I believe this might be the second time I have reached out to this paper. Actually, a paper to which I have subscribed for many decades. I found it to be a paper which matched most closely my opinions and thoughts re domestic policies and even some foreign. For sure I agreed with the latest viewpoints of the disaster our political system has become and the dangerous actions of leading Presidential candidates. However, always there was that constant irritation, along with a resigned sigh, when it came to NYT position and attitude re Israel.
With great consistency, coverage and attitude were negative, with barely a mention or indication of even a modicum of support, even a basic understanding or presentation of the motivations and causes behind, driving the State of Israel. This embattled country, surrounded by enemies denying it the right to exist, calling for its Jewish population to be exiles, once again and for always. Its establishment and continued existence in the face and reality of threats, wars, terrorism, and denial of historical imperatives has provoked the world.
Enabled by much of NYT, riding and driving the bandwagon, its coverage, Israel became a pariah among the nations of the world. A state where Jews were welcomed, invited, accepted, allowed free economic development, along with the many Arab citizens who are a major sector of a blossoming economy and the world of invention and creativity - NEVER! Anathema! Evidently, our success was a point of contention for so many, antisemites of vicious degree, intent, and actions, who jumped on the bandwagon of demonization and denial of Israel and any who supported her.
Evidently, the last time Israel was looked upon with any kind of sympathy, empty though it was, was when the world walked, or sailed away, in 1967, allowing the blockade of The Straits of Tiran and the port of Eilat to continue. Despite all previous promises. Again. As always. Left alone, Israel did what she must. Barely two decades after WWII and attempted extermination of Jewry, the world stood silent again, ever ready to present false, worthless empty words of sympathy but no action, other than desertion. When Israel was successful, at great cost of lives, that was the last time there was any sympathy for Israel.
She was renamed and categorized as an oppressor state, and why? Because she refused to lay back and die. Even an offer to return lands from which attacks were launched, in return for a promise to recognize Israel, its right to exist, to cease hostilities was refused. With greatly empowered networks of terrorists, murderers, who continue to pursue their policy of judenrein from the river to the sea, how are things different? They are not. Period.
Now enter the NYT adding fuel to the fire. Ever since 1967 Israel has forfeited its right to exist within the pens, editorials, and op-ed pieces of the NYT. A rare contribution pro-Israel was countered by an opposing vitriolic one. The mantra of 'poor Palestinians' was embraced by the Times. Worst of all were the reporters, with some Jewish ones in the beginning bending backwards to be neutral, now replaced by non Jews, oh so not neutral, along with the two Arabs or Palestinians who aways and forever have articles justifying and 'understanding' the motivations of the terrorists - oops - Militants - (obviously because of those evil Israeli Jews).
I think what eats away at me the most is the dehumanization of Israel and its population, unless one agrees with the Palestinian viewpoint and justifies all behavior of theirs. Israeli losses, even civilians, is downplayed, with nary a name or age given, merely an amorphous presentation of x number killed or wounded, and always and forever juxtaposed vis a vis the number of Palestinian terrorists lost or collateral civilians because their homegrown terrorists roost among them, using them as shields, shoot rockets from their backyards. Nor do they heed the warnings, the phone calls, to leave, avoiding death, before the building is a target. Self - defense, proactive defense when necessary and an unbelievable attempt to limit deaths of civilians, far beyond the efforts of any other nation. Ever.
No, the deaths of Jews are always negligible in the eyes of the world. Please note, there are Israeli Arabs serving in the army also killed, wounded or caught in a terrorist attack. NYT, we have our young slaughtered. Our innocent children, not out slingshooting huge rocks. We have mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, grandparents, teachers, and yes, our baby soldiers, just turning18, not hardened monsters. We mourn our dead rather than celebrate their death. We cry over them, not shoot rifles. And if some do rampage, in grief and rage, yes, we wish they would not, but perhaps there is some inkling of an understanding why the anger, why the rioting, for every day they bury yet another innocent.
So, NYT, please understand my anger, sadness and grief. I mourn the losses on both sides. I feel for families dealing with the losses. But I understand, along with the rest of Jewry, that we refuse this time around to accept our fate, to accept minimalization and dehumanization. Not again, never again. Not in Israel, not in America, not in France, not anywhere. Not in silent courage and belief.
I ask you, the editors of the NYT. to rethink your policy. At least give some honor to the precept of neutral reporting, of presenting both sides, of verification of facts and the presenting of them.
Review your coverage and reporting, the supposed analysis pieces. Begin with yesterday's stories re Jenin, three of them, including an entire page presenting the Arab viewpoint with a sop thrown in that oh, yeah, some Israelis were killed, with the constant insinuation and undertone of not enough as there were fewer than the other side. And time to replace tired Isabel, for she is indeed stale.
Shylock and Shakespeare said it first with the speech basically questioning, presenting truths, that we bleed the same, feel the same pain, are entitled to the same rights and feelings as any human being. Why are we still asking those questions, pleading for proper answers and rethinking?
And why, NYT, are you colluding in this manifestly wrong, even evil, policy?
Signed,
A worried reader
No comments:
Post a Comment