The New York Times has over the years come in for much criticism of the anti-Israel bent of its reporting and editorializing. Last week, though, The Times outdid even itself.
Jewish support for Israel has always fostered accusations of dual loyalty. And indeed there is no other American subgroup – not African Americans, not Italian Americans, not Hispanic Americans, not Greek Americans, not Japanese Americans – that has displayed the same level of passion in furthering the interests of an ancestral homeland that Jewish Americans have on behalf of Israel. Of course, none of those other countries has lived since birth with the constant threat of war, terrorism, and annihilation.
At the same time, American Jews are and always have been deeply patriotic to this country, with its unparalleled liberties and unmatched record of benevolence toward its Jewish citizens. Yet the canard of Jewish dual loyalty persists, and one would think that an institution like The New York Times, given its liberal politics and cosmopolitan sensibility, would take pains to avoid any poisoning of the political discourse in that regard. Sadly, that has not always been the case, especially not last week.
On Friday, September 11, the Times featured two front-page stories that conflated opposition to the administration’s Iran nuclear agreement with pro-Israel activism. In the third paragraph of the page’s main story, headlined (all caps) “Democrats Hand Victory to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal,” reporter Jennifer Steinhauer claimed the president’s apparent victory in Congress “exposed the diminishing power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the accord.”
In case anyone didn’t get the point, right underneath that story was one exultantly titled “Pro-Israel Group Went ‘All In,’ But Suffered a Stinging Defeat.” Thus, to the Times, the story was not that most members of Congress, in both the Senate and the House, opposed the deal. Nor was the story the fact that better than 7 of 10 Americans opposed the deal. Nor was it that Congress, by virtue of procedural legerdemain, was denied the opportunity to vote on the deal despite the “Corker” legislation granting them that right.
No, the story for the Times was that AIPAC, “the influential pro-Israel group,” tried to defeat the bill and failed. Was AIPAC outside of the American mainstream on the issue? Hardly. But reading the Times would lead one to believe that President Obama succeeded in saving the country from the Israeli lobbying colossus.
In that same issue, the Times featured a chart, “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” listing members of Congress opposed to the administration’s agreement – and actually including information on whether or not said solons were Jewish. The Times also helpfully provided the “estimated Jewish population” of each of the legislators’ home states.
Although the ensuing hue and cry forced the Times to remove the Jewish references from the web version of the chart, the sickening fact of the matter is that from the start of its coverage, the Times has sought to portray opposition to the Iran agreement as primarily arising from local Jewish and Israeli political pressure – rather than from the strong disapproval of most Americans and their elected representatives.