The New York Times editorial board published an opinion piece Saturday on the incoming Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Titled “The Ideal of Democracy in a Jewish State is in Jeopardy,” this 17-paragraph editorial paints a bleak picture of Israel’s future, claiming that Israel’s democratically-elected government is on track to jeopardize its status as a democratic and Jewish state and that it is incumbent upon the American administration to ensure that Israel maintains its allegiance to both countries’ shared values.
While it is not unusual for an editorial team to express its opinion on international politics, there are a number of contentious points within this piece that warrant a response.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
First and foremost, the editorial board prefaces its piece with the claim that “This board has been a strong supporter of Israel and a two-state solution for many years, and we remain committed to that support.”
For many, this claim of “strong” support for the Jewish state is certainly laughable, if not outrageous.
In recent years, The New York Times has published an opinion piece that whitewashed the anti-Israel BDS movement, has published a guest essay that effectively undermined the Israeli fight against Hamas by accusing the Jewish state of wantonly and cruelly destroying Gazan infrastructure that has no strategic value and has also published a guest essay that claimed that the campaign against antisemitism has become a “threat to freedom.”
In addition, a study of The New York Times coverage of Israel from earlier this year found that the “newspaper of record” had focused more stories on the Jewish state than on any other Middle Eastern country but of these stories, 53% were negative in their portrayal of Israel, 34% were neutral and only 13% were positive.
Thus, the claim that the editorial board of The New York Times has “been a strong supporter of Israel…for many years” seems to be without merit.
Related Reading: What They Also Got Wrong: Examining The New York Times’ Coverage of Israel
Second, one of the greatest concerns that The New York Times editorial board has with the incoming Israeli government is that its predicted actions will seemingly jeopardize the two-state solution.
Throughout this piece, the editorial board continuously contends that the anticipated actions of the incoming Israeli government will “undermine the possibility of a two-state solution,” thwarting what the New York Times perceives to be the key ingredient to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, by focusing solely on Israel’s actions as the determining factor regarding the future of the two-state solution, the New York Times is effectively removing any responsibility from the Palestinian Authority.
Indeed, aside from a passing remark about Palestinian corruption dimming the hopes of a Palestinian state, this opinion piece makes no mention of the Palestinian Authority’s financial support for terrorists and their families, its twice rebuffing American attempts at peace negotiations over the past 10 years or its continued incitement against Israelis and Jews within its official media organs and schools.
The only mention of the word “terror” in the editorial is in reference to past convictions by incoming National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
All of these factors, which directly imperil the chance for a successful two-state solution, existed long before the incoming Israeli government was ever formed.
And yet, in the eyes of The New York Times, these factors do not warrant the same concern or admonishment as do the anticipated actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition partners.
Related Reading: Top Israeli Daily’s Exposé Paints Troubling Picture of New York Times’ Israel Coverage
Lastly, throughout this opinion piece, the editorial board seems to enjoin the current American administration to take an active role in opposing the actions of the incoming Israeli government.
The editorial board calls upon the American government to more vocally oppose Netanyahu’s coalition partners (as opposed to the administration’s current wait-and-see approach) and to also support Israeli civil society organizations in their fight against this new government’s legislation.
Thus, in extolling democratic principles, The New York Times editorial board is essentially calling on the American government to intervene in the political life of a stalwart ally and to actively support domestic organizations in their opposition to that country’s democratically elected government.
While it is common for the American government to comment on individual actions taken by foreign governments, it is quite another thing to endorse the active intervention of the United States in an ally’s domestic politics.
Related Reading: New York Times, Should A Jewish State Exist? (VIDEO)
Tom Friedman’s Look at Israel
Two days before The New York Times editorial board published its opinion piece, longtime New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman published an essay entitled “What in the World Is Happening in Israel?”
Even though it is seemingly more balanced and nuanced than the editorial board’s piece (one critic of the New York Times’ Israel coverage referred to it as “more accurate and profound than anything I’ve read in NYT about Israel all year”), there are a number of concerning passages within Friedman’s work.
Similar to the editorial board, Friedman seemingly points his finger at Netanyahu and his allies for what he perceives to be the eventual failure of the two-state solution, discounting the above-mentioned actions taken by the Palestinian Authority that play a major role in the two-state solution’s demise.
Related Reading: Tom Friedman Distracts With False Equivalence
Further on in his piece, Friedman is doubtful about a future Israel-Saudi Arabia peace deal under the incoming Israeli government as well as Netanyahu’s proposed role as a bridge-builder between the United States and Saudi Arabia, portraying the presumptive Israeli prime minister as someone who focuses solely on the political right and deeply religious at the expense of centrists and those who hold liberal values.
However, contrary to what Friedman suggests, Netanyahu has proven himself able to work with a wide variety of political actors, including Middle Eastern leaders (with whom he signed the initial Abraham Accords agreements), President Joe Biden and others who do not necessarily share his viewpoints on all Israel-related matters.
Thus, even in a fairly nuanced and accurate piece, Thomas Friedman occasionally resorts to the New York Times’ journalistic formula of generalizations, missing context and clichéd analysis.
Related Reading: ‘The Most Right-Wing Government in Israel’s History’? Explaining Tuesday’s Election Results
Benjamin’s Netanyahu’s coalition is set to govern Israel for the foreseeable future.
For the New York Times to maintain its role as a trusted purveyor of news and analysis, it needs to forsake its formulaic “doom and gloom” outlook on the Jewish state and provide its readers with a more nuanced and multifaceted perspective.
Otherwise, it will fail in its goal of objective reporting and insights into the Israeli political scene.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.
