So Much for O'Reilly's Theory: NY Times Calls for Immediate Cease-Fire

New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

July 25, 2006 - 07:01

Back to the drawing board for Bill O'Reilly. As noted here, on his radio and TV shows yesterday, BOR propounded the theory that the big-city newspapers have tread lightly in the current Middle East conflict for fear of alienating their liberal Jewish readers. As Bill put it, liberal Jews "are all the papers have left" when it comes to significant market niches.

BOR particularly singled out the New York Times as a paper that hesitant to take any positions that could be construed as contrary to Israel's interests. As of this morning's NY Times editorial, No More Foot-Dragging, that theory might be 'inoperative.' For the Times, in flat contradiction of Israeli desires, is now calling for an immediate cease-fire:

"We’d like to believe that [Sec. Rice's trip to the region] means Washington is now urgently committed to finding a way to halt the fighting." And in case we missed its intent, the Times spells it out: "What the people of Lebanon and Israel urgently need is a cease-fire."

True, the Times went on to call for a muscular peace-keeping force and the disarmament of Hezbollah, but it also managed to take swipes at Israel and at the Bush administration's foreign policy to date:

"The White House has resisted calls for a cease-fire, arguing that a return to the situation that existed before the latest fighting would not bring lasting peace. While that is true, we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon. Since July 12, hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed and nearly a score of Israelis. For all that dying, there is little sign that Hezbollah — which fired 100 missiles into Israel on Sunday — has been so deeply wounded that it can’t rebuild quickly. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in Lebanon won’t make Israelis safer."

How's this for an alternative theory: after a brief hiatus to assess matters, the Times has reverted to form. It has combined Bush-administration bashing with a dash of disapproval of Israel, seasoned the stew with a soupcon of moral relativism and called for peace-at-any price.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

New York Times/NewsBusters back-to-drawing-board-for-O'Reilly ping to Today show list.

[samtheman]

Here's my theory. Liberal Jews are morons and will keep buying the Slimes, no matter how anti-Semitic, how anti-Israel and (needless to say) how anti-American the Slimes becomes.

Let me repeat: Liberal Jews are morons.

[SE Mom]

.." we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon..."

We fear? We FEAR?!?! Aside from the obvious, of course that's what they're doing...the more important point is WHY would that be a condition to FEAR?

Fools.

[af_vet_1981]

What did the NY Times do to make Jews safer during the Holocaust ?

[johnny7]

So much for BO's prognostications on the leftist, American press.

[rhombus]

Let me repeat: Liberals Jews are morons.

All have trouble facing reality and would prefer the fantasy land they've constructed. Liberal Jews are not much different than Liberal Roman Catholics, Liberal Protestants, Liberal Atheists and Liberal Agnostics with respect to realities they refuse to accept.

[tcostell]

Here is a little something else liberal Jews would do well to remember:

[Vaquero]

Here's my theory. Liberal Jews are morons and will keep buying the Slimes, no matter how anti-Semitic, how anti-Israel and (needless to say) how anti-American the Slimes becomes.

They deserve each other.....this can only be viewed as a good thing as they eat their own.

[jimbo123]

The NY Times were cheerleaders for Hitler and Stalin. They have always been champions of evil.

[Vaquero]

Liberals of Italian extraction, too me, are the worst.

take for instance that 'Sfachim' Mario Cuomo.

[avacado]

The NYTs first had to wait until they were absolutely sure of the Bush Admin's position and then take the opposite stance. Nothing new from them.

[RedRover]

Liberal Jews are not much different than Liberal Roman Catholics, Liberal Protestants, Liberal Atheists and Liberal Agnostics with respect to realities they refuse to accept.

Exactly. Many well-off Liberal Jews can't emotionally accept their own material advantages. So they become pro-terrorist and anti-American/Israeli as a form of self-hatred. (The evil Tony Kushner is one example.)

[kempster]

I find it interesting that the Times takes the time to answer BOR. Of course they want a cease fire. This way it can happen again and they can continue to sell the few papers that they print. BOR made the big mistake in believing that the NY Times cares about anybody. They proved in the past 6 months that they don't care about any group of people, especially all of us.

[johnny7]

...that 'Sfachim' Mario Cuomo.

Bob? Bob Grant?!

[Always Right]

.." we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah..."

To me the 'we fear' just indicates what we knew all along. The New York Times are terrorists.

[relictele]

Not to play up the Jewish angle, but I have heard more than one liberal NYer describe the NYT, especially the Sunday edition, as their 'Bible.'

Scary/ironic in more ways than one, but among the scariest thought is that there are people out there who think every word printed in the NYT is absolute truth.

[Vaquero]

no...just another american of mostly italian decent who used the word long before Bob Grant(Gigante).

[true_blue_texican]

nice photos

[carumba]

The NYTs first had to wait until they were absolutely sure of the Bush Admin's position and then take the opposite stance...

This is the type of cynicism that I have no trouble agreeing with.