Unfortunately the NY Times has in the past two decades published many anti-Semitic articles, OpEds, and editorials.
This is a systemic problem and needs a major overhaul to the editorial staff and its writers.
They have been on the slippery slope of anti-Semitism that should be changed immediately.
1
For three years the NYT have been tearing down, lying about and denigrating the President and many more years before that doing the same to Israel with an endless stream of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian writers working to make Israel appear to be the victimizer for defending its people from the inevitable destruction which would be the final outcome of what NYT's Middle East commentators want - a terror state in place of Israel.
The US now has a President who is actually pro-Israel, helps to stop Iran from seeking nukes, recognizes the Jewish capital and cares about the defensive positions in the Golan which once gave Syrians the tactical advantage to invade Israel, and so now the NYT has perpetrated two recent cartoons conflating their hate for the President with their demonizing anti-Israel positions that have crossed over into antisemitism.
If the NYT were really looking for reasons why there is increasing antisemitism and now shootings in Synagogues (and instead of automatically and politically always blaming Trump) they should look no further than their own editorial board, writers and cartoonists who feed the hate and attempt to Make America Hate Again.
1
Curious if those accusing the Times of antisemitism have ever heard of it referred to as the "Jew-York Times" or any number of hateful racist epithats? Do those vile words get a pass because they're criticizing the Times so it's okay? Curious if they make such protest's when other offensive charactures are published?
Selective outrage is a "thing" now more than ever. ALL "anti" or racist slurs should be condemned not just when it is ideologically convenient.
For the twelfth time—- it was a very spot-on cartoon accurately depicting Trump allowing himself to be manipulated by and cow towing to Netanyahu solely for political and/or financial rewards. Nothing more.
3
@Alan
Replying twelve times doesn't somehow make the cartoon less anti-Semitic.
the nyt sends journalists to witness human rights abuse.this is what the international editor has posted. how often do we see human rights abuse committed by hamas and the palestinian authority written about in the nyt?we don't. we only see what israel does in protecting its citizens from attacks.then israel is criticized for protecting its citizens. so, maybe nyt reporters should spend more time in Gaza and the west bank documenting human rights abuse.but,maybe that won't sell papers as readily as anti semitic cartoons.
3
I appreciate that by casting Netanyahu (though it reminded me more of Golda Meir) as a dog was especially offensive to many, I’m disappointed that it became a reason to bash the New York Times and silenced any discussion of the commentary the artist was making. Had it been buried in an essay in words I suspect it would have passed largely unnoticed. I generally moderate my consumption of opinions in the paper, and I’ve never found European editorial cartoons all that accessible, but it’s a shame that the Times has silenced a valid form of commentary. Late night mistakes have happened for decades. And perhaps the cartoon could have been cast in a more modern way but no idea how to portray a GPS system with an Israeli/Russian/North Korean/white nationalist bias could have been drawn. Trump has been steered by lots of unexpected figures to the detriment of the US standing in the world. Please find a way to expand the forms of commentary to your readership again.
2
I didn't find that cartoon offensive, but then, I'm not a Zionist. And it really did paint an accurate picture of the president.
6
@mary
This is how it starts.
Brushing aside anti-Semitic "tropes" by congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and these type of editorial cartoons.
We have taken our finger out of the anti-Semitic dike and has started to inundate our country.
Heaven help us.
I tend to focus on the senior management decision regarding staffing costs in this instance. A conscious decision was made to control costs by reducing staff oversight. That short sighted decision allowing for slightly reduced personnel costs resulted in dramatically higher cost in credibility and image perception.
9
@aebone2
THIS. I was just glancing through to see if any of the reader responses here would mention this. It was easy to see what happened: at every level, staff costs have been slashed. I have no doubt the lowly production editor whom the Times has pointed the finger at was some poorly trained, inexperienced, probably young person who couldn't recognize the historical implications in the cartoon, also flying solo and probably required to work very fast, with no one seemingly noticing that this was guaranteed to result in an embarrassing mistake sooner or later.
It certainly does not excuse the Times for allowing an offensive cartoon to go through, but I do believe them when they say the problem came down to lack of oversight. This is what you get when you ditch the senior people under the theory that the 20-something can do it just as well, even if you don't bother training them or paying much attention to what they're up to.
Well that cartoon certainly provoked some debate.
1
It was an anti Israeli political cartoon. The figure leading Trump could just as easily have been Putin or Mohammad bin Salman. But OMG it was Netanyahu.
Mr. Sulzberger, where is the Gray Lady's backbone? Now it seems whenever anyone criticize Israeli government policy they are immediately branded anti Semitic. Israel can do no wrong. Really?
I am fully aware that anti-Semitism is increasing around the world. But that does not give Israel the right to do whatever it wants free of criticism.
16
@TC
honest criticism is fair. biased reporting is not. the NYT does more of the latter rather than the former.
8
@TC The NYT's sees the thousands of people in Gaza trying to break through to Israel against the soldiers protecting Israel. It does not talk about that, but about the children (who are hostages to Hamas) in front being hurt. It does not talk about the people rushing the fence who want to "kill Jews" or capture territory "from the river to the sea", meaning rid the area of Jews. The fact that the Palestinians have leaders who reward terrorism and will not negotiate peace is left out.
6
As a nation, Israel can be criticized as any other nation. Unfortunately, countries with horrid human rights records seem to get a pass while the UN has a dog pile on Israel. And as Israel is the only Jewish nation, there seems to be a short walk from criticizing Israel to outright antisemitism.
2
Brutally offensive, yes. But is opposing Israeli policy relating to US influence thereof anti Semitic?
6
@northlander Oh please. Haven't you read ANY of the replies to this very question in the comment sections of the several articles covering this story over the past several days? This question is asked multiple times in each set of comments as time and flurries of comments push the earlier repetitions out of sight.
Opposing Israeli policy can be expressed with or without the use of anti-Jewish phrases, images, or dog-whistles. All too often, it's done "with". Leaving aside those who do so intentionally, too often the speakers don't even realize that they're using offensive, dangerous, or defamatory elements because they don't fully understand the full meaning and/or the historical uses or contexts of those words, phrases, images or dog-whistles.
What's even more frightening, the readers who comment and think themselves reasonable people suffer from the same blind-spots, and repeatedly submit comments insisting that the quotes or imsges or cartoons are not anti-Jewish because they don't see them as such.
But they are! In the cartoon in question, the kippah on Trump and the long nose on the Netanyahu dog were repeatedly deconstructed by readers responding to your question. And careless generalizations were repeatedly held to scrutiny and easily shown to be false by myself and others; and the anti-Jewish conclusions based on those false premises fell in a puff of wind.
Please go back and read those articles and their comment sections, particularly the replies to NYT Picks.
3
The cartoon played off old stereotypes of Jews surreptitiously controlling the levers of power and it was similar to cartoons used by Nazis to whip up anti-Jewish sentiment.
So it’s possible the cartoonist was making a fair comment that Netanyahu was leading a blind Trump but to believe that ignores recent history.
1