Weekly Question: Was Binyamin Netanyahu Right to Reject an Offer to Write an Op-Ed for the New York Times?
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think.
December 22, 2011
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think.
If Bashar Assad falls in Syria, will it strengthen or weaken Hezbollah?
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think. ...
Alan Schleider
4:50 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Difficult to give a hard and fast answer as there is justification to either snub or submit.
(1) Snub: The Prime Minister’s office explanation said it all.
(2) Submit: You cannot get the word out unless you put it out. However, there is no assurance that the NY Times would have left such a submission unedited.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
23 
3
warren speyers
4:51 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yes! The NYT is everything we despise about the lamebrain media: it is always slanted toward the chaotic and is always regressive. It loves to criticize everything and anything that stands for the good, the noble, the just and the honest while feeding off the very system of free enterprise it so ridicules. “All the news that’s fit to print”? If by “news” you mean that spineless nonsensical mush that makes people like those limousine liberals, those fashionable hypocrites, feel oh-so good about themselves. Thinking of the NYT? Think about the Studebaker.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
32 
1
Dave
4:56 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Absolutely. Why give such a biased newspaper the slight patina of even handedness by responding.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
29 
2
heny tobias
5:11 pm
Dec 22, 2011
It is not easy to write for a media outlet that gives equal time to terrorists from Hamas, but our point of view should be heard. If a guarantee that the article would not be edited had been given then he should have submitted a hard hitting piece in defense of Israel.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
6
angelo
5:18 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yes Mr. Netanyahu was right to reject the offer (in pinciple). It would be of utmost interest, however, to try and understand FOR WHAT REASON Mr. Friedman, the journalist, wrote that kind of an op-ed.
Try to pull him out; try to find out who or what inspired him and why…try to find any motivation behind his “writing”.Try to find out if he was paid or not ….it would be a great journalistic coup to expose WITH FACTS AND ACTS his non-senses….
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
1
Henry Federman
5:28 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yes,Netanyahu was right not to answer,his respond would have been cannibalized by the NYT like they usually do
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
1
phyllis leventhal
5:33 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Those who [still] read the NYT are by now part and parcel of our larger problem. Nothing Bibi could or would say would even resonate, so indoctrinated are they by Kristof, Friedman and gang. And so, calling attention to the Times’ glaring and ongoing sins of omission and commission is the strongest statement possible. Will this be lost on the readership? They wouldn’t have gotten ‘it’ anyway … and look at the press garnered hereby.
Yasher koach, Bibi.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
1
Herbert Pobiner
5:33 pm
Dec 22, 2011
First of all let us get the correct name of the newspaper. It is not the New York Times. The correct name is the NEW YORK SLIME. I very much doubt if the editors would present Bibi’s article without editing it. He was correct in not answering their request.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
1
RElliott
5:38 pm
Dec 22, 2011
If Mr. Netanyahu writes an op-ed piece, he is not guaranteed that his comments won’t be edited. If he does not write one, others will create a message for him over which he will have no control. The only way to control a message entirely is to pay for an ad. Like it or not, that’s the way the publishing business works. One ignores this reality at their peril.
Based on my experience in marketing and communications, he made a poor choice in opinion. Not writing an op-ed delivers with little upside and a worse downside. That’s not a smart choice and the troubling thing is Mr. Netanyahu is a very savvy man. I don’t understand the reasoning.
Agree or Disagree:
2 
4
theo musikanth
6:01 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Bibi did the right thing Why give the New York Times mileage and credibility – and additional readership – for its distorted views This invitation was not made for the object of truth but to serve their own agenda The NYT wants to hold itself out as evenhanded But its designs are patently obvious Regardless of Bibi’s views the NYT will naturally always have the last word in its own paper
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
12 
1
marlis adler
6:05 pm
Dec 22, 2011
he was right, NYT is antisemitic, antiisrael, why give them a gift?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
12 
1
Art Crystal
6:22 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Bibi was correct not to give credance to the NYT. The editioral and oped pages of the paper have always been anti Israel and a response would not change the policy of the paper.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
1
Ronnie
6:29 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yes, Bibi was right not to go w/The New York Times. Just as Giuliani was right to return the $10 million check to the Saudi Prince after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 human beings. Considering that some of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and the fact that Saudi Arabia funded Hamas and donated $25,000 to Hamas-inspired suicide bombers who murdered Israeli citizens and Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahhabi sect and Saudi Arabia is Judenrein, etc., etc.
