top
Palestine
Palestine
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Why Sulzberger is Bad News for the Palestinians?

by Ahmed Amr
On the subject of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Sulzberger’s crew is a de facto party to the conflict. A little bit
of New York Times history will serve to remind us all of why their journalists take such a
belligerent view of the Palestinian struggle for liberty. The more you know about the
Sulzberger clan, the more you will understand why they are apologists for even the most
vicious acts of Israeli repression.
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020602025147306

In his classic account of the last Presidential election, ‘Crashing the Party’, Ralph Nader
devoted a whole chapter to exposing the role of the mass media titans in determining the
political destiny of the nation and the world.

As these media giants become ever more global, along with global advertisers, their
self-importance and impact become almost unreal. On the occasion of announcing Time
Warner’s merger with AOL, Time Warner CEO, Gerald Levine declared exuberantly that the
global media is fast becoming the predominant business of the 21st century and "is more
important than government, its more important then educational institutions and
non-profits".
(Ralph Nader, Crashing the Party)

During the campaign, George Bush walked over to one arrogant New York Times reporter
and inquired if ‘Sulzberger (the publisher) had worked his way to the top’. Four decades
earlier, Bob Kennedy had raised the same question about the family that has a Stalinist iron
grip on the Gray Lady.

A little over a month ago, I gave a lecture in Portland and passed around a picture of
Sulzberger and not a soul in the crowd recognized him. I went on to ask how many folks
knew the name of the publisher of the New York Times. And I got the same blank stare.

Earlier that week, I had walked around New York and asked a number of ‘professional’
looking individuals if they could name the publisher of the city’s largest paper. No one knew.
I then asked what they thought Sulzberger looked like. The majority imagined him to be an
old man. He is actually a rather short pudgy man in his early fifties.

More recently, I sent an article to a publisher and he sent it back asking me to add a few
words to identify Sulzberger to his readers. He had a valid point. You have to explain to
Americans that a mere mortal publishes the New York Times.

To digress for a moment, when was the last time the Supreme Court made a decision that
effected your life as a citizen? Some will respond that it was the last election, but others
will correctly point to Wade versus Roe and the school desegregation ruling. That was a
mere thirty years ago. For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court is now just a court of
last appeal for those facing capital punishment.

Sulzberger, with a bully pulpit like the New York Times, does more to ‘fix’ the public agenda
than the Supreme Court and any random group of thirty senators. Note that the Sulzberger
clan also owns the Boston Globe and thirty other newspapers. If journalism is the first draft
of history, Sulzberger’s first draft usually ends up being the last say in the history books. If
his journalists misinform the public on a certain subject, they do so with the deliberate
intent of distorting the political agenda and the historical record.

The point is that Americans ought to know a little bit about a publisher with so much
political muscle. Knowing the Sulzberger clan goes a long way in explaining the media bias
on important issues of public policy, including foreign policy. On the subject of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Sulzberger’s crew is a de facto party to the conflict. A little bit
of New York Times history will serve to remind us all of why their journalists take such a
belligerent view of the Palestinian struggle for liberty. The more you know about the
Sulzberger clan, the more you will understand why they are apologists for even the most
vicious acts of Israeli repression.

One of Sulzberger’s great grandfathers, Adolph S Ochs, purchased the New York Times in
1896 on the strength of a fake bank balance arranged by the Citizens Savings Bank of
Chattanooga. Having acquired the paper in a scam, he was later accused by one of his
employees of faking circulation figures to enhance advertising revenues. The full sordid
story can be found in ‘The Trust’, a book by Susan E Tifft. Today, there is a slice of 47th
street in Manhattan named after Adolph Ochs. A few blocks over, towards Grand Central
Station, another section of 47th street is named for David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime
Minister.

On his paternal side, Sulzberger’s great grandfather was the vice president of the American
Zionist Federation. His grandfather, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, attended Zionist Congresses as
a boy. He published the New York Times through World War II and up to the fifties and
made the paper the potent power player that it remains today. In 1937, his grandfather
visited Palestine and returned advocating partition. At the time, the Jewish population,
mostly first generation immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe, barely made up twenty
per cent of the population. Yet, he continued denying being a Zionist and made a public
show of confronting their political program.

Over the years, the New York Times has been very careful to avoid being labeled a ‘Jewish
paper’. The stated mission was "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor,
regardless of party, sect or interests involved." Nice slogan, but the evidence suggests
that they have strayed far from these professed lofty aims.

For one thing, in a very diverse city, they have always had a staff and a leadership that is
very Jewish. Joe Levlyveld, one of the executive editors, was the son of Rabbi Arthur
Lelyveld. He headed the Zionist Committee on Unity for Palestine and boasted of influencing
President Truman’s recognition of the state of Israel. Abe Rosenthal, an Arab-hating bigot,
is now writing for the Jerusalem Post. Thomas Friedman is the guy who helped sanitize Ariel
Sharon’s war crimes by creating plausible deniability after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in
1982. William Safire openly admits to doing public relations work for Ariel Sharon. If Safire
had admitted that he was a ghostwriter for Bush, it would have caused a scandal at the
‘paper of record’.

The New York Times has consistently promoted Nakba (Palestinian catastrophe) denial.
They continue to leave their readers with the impression that Israel did no wrong in
expelling the native Palestinians in 1948. By their account, the 1956 Suez war was
launched by Egypt, not by Israel, Britain and France. They pretend they have never heard
of the Protocol of Sevres.

Israel’s 1967 invasion of three neighboring countries was an outrageous land grab, as
evidenced by the annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and the settlement
project. But according to the newspaper, the six-day war is portrayed as a war of
aggression against Israel. The October 1973 war is also labeled as an attack on Israel. In
fact, every battle of the war was fought on occupied Arab land by Egyptian and Syrian
troops liberating their native soil. Even the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which many Israelis
regret as an unnecessary ‘war of choice’, is now blamed on the Palestinians. The Sulzberger
crew has spent decades marketing the belligerent Israeli colonial policies of uprooting the
native population of the Holy Land for exclusive Jewish settlement.

As a publisher, Sulzberger must be held personally responsible for loaning out William Safire
as a public relations agent for Sharon. Every one of his journalists must be held responsible
for covering up the details of the recent Israeli war crimes in Jenin, Nablus and Bethlehem.
Try to find any reference to Sharon’s war crime record stretching back to Qibya. They don’t
do Qibya at the New York Times. If you ever want to pin the New York Times to the wall,
find out the details of Qibya and why its ‘not fit to print’.

The whole fiction about the ‘generous deal’ rejected by the Palestinians at Taba was
cooked up by the public relations wizards at the New York Times. When challenged on this
subject matter, Sulzberger quashes debate. A ‘good’ Sulzberger reporter is trained to
conveniently forget that Ariel Sharon was elected precisely to turn down Taba and destroy
the Oslo peace process. Israelis, when confronted with the prospect of ending the
occupation and dismantling the settlements, chose to turn up the violence against the
Palestinians. The Israeli public believed that Sharon could deliver on a ‘military solution’ in
100 days and took the bait. So did the Israel Firsters on this side of the pond, led by
barkers like Safire and Krauthammer.

Thomas Friedman continues to serve a full dose of canards to his readers. In a recent
article he even blamed Arafat for the siege of Beirut in 1982. Apparently Sharon’s killing
spree in the summer of 1982 is long forgotten by Thomas Fraudulent. The Israeli planes and
tanks that murdered an estimated 17,000 Palestinian and Lebanese citizens is a detail
Thomas would rather not concern his readers with.

Four generations of the newspaper has actively participated in promoting the repression of
the Palestinian people. Journalists at the New York Times are carefully chosen from the
ranks of confirmed Israel Firsters. The ‘liberal’ façade is just a very slick cover for a very
right wing ethnic enterprise that champions any Israeli government regardless of which
particular war criminal is running the show in Tel Aviv. The Sulzberger clan has always been
bad news for the Palestinians.
by gehrig
"The New York Times has consistently promoted Nakba (Palestinian catastrophe) denial."

(* rolling eyes *)

Another potentially useful and informative piece turns its rhetorical rheostat to "11" and then melts down.

@%<
As a loyal and daily NY Times reader I can say with 100% sincerity that the NY Times is not Pro-Israel and certainly not anti-Palestinian.

Just because a newspaper won't print the Palestinian Authority's propoganda word for word does not make it a lackey of some Jew controlled media.

Please. Save it for the 19 year olds that you enjoy brain washing.
by Gay Talise
Just asking...you have to be brain dead, or just another Jew liar to deny the Sulzberger’s crew took over an honest NYT and turned it into a propaganda instrument to benefit Jews.

Sultzberger's most senior executive editor bragged in his memoirs how he turned the NYT into a mouthpeace for Israel and the Jews in general. For decades only Jews got hired in most all top positions, and now they also take most of the entry level writing positions. Any writer who did not toe the pro Israel line was fired. Jews comprise a hefty 75% of the editorial staff.

