web analytics
September 22, 2014 / 27 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » InDepth » Monitor »

Golden Oldie


Media-Monitor-logo

Next week the Monitor will examine aspects of the media coverage of Israel’s war on Hizbullah. This week, we take a stroll down memory lane, revisiting an early Monitor column from October 1998 (yes, the Monitor’s been around for nearly eight years now). The piece was titled “The Times Reverts To Old Hab-its,” and its conclusions should be kept in mind as one reads the paper’s editorials on the current fighting:

Up until a few years ago it was a truism that the only thing more rare than a nice word about Israel in a New York Times editorial was a Times endorsement of a Republican presidential candidate. (The latter hasn’t happened since Eisenhower in ‘56, trivia buffs.)

And then in 1992 the newspaper’s attitude brightened considerably with the ascension of an Israeli government whose diplomatic initiatives were more in tune with the policy preferences of the Times’s editorial board.

The kinder, gentler treatment of Israel even survived the defeat of Shimon Peres in 1996 and car-ried over into the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom the paper’s editorial writers clearly disdained.

Disagree with Netanyahu as the Times most emphatically did, there was no return, during Netanyahu’s first two years in office, to the blatantly antagonistic rhetoric that characterized the paper’s editorial commentary during the Begin-Shamir years.

All that changed last week, however, with the news that Ariel Sharon had been appointed Israel’s foreign minister. In one fell swoop the Times reverted to the full-blown hysterics that in years past had been its trademark when Israel was the subject of discussion.

In an editorial remarkable for its name-calling and general nastiness, the Times on Oct. 10 described Sharon as “an implacable foe of the Palestinians”; “reckless”; “leaving destruction in his wake”; and “capable of wrecking the entire peace effort.”

It was as if the Times editorial board had been visited by an apparition of Menachem Begin and spooked into recycling its favored stock phrases about Israel circa 1982.

Responding to the knee-jerk vituperation, reader Stanley Adelsberg of the Bronx, in a letter published in the paper’s Oct. 13 edition, asked the Times, simply but eloquently, “How one-sided can you be?”

Adelsberg also charged that PLO chairman Yasir Arafat “is the reckless one who is capable not only of wrecking the peace process but also of continuing terrorist activity,” and that it is Arafat, not Sharon, “who has to change his ways for the peace process to move forward.”

But it was another letter to the Times that, given the political perspective of its author, really underscored just how far out on an ideological limb the paper had gone.

“I have known Ariel Sharon…for 30 years,” the letter began, “and despite our political differences, I know that he has never been ‘an implacable foe of the Palestinians.’ True, he considers the Palestine Liberation Organization an enemy of Israel, but he harbors no ill feelings toward the Palestinian people, save those who engage in terror.”

Insisting on the necessity of understanding that distinction, the letter-writer went on to describe Sharon as someone “deeply concerned about Israel’s security, and he will oppose anybody, if often mistakenly, who he perceives as inimical to the state.”

And that, concluded the offended Times reader, “is a far cry from seeing the Palestinians as an enemy.”

The letter was signed by Moshe Kagan, vice president of Meretz U.S.A., an organization nobody has ever accused of being part of some vast Likud conspiracy – at least not the last time the Monitor checked.

If the Sharon editorial signals a reversion to old habits at the Times, readers can expect once again to be subjected to constant jeremiads on the shortsightedness of Israeli policy; on why enlightened progressives (presumably like those who write Times editorials) need to save Israel from its own government; and on why any Israeli insistence on Palestinian accountability constitutes needless provocation.

And should the need arise, just about any military action taken by Israel in just about any context will be treated with skepticism at best, outright condemnation at worst – no matter who or what the target.

After all, it was The New York Times that in June 1981 led the chorus of media vilification when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor – a “sneak attack,” screeched the Times, one that constituted “an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression.”

About the Author: Jason Maoz is the Senior Editor of The Jewish Press.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Golden Oldie”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Hezbollah  terror group shows off its arsenal.
Report: US Sending Indirect Military Aid to Hezbollah
Latest Indepth Stories
donny pic

The current missionary problem in Samaria is still relatively unknown throughout Israel&to most Jews

Jewish Holidays' Guide for the Perplexed

Rosh Hashanah is a universal, stock-taking, renewal and hopeful holiday,

The New York Times building is only the cover page for what goes

No mutual clash between parties, it was Jews repeatedly attacked by Arabs, not the other way around.

ISIS Released Map

Israel would love to be in the coalition,but it’s never going to happen, because, in the end, most of America’s allies would walk away if Israel were on board officially.

Why has his death been treated by some as an invitation for an emotional “autopsy”?

SWOT analysis: Assessing resources, internal Strengths&Weaknesses; external Opportunities&Threats.

Strategy? For the longest time Obama couldn’t be bothered to have one against a sworn enemy.

Seventeen visual skills are needed for success in school, sports, and everyday life.

We started The Jewish Press. Arnie was an integral part of the paper.

Fear alone is substantial; without fusing it to beauty, fear doesn’t reach its highest potential.

Fortunate are we to have Rosh Hashanah for repentance, a shofar to awaken heavenly mercy.

Arab leaders who want the US to stop Islamic State are afraid of being dubbed traitors and US agents

National Lawyers Guild:Sworn enemy of Israel & the legal arm of Palestinian terrorism since the ’70s

A little less than 10 percent of eligible Democratic voters came out on primary day, which translates into Mr. Cuomo having received the support of 6.2 percent of registered Democrats.

More Articles from Jason Maoz
Charles Krauthammer

Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state

Presidential-Seal-062014

These are not necessarily the best all-around biographies or studies of the individual presidents listed (though some rank right up there), but the strongest in terms of exploring presidential attitudes and policies toward Israel.

The Clintonan “engagement” liberals remember with such fondness did nothing but embolden Arafat and Hamas and Hizbullah as they witnessed Israel’s only real ally elevate process ahead of policy.

What really makes one wonder about the affinity felt by certain Jews for Grant was the welcome mat he put out for some of the country’s most pernicious anti-Semites.

With 2013 marking half a century since Kennedy’s fateful limousine ride in Dallas, the current revels are exceeding the revisionist frenzies of years past, with a seemingly endless parade of books, articles and television specials designed to assure us that, despite everything that has come to light about him since his death, JFK was a great president, or at least a very good president who would have been great had his life not been so cruelly cut short.

As someone who for the past fifteen years has been writing a column that largely focuses on the news media, I’ve read what is no doubt an altogether unhealthy number of books on the subject. Most of them were instantly forgettable while some created a brief buzz but failed to pass the test of time. And then there were those select few that merited a permanent spot on the bookshelf.

George W. Bush has been getting some positive media coverage lately, with recent polls showing him at least as popular as his successor, Barack Obama, and a big new book about the Bush presidency by New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker (Days of Fire, Doubleday) portraying Bush as a much more hands-on chief executive than his detractors ever imagined.

Readers who’ve stuck with the Monitor over the years will forgive this rerun of sorts, but as we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War – and with the stench of presidential indecisiveness hanging so heavily over Washington these days – it seemed only appropriate to revisit Richard Nixon’s role in enabling Israel to recover from the staggering setbacks it suffered in the first week of fighting.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/golden-oldie/2006/07/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: