19/11 at 2:36 pm

OMG a light ray of reality has been exposed by a Jew in a Jewish owned unbalanced media, hence can not be tolerated!

Comment by PK on 12/19/11 at 2:48 pm

Michael, I agree 100% with you!

Thumbs up to Ron Dermer, for avoiding wasting Netanyahu’s time with an irrelevant, unfit, one sided venue, like the NYT.

Comment by bill on 12/19/11 at 2:49 pm

It is a pity that the NYT is a bastion of the attitude that does not recognize the futility of expecting peace for peace, with the Falasteenians. They cannot! For if they would, it would destroy the carefully constructed myth that the Falasteenians are a People. They are not, at least not yet. Currently they still are an agglomerate of clans originating from all over the Muslim world, that immigrated into Mandatory Palestine from 1917, and for some fifty yrs priorly were gathered by the Turks to create some tax revenue via the “Effendi System” of absentee fief-holders.  Forgotten history!!

Comment by HeAry(1) on 12/19/11 at 3:13 pm

Were the Fals. to abandon their fundamental stance of denying historical Jewish priority in the Land-of-Israel, demanding “Return” for the descendants of the 1948 refugees, and demanding Jerusalem as their Capital, they simply would have no element of Peoplehood left standing. For them, it would be community-suicide. Therefore any thought of compromise is futile.  Unfortunately.

Comment by HeAry (2) on 12/19/11 at 3:14 pm

Why must we always question the wisdom of examining Israeli policy closely?

As a news organization, the NY Times is not biased, although the Editorials and Op-Ed pages show strong criticism of Israel.

The Wall Street Journal is rabidly RIGHT wingnut, yet its world coverage comes under less scrutiny.

So to Michael and the others who will whine about criticism of Israel, i suggest dealing with criticism instead of calling it unwarranted.  Make more logical arguments for settlements if you can.  And of course admit the Bibi is a Milton Freidman supply sider, just like W and the actual cabal of right wing operatives, who find shelter in the Op-Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Comment by The Logician on 12/19/11 at 3:30 pm

Liberal Jews are always taught to pokite and nice to their detracters. 
  Unfortuately it only makes us seem weak and never changes anybodies opinion.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/19/11 at 4:14 pm

ny times has become openly fascist employing j-street edomite renegades leaking obama butt for a piece of bone, and friedman is not much better than his iranian boss obama. Israel should not

Comment by greg on 12/19/11 at 4:34 pm

Honey Bee—

You can be polite and strong.  Appearances are not everything.  Have not heard about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  Everyone knows you have the big stick so why be an unreasonable person, unless it comforts you.

One is polite not to change anyone’s opinion, but to keep the door open so that your reasoning will be heard and that together you may find a common solution.

Do you know nothing about negotiation? 

And Greg—You really should get back on your meds.  You sound like a raving Islamic fundamentalist.

Comment by The Logician on 12/19/11 at 6:24 pm

Remember when CNN admitted to biased coverage because it wanting free access to news sources in Arab countries. IOW, CNN was bought by the Arab lobby. I suspect the NYT is doing the same thing.
Dear The Logician: change your name to The Not-Logic “Logician,” Ad Hominem attacks are the most egregious error in a 101 class in Logic!

Comment by Rich Mann on 12/19/11 at 10:58 pm

For several years I ghost wrote a column for the New York Times. Thus I discovered how favorite sources are able to plant information and opinion within the paper. My cousin Joseph ,a liberal, served at a high level spokesman in every administration from Kennedy through Reagan. Later he was ombudsman of the Washington Post. He likened correcting erroneous coverage by the New York Times as the equivalent of being in a “pissing contest with a skunk”.

Comment by HOWARD LAITIN on 12/20/11 at 3:08 am

My Saudi associates assured that only someone with the supreme ego of a Tom Friedman would have carried the “peace offer” to the national stage in the United States and Israel. They assured me that the bottom line was : ONLY when Israel settled ALL ISSUES(such as water rights, boundaries, population return, etc.) with ALL PARTIES( Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, etc.) then and ONLY THEN would the Arab League CONSIDER -and they emphasized the word consider–normalizing relations with Israel. They said had the offer been serious Prime Minister Sharon would have been invited to address the Arab summit.

Comment by LT COL HOWARD on 12/20/11 at 3:11 am

While I agree that Netanyahu should not be in the business of “op-ed” writing, there are plenty of other folks in Israel who could do the job.  But what Friedman is doing is pointing out that many of Israel’s policies just won’t work in the emerging world, and that we had better find a better way—and be the leader at doing so.  Friedman is certianly not “anti-Israel”. Israel will not be undermined by intelligent criticism, or even unintelligent criticism.

Comment by William Cutter on 12/20/11 at 6:06 am

Logician, why do you always use the unversal WE?  The Wall Street Journal “rabid”, hardly.  Why are YOU, Logician, so consitantly opposed he all Israeli polocies.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/20/11 at 9:14 am

” Don"t make a fuss”, isn’t the advice given to the Jews as Hitler was conseladating his power.  Be polite,be sweet, die quietly!

