I’m sorry to go after the Times so much, but I’m at my parents, and I love reading the actual newspaper. Today there’s a long piece in the Times about the Berkeley Daily Planet newspaper being accused of anti-Semitism because of its criticisms of Israel and Jews. The editor of the paper, Becky O’Malley, 69, a veteran journalist, is plainly in my camp on the Israel lobby. She says, Why of all subjects in the world is Israel off-limits? Why can’t we talk about this vital issue? "Frankly the term that crossed my mind was ‘protection racket,’" O’Malley says. Right.
And what are the examples that the reporter, Jesse McKinley, offers of this taboo speech? Two vile anti-Semitic comments in letters that the editor published because she believes so much in free speech.
In short: Not a word about the anti-Israel criticism that the Daily Planet is publishing. I’m sure a lot of it is close to stuff we publish here. Why, Henry Norr writes for the Daily Planet, and I believe he’s an anti-Zionist Jew.
When you are reading the Times article, notice that this is not some casual business. No: businesses are waging a war against the Daily Planet, it has lost 60 percent of ad revenues because of the stance that the brave editor has taken. She has laid off reporters and is doing a fundraising drive.
A protection racket– and how far does it go? Shouldn’t the Times have told us anything about that stance? Shouldn’t the Times pass along at least a taste of the criticism of Israel so that its readers can make up their minds about how whacky that editor is? Walt and Mearsheimer called the Israel lobby a "loose coalition" of partisans of the Jewish state, and included some Times coverage. This story is an example why.