‘Times’ columnists could be pressuring Obama. Except for Cohen, they’re AWOL

Almost all of us at this site who want peace in Israel/Palestine are pulling for Obama. As an Egyptian student said to me last month in Cairo, "He's our only hope." She meant: for fairness and dignity.
It goes without saying that Obama is now under tremendous pressure from the lobby–and so letters like Peace Now's to the Washington Post today are all the more important, as signals that the lobby is splintering. A friend asks, Where are the New York Times columnists–who have such tremendous clout in the Jewish community?
Good question.

The NYT columnists have said hardly a word about Obama and Israel since he took office. Virtually nothing on the back and forth over settlement expansion. It is really quite striking. Nick Kristof is always up on his high horse about this or that violation of human rights, but has few words to say about the Palestinians plight. It is hard to believe that Tom Friedman doesn't have something to say, and what about Frank Rich, who cares deeply about Israel, but practices radio silence on this important issue. Dowd and Herbert, of course, have been completely domesticated when it comes to Israel. Roger Cohen is the only exception and they hardly ever put his stuff about Israel in the print version. He is really an IHT person who provides filler on the web site and occasionally in the paper. Anyway, these people could make a big difference if they backed Obama and made it clear that he was acting as Israel's friend, not its enemy.

I'd like to speak on behalf of Kristof, who has in fact written on
the topic (which is not his usual domain) quite eloquently and
courageously on a number of occasions, going back more than two years.
And he took plenty of flack for it, too. Three of his columns follow. I
think the record should be corrected. These are: Gaza boomerang from January; from a year ago, The Two Israels. And Talking about Israel, from two years back.