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/20/11 at 11:31 am

Logician:
   
      I’am a killer Bee I negociate from a position of power, there is no other to negociate.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/20/11 at 11:56 am

Honey Bee—

You are comparing the Palistinian conflict to Nazi Germany, a dangerous generalization and not very relevant if you want to have two state solution with them.

The Wall Street JOurnal editorial pages are rabid, the news reporting even handed.

I am only opposed to Israeli policies that are unjust or unfair, especially building settlements as a political posturing, subsidies and exemptions to the Haredim ande their subjugation of woman.

I applaud their Supreme Court and high tech industries, the tolerance of their society except in the undue permission for bigotry they give the Ultra-Orthodox.

Why are you so unable to hold two competing ideas in your head at the same time?

Comment by The Logician on 12/20/11 at 3:59 pm

Ahh The Logician posts again and as usual “opens mouth, inserts foot”.

WSJ most read daily in the United States and not by accident, it’s wonderfully diverse; a far cry from those predicting the daily’s incipient demise when purchased by News Corp (say)  Rupert Murdoch.

Logician obviously not a reader or he’d find op-ed section remarkably balanced if not tilting-left.

Aunty Mame

Comment by Mr. Againster on 12/21/11 at 4:02 am

Both the Nazis and Hamas are the same because they both wish to dystroy the Jewish people,and who says I’am for a wo state solution.  This is an assumption on your part.  And those who assume are usually an ass.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/21/11 at 11:25 am

@Logician, We are tired of your condescending gobbledygook. No one other than you is impressed with your pseudo intellect.  I still remember how you were gushing with euphoria and attacking all of us who were skeptical about Tom Friedman’s account of the “Egyptian Spring” (another attack on Israel). Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but you are wrong all the time.

Comment by Avi on 12/21/11 at 11:30 am

@logican   women in Cairo demonstrate   against sexual abuse by the Egyptian army. In Islamic world women are imprisoned or beaten for being raped. In Israel on one bus line in one Orthodox neighborhood thereis a problem. Then Hillary Clinton and others like you condemn Israel. From today’s Israeli press ( quoting Orthodox women testifying):

    ‘We live like queens and are respected – we aren’t excluded’
Ultra-Orthodox women tell the government that there is no need to worry about the treatment they receive in their community • “Your ‘concern’ about what happens in our lives strengthens extremists and damages us,” they say.

Comment by CHRISTIAN SERVICE WORKER on 12/21/11 at 1:48 pm

Christian Worker, please don’t fall for the propaganda. Haredi women are free to live like “queens.” Not all women are interested in being “queens”. And if Haredi community wants to have segrated busses, let them fund it theselves. Don’t be naive. In any event, Israelis are quite capble of handling it. They don’t neen Clinton.

Comment by Avi on 12/21/11 at 4:55 pm

Israel dismantled all settlements in Gaza and the response by the Muslim Arabs to this gesture was to send terrorists, send mortar fire and launch rockets on Israel to kill Jews.
The philosophy of the “New Left” to pick apart the nation of Israel,I find fundamentally flawed.  If they wish to change Israel’s policies, they should go to Israel and, as citizens, change the policies of the Israeli democratic state.  Their criticism is demeaning of them as is the op-ed writers that dare to attack the only democracy in the Middle East.
Put up (go to Israel and become a citizen) or shut up!

Comment by Dani El on 12/22/11 at 3:01 am

Change in a democratic state comes from within and all the negative criticism is just venting anger and of little or no value to promote change.  And it encourages the enemies of Jews to believe that they are supported in their cause to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.
Can they name any Arab Muslim state that has better treatment of women, allows freedom of religion and would allow Jews to return to live freely in their native lands?  They do not even allow the Palestinian Refugees to live freely in their Arab states.  I find you to be ignoramuses in your ignoring the truth.

Comment by Dani El on 12/22/11 at 3:22 am

The purpose of the NYT and other liberal attacks on Israel and conservative Amer. Jews is to guilt all Amer. Jews into supporting Obama and Clinton’s pro Palistinian policies.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/22/11 at 10:53 am

Honey Bee: You join the ranks of the Ignoramuses by ignoring the Obama Administration suppling Israel with two squadrons of F35 fighters and the recent economic trade agreement support.  This Administration has ceaselessly supported Israel at the UN blocking the recognition of a Palestinian Arab Muslim state without a negotiated settlement with Israel.  Wake up and do not try to distort the facts to further your anti-Obama agenda.

Comment by Dani El on 12/22/11 at 2:17 pm

Dani El: You join the ranks of the Ignoramuses by ignoring Obama undercutting Israel’s bargaining position on borders, condemning the Jewish state for building in its capital, trying to strong-arm Israel both in private and public, insulting its prime minister to Sarkozi and making it a policy objective to show “space” between the US and Israel, Hil Clinton’s admonishment, Ambassador Howard Gutman antisemitic remark, Leon Panetta’s recent exhortation, etc. etc. etc.

Comment by Avi on 12/22/11 at 10:55 pm

And if Obama wins re-election in 2012 [G-D forbid],d you really all those promises will be kept?  Or will it be a forced return to the 1967 borders?

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/23/11 at 9:37 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?