The New York Times, often pejoratively referred to as The Jew York Times, just doesn’t get it. The pejorative term is in itself a clue: Jew haters believe that The NY Times is a bastion of liberal Jewish propaganda. Yet the Jews who run the Times are bending over backwards to be liked by the non-Jewish world. Bitter irony for these folks when they are always on the wrong side of justice and morality. Nineteen of their articles are anti-Israel; Tom Friedman is their number 1 self-hating Jewish journalist. If they had any backbone, they’d fire him and tell him to go work in Gaza or Syria or Egypt. And Israel should ban him from entering the country.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
10 
2
Paul Leber
7:00 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Bibi got it 100% right! No one can trust the ‘old gray lady.’ The rag’s a never ending font of misinformation, misrepresentations and distortions concerning Israel’s policies and goals. Just look at the writings of those who regularly appear on its editorial pages. Could fair-minded and disinterested editors in good conscience provide space to the likes of Tom Friedman, Roger Cohen and Nik Kristoff? As to the accuracy and fairness of its news reportage, contrary to the assertion proclaimed in its masthead, the Times “prints only the news that fits” the tendentious leftist and anti-israeli views of its publishers and editors.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
1
Underzog
7:51 pm
Dec 22, 2011
I think Bibi did the right thing. The NYT is garbage and there is no point putting anything there.
Agree or Disagree:
4 
1
Mickey Oberman
8:35 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yes. Netanyahu did the correct thing.
Now he should follow up by banning all consistently one sided anti Israel media and media reporters/journalists from Israel.
They have had open season on the Jewish state for far too long.
Let them get off their fat – bar stools and got to the Muslim countries for some first hand coverage of events for their followers.
If they have the courage.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
1
Steven Kalka
9:06 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Maybe Bibi did the right thing. There are other publications that will give him a fair shake and accurately report his views, even if not offered an op-ed. The NYT should be taken to task for its slanted coverage, and made to pay a price.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
Matai
9:14 pm
Dec 22, 2011
I totally agree with Bibi. Why engage with anyone that openly hates you? They would then do with the piece and they always do, and turn his words around by some other writer and make him look bad. Any newspaper associated with the like of Thomas Friedman, Noam Chomsky, and others cut from the same cloth should be totally ignored by Israelis and the entire Jewish community in the US.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Davidka
9:30 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Bibi could have given the Slimes an editorial about the Slimes’ dishonesty, both historically and toward Israel today, with many examples and links to suggested websites. the editorial could have been submitted without permission to change one word. If the Slimes refused to publish the editorial, Israel could have run it as an advert., with a headline like “What the Slimes was afraid to print.”
Seriously, though, I think it was a tough decision for Bibi. On balance, I would have submitted something responding to the loathsome Friedman lies, strongly written, without permission to change anything. Otherwise the Times would water it down.
In addition, I would have liked to see some of the congressmen Friedman lied about submit an editorial, again without permission to alter, or run an advert.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
1
Selma Prager
9:55 pm
Dec 22, 2011
It seems that I’m in the minority on this issue. I feel that Netanyahu should have accepted the offer of the Times to write an op ed article. Our choices in politics and life are often not between good or bad, but are best given the circumstances, and Netanyahu should have taken advantage of the opportunity to present Israel’s side of the issue. A response from Netanyahu would have exposed Friedman’s vitriole as to what it is, blatant anti-Israel propaganda. In this instance, it’s important to pay attention to the aphorism-he who is silent has already spoken.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
1