What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?
The New York Times should be especially sensitive to this issue, because they were on the wrong side of history when it came to reporting the Holocaust. They deliberately buried the story because their Jewish owners wanted to distance themselves from Jewish concerns. They were also on the wrong side of history when it came to the establishment of the nation state of the Jewish people, following the holocaust. When it comes to Jews and Israel, the New York Times is still on the wrong side of history.
So, I am off to stand in protest of
the New York Times, while defending its right to be wrong. That is
what the First Amendment is all about. Finally, there is some good news. One
traditional anti-Semitic trope is that "the Jews control the media."
People who peddle this nonsense, often point to the New York Times,
which is, in fact, published by a prominent Jewish family, the Sulzbergers.
Anyone who reads the New York Times will immediately see the
lie in this bigoted claim: Yes, the New York Times has long
been controlled by a Jewish family. But this Jewish family is far from being
supportive of Jewish values, the nation state of the Jewish people or Jewish
sensibilities. If anything, it has used its Jewishness as an excuse to say
about Jews and do to Jews what no mainstream newspaper, not owned by Jews,
would ever do.