Max Frankel was with the New York Times from the early 1950s to 1994, eventually becoming its Executive Editor. The following quotations are from his memoirs, The Times of My Life. And my Life with The Times (Random House, New York, 1999).

Here is Zionist Frankel bragging in his memoirs on how he pushed the Jew party line and Jew culture in the NYT. And things are even worse now:

"Except for my place of birth, I was a Galicianer, dammit, an EASTERN Jew just one generation out of the shtetl. The Nazis obliterated that Yiddish world, a constellation of townlets that stretched from Lithuania to Romania, but the shtetl culture kept on fiddling in the hearts of millions of us, in Israel and America. No matter how aggressive our assimilation to new worlds, we Galicianers always juggled a kind of dual citizenship. Unlike many German Jews, we wanted to retain our Jewishness, our YIDDISHKAYT. And after the Holocaust, not even the starchiest Americans dared any longer to demand that we shed it, as they had demanded of striving Jews in the 1920s and '30s." (page 398)

Although Times bylines gradually came to include names like Weiler, Raskin, and Rosenthal, these writers were somehow all persuaded to render their first names as A. instead of Abraham." (page 399)

By the time Punch Sulzberger [inheritor of the New York Times] occupied his father's chair in 1963, American society had shed many of its anti-Semitic prejudices and permitted the rapid advancement of Jews in professional life and corporate suites. The general revulsion against fascism turned into a revulsion against bigotry itself, as demonstrated by the election of the first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. Exploiting this atmosphere, and Gentile guilt about the Holocaust, American Jews of my generation were emboldened to make them themselves culturally conspicuous, to flaunt their ethnicity, to find literary inspiration in their roots, and to bask in the resurrection of Israel." (page 400)

Instead of idols and passions, I worshiped words and argument, becoming part of an unashamedly Jewish verbal invasion of American culture. It was especially satisfying to realize the wildest fantasy of the world's anti-Semites: Inspired by our heritage as keepers of the book, creators of law, and storytellers supreme, Jews in America did finally achieve a disproportionate influence in universities and in all media of communication.

Punch Sulzberger unconsciously abetted this movement. He felt born to the publisher's chair and had none of his father's hang-ups about being Jewish. Israel's ambassadors to the United Nations lived just a few floors below his Fifth Avenue apartment and always enjoyed easy access to him and to his table at The Times. Within a few years of Punch's ascendancy, there came a time when not only the executive editor -- A. M. Rosenthal -- and I but ALL the top editors listed on the paper's masthead were Jews. Over vodka in the publisher's back room, this was occasionally mentioned an any impolitic condition, but it was altered only gradually, without any affirmative action on behalf of Christians." (pages 400-401)

Because my name was Max and because I produced editorials that disapproved of some of the hawkish policies of Israel's prime minister, Menachem Begin, ... even modest criticism of Israeli actions inevitably provoked angry articles in Jewish weeklies, demands that I meet for remedial instruction with the heads of Jewish organizations, and a flood of angry letters, many condemning me as a 'self-hating Jew' who had abandoned his people to curry favor with the goyim. I was denounced as being ignorant of the Holocaust and indifferent to the damage done by disharmony among Jews. To the most sober of these assaults, I sometimes responded with a hurt biographical note, stressing my roots in the shtetl, our family's taste of both Nazi and Soviet anti-Semitism, the disappearance of my grandparents, my sojourn among relatives who had survived the death camps to settle gratefully in Israel, and my intimate familiarity with every liturgical variant of Jewish ritual. Mostly, however, I would simply retort that my only remaining Jewish friends were Israelis, to make the point that many Israelis also found fault with their government and also favored accommodation with the Palestinians, as they eventually proved in the Peace Now movement.

I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert. I had yearned for a Jewish homeland ever since learning as child in Germany that in Palestine even the policemen were Jews! Like most American Jews, however, I settled on a remote brand of Zionism, which rejected all importuning to move to Israel to share its hardships and dangers." (page 401)

I did indeed have many close Israeli friends, not only relatives and journalists but high officials, ranging from Yitzhak Rabin to Lova Eliav. That is why I well understood the full range of Israeli opinion on all of the country's vital security concerns." (page 402)

Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective. And I wrote in confidence that The Times no longer suffered from any secret desire to deny or overcome its ethnic roots. (page 403)

End of Max Frankel rant
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network