Stop peddling lies and libels, NYT or be remembered as today’s Der Sturmer

There is absolutely no doubt that The New York Times is – and has been for many decades now – pushing a profoundly anti-Israel narrative. Indeed, it is my opinion that if it doesn’t stop peddling these lies and libels against Israel, it will not be  remembered for its “Bestseller Lists” or  its Crossword but as the 21st century “Der Sturmer”.

Because, even before the assiduous whitewashing of jihadist Islamist terrorists that’s been going on since Oct 2023; even before that shameful “pieta” image helped push a  blood-libel, and even before most egregiously, it published that Nick Kristof column with its vile regurgitation of ugly Islamist propaganda that’s allegedly been waiting for a “buyer” for some time, there have been decades of the systematic reinforcement of a Palestinian narrative.

That is, a narrative crafted by Israel’s enemies that asserts that Palestinians are “victims”  of Israel thus helping create a perception of Israel as a “rogue state” and “coloniser”, when in reality it is a tiny – albeit powerful –  nation defending its right to exist in a land where Jews have lived continuously since Bible times. The NYT’s role in the creation of this perception is revealed in empirical research documented in this blog, “Proof that the New York Times’ anti-Israel bias is empirical, not paranoia.”

And obviously there are very many people who are appalled by the direction taken by this once venerable publication, including the Israeli government which is suing. I will assume therefore that there are very many people – including lawyers; and certainly people better qualified than a mere hack – who are looking into every aspect of a publication whose overt, decades-long anti-Israel bias has helped Jew-hate to flourish, alongside, obvs, Israel-hate.

But if you read my blogs, you know that I am determined and dogged (pun intended), so despite lawyers and the better-qualified all over the NYT, I’ve also been looking into it. And my first observation is that the Sulzbergers – the NYT owners/publishers –  are not only not Jewish, they are no longer even Jew-ish. I do not mention this to suggest non-Jews are less capable, but to disabuse those who believe the family is Jewish, and cherish the belief that as Jews they could be “trusted” on Israel, on the principle that Jews would never publish lies and serial libels about Israel as that would fan the flames of Jew-hate which is inimical to their well-being and survival.

The first Sulzberger at the NYT helm, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, (1935 to 1968) was indeed a practicing, if irreligious Jew (well known as it happens, for his “firm opposition” to a Jewish state, and also for downplaying that the majority of victims of the Nazi Holocaust were Jews). Next up is Arthur Ochs “Punch” Sulzberger Sr (1963 to 1992) who identified as “nominally Jewish”. Following him is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr (1992 to 2017) who was “raised in his mother’s Episcopal faith” but “does not observe any religion.” That brings us to the current incumbent, Arthur G Ochs-Sulzberger who, we learn, has “a Christian background on his mother’s side”.

According to the NYT’s website, Arthur G Ochs-Sulzberger  – who styles himself with the less patrician, “Gregg Sulzberger” –  “oversees” the NYT  “newsroom”. According to the website he is also “the principal steward” of the, ahem, “excellence” of NYT journalism which implies that he had a role in the decision to place that skilfully lit image of the “starving” Gaza child clutched Madonna-like in its mother’s arms on the front page – an image that went viral and gave a huge boost to the “famine” blood-libel. As we all know the child turned out to be suffering from some pre-existing condition which caused his skeletal appearance (which could likely have been established before the image was published and got millions of clicks). As we also all know, the real cause of the child’s tragic appearance was never corrected.

It also indicates that he approved Nick Kristof’s poisonous op-ed containing lurid allegations that rely so heavily on testimony from Palestinians imprisoned for terrorist offences, that were “corroborated” by what the NYT claims are “independent experts” and turn out to be partisan NGOs, openly hostile to Israel. Notably these include Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor which may be registered in shimmeringly neutral Switzerland but was founded by Gaza-born, Palestinian financier Ramy Abdu who allegedly has ties to Hamas leaders and allegedly took to social media to describe the October 7 attackers as “heroic knights”.

And then we come to the NYT’s Opinion Editor, Kathleen Kingsbury, who determines the opinions that will be expressed in the “most widely read opinion section in American journalism”. Obviously the opinion it has most infamously expressed (at least, recently) was that of Nick Kristof. And despite the “corroboration” coming from a profoundly partisan NGO founded by a man who openly celebrated October 7; despite the fact the tale (oops, sorry) has been looking for a “buyer” for a while; and despite the allegation of “dog-rape” being dismissed by veterinary and canine experts as “implausible” or “impossible”, the Opinion Section produced a video for the NYT homepage.

And when the protests and refutations flooded in – from journalism watchdogs and from Palestinians as well as from Jewish and Israeli voices –  the NYT pushed back. Hard, insisting that readers must “trust” the accounts and “trust” the “corroboration” – from hostile NGOs including one founded by a Gaza-born Palestinian who cheered for the rape, kidnapping and slaughter on Oct 7.

What may be interesting about Ms Kingsbury is that while her glossy, official biography mentions prestigious colleges, posts at prestigious publications and Pulitzers, it fails to mention that before joining the NYT, she worked at the Open Society Foundations. That is George Soros’s “progressive global philanthropy” organisation that has come under fire within the Jewish community for activities and funding initiatives seen as hostile to Israel, including grants for Jewish Voice for Peace, which has spearheaded anti-Israel campus demonstrations.

As well as learning that Kingsbury worked for Mr Soros, we learn that three prominent pro-Israel voices on the NYT staff had departed within a short time of her taking up her Opinion Editor post in 2020. They included Bari Weiss who famously stated in her resignation letter that NYT colleagues had called her” a Nazi” and “a racist,” and predicted that the publisher would  “cave to the mob.” The journalist who replaced Ms Weiss, Max Strasser, had written that the idea of “a state officially defined as Jewish” was “in conflict with the worldviews of many in my generation”. He allegedly tweeted enthusiastic support for a public renunciation of Zionism by a prominent journalist and allegedly praised a piece supporting the BDS movement as “smart”.

So the NYT had two sets of allegations about sexual violence. They passed on one and produced a multi-media package for the other

But in case anyone remains in doubt about where the NYT’s sympathies lie, there is most shamefully, the timing of that Kristof column, which was published the evening before Israel released “Silenced No More”, the 300-page report compiled over two years, drawing on hundreds of testimonies, films, photographs, forensic evidence, and legal analysis documenting Hamas’s sexual violence on October 7, and against hostages in captivity.

The report had been sent to the NYT several weeks in advance. In line with normal journalistic practice, there was probably some kind of embargo but certainly nothing that would impede extensive coverage of this landmark report by this iconic publication. So in the NYT’s Manhattan offices there were two sets of allegations about sexual violence. One was backed by hundreds of interviews from named victims and thousands of photographs –  and, let’s not forget, the videos taken by Hamas terrorist attackers themselves. The other was built on anonymous, often discredited sources backed by organizations with known ties to Hamas.

The NYT passed on the Israeli report, and produced a multi-media package for the second.

As  the musician, song-writer and blogger Peter Himmelman says, “There comes a moment when institutions must stop doubling down, admit error, and reconsider the narratives they have helped construct.”

I think we can safely say that that time has certainly arrived for the NYT.