The New York Times Outdoes Itself by Legitimizing a Vile Opponent of Israel
Today’s New York Times features a story by reporter Scott Shane on the long known but usually unspoken fact that our FBI secretly wiretaps the phone at the embassy of our major ally in the Middle East, Israel. It reveals that Shamai K. Leibowitz, a former FBI translator, was sentenced to 20 months in prison for leaking classified information to a blogger. Even Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., of the U.S. District Court in Maryland, did not know what Leibowitz had given the blogger.
What he passed on, Shane reveals, were transcripts of conversations caught on Bureau wiretaps of the Israeli embassy, including conversations with U.S. supporters of Israel and at least one member of Congress.
Shane’s story is based on the first interview with the blogger, whom he reveals to be one Richard Silverstein. Shane writes that Silverstein publishes a blog called Tikun Olam, which, he writes, “gives a liberal perspective on Israel and Israeli-American relations.” (my emphasis) Silverstein’s motive in talking to the press, he reports, was to show that Leibowitz, who was guilty of violating the Espionage Age, “was acting out of noble motives.”
Looking at the above sentence, what strikes informed readers immediately is the characterization of blogger Silverstein as one with a “liberal perspective.” In fact, Silverstein is, one might charitably say, far to the left of Noam Chomsky — a certified member of the fringe nutcase left-wing. What is it about Silverstein’s views that allows a Times reporter to so blatantly mischaracterize the man’s political views? Is it, perhaps, to be totally opposed to Israel and its very existence? Is this what the reporter sees as a “liberal viewpoint”?
For those interested, the website CIF Watch provides a thorough vetting of this Silverstein’s views. Silverstein says that his own blog is devoted to making the world a “better place.” CIF Watch comments that “his image of a ‘better place’ is more in line with Norman Finkelstein’s vision rather than Anne Frank’s.” They add this:
Though Silverstein repeatedly claims to be a Zionist, his writings feature unrelenting attacks on the Jewish state with a wanton disregard for any facts that repudiate his so-called “progressive” views on the conflict. Silverstein openly supports the likes of Norman Finkelstein and Walt and Mearsheimer, minimalizes and, at some times, justifies violence perpetrated by Hamas, vilifies the Israeli right wing and IDF to the point of demonization and supports a version of the one-state solution including the renunciation of the right of return of diaspora Jewry.
The proprietors of CIF Watch have conveniently assembled virtually scores of Silverstein’s writings, which they reproduce verbatim. My personal favorite is Silverstein’s defense of the terrorist attack at Chabad House in India during the Mumbai massacre a few years ago, in which the rabbi and his wife were slaughtered in cold blood. Here, Silverstein takes the words of a surviving terrorist. Silverstein wrote the following:
Pakistani militants have been known to select prominent foreign targets within Pakistan, as the Mumbai terrorists did last week. But few, if any, Pakistani militants have been known until now specifically to target Israelis. I say, Israelis rather than Jews because the single surviving terrorist noted that they chose Chabad House to avenge the suffering of the Palestinians. Therefore, the attack was anti-Israeli, though not necessarily antisemitic.






Silverstein is news not fit to print. Too bad the NYTimes when it comes to Israel doesn’t play by the same rules.
Silverstein, btw, blamed Jews for the massacres in Mumbai India some years back
In truth, I believe the New York Times undermined its own professional standing with this article. One source and he is often delusional.
And Shane, of course, was featured on CNN. Shane reiterated the trope of “dual loyalties” — that old canard that certain types are so anxious to present. (But, of course, that would never, ever be a concern for a Nidal Hassan who commits murders — oh, no! Of course not! On selected occasions (that’s whenever Muslim terrorist atrocities are committed against American citizens) one must scrub the evidence of any religious affiliation — that’s if it involves Muslims – on the other hand, one must heighten imaginary threats on the other — thus the focus on “lone wolf” right-wingers (preferably, of course, Christian)… — the Obama project in a nutshell. Focus on non-threats while castigating true allies; vilify friends while exonerating enemies. The Obama Project.)
The Little Dickie Silverstein Marching Song
I am a little kapo,
It makes my mommy mad,
Cause when I am a kapo,
Those Zionists get sad!
I celebrate the jihad,
and terror all the while,
I fill my blog and web page,
With loud salutes of Sieg Heil!
I want to see them Zraelis,
All dumped out in the sea,
My swastika a waving,
Cause everything’s bout me.
The New York Times has for a long time been a car carrying member of the marching morons.
Of course you are correct, the NYT has become the bete noir of Israel, probably due to the fact that the paper’s owners have all converted to Christianity and want to erase any hint of their former Judaism and support for Israel.
Does that mean Episcopalian, the American branch of the Anglican Church whose disciples Tutu and Ateek of the Sabeel group project their antisemitism through their replacement theology?
I wouldn’t use the word “morons” because what they do is pre-meditated incitement and the Times is complicit in the violence that results.
They are not mutually exclusive. I went to high school with Pinch Sulzberger, but it was only for a year because he flunked out. He is a complete idiot who would have trouble keeping a job as a shoeshine boy were it not for his inheritance. He is also an Episcopalian who loudly rejects his Jewish heritage, hates Israel, and unfortunately is the publisher of a prominent newspaper that was once highly respected.
The NY Times legitimizes a writer as a Reform” Rabbi ” legitimizes a Jew.
Even before WWII the New York Times was diffident about Jews. It was always anti-Zionist. Recently (The last 15 or 20 years) it has become routinly anti-Orthodox Judaism. While Chasbad Chasids support Isreal, The Bombey attack was not Anti Isreal, it was anti Jew. Adolf Ochs must be spinning in his grave.
How is it possible to be far to the left of Chomsky? I would say Silverstein is in the camp of Chomsky, Finkelstein etc. That is bad enough.
The NYT is at war with Israel. It is the fountainhead of the Israel de-legitimization campaign in this country.
It should not be forgotten that the NYT and the Sulzberger family financed the vile and antisemitic Elmer Berger and his organization The American Council for Judaism- the premier anti-Zionist lobbying organization in this country both before and after the Shoah. They specifically legitimized the dual loyalty canard which is so popular among the followers of Walt, Mearsheimer, Cole, and others.
This jihad against Israel continues unabated today. The Times employs such Israel-bashers as Roger Cohen, Nick Kristof, and Robert Mackey.
The Times rarely, if ever, publishes any op-ed pieces which support the any position of the State of Israel. It’s editorial page editor is Andrew Rosenthal who has been known to make disparaging remarks about Israel and her supporters.
that the NYT is anti ISrael is no secret or surprise
has been for a long while
……………………….
here in backwards/upsidedown Brave New World the far left is feted for greater crimes while the man named Jonathan Pollard sits in prison for less
great catastrophes demonstrate as the people`s heroism as more often the vile motives.The Jewish history of the last century hammered the psychology so that the common sence in masses I see as the exception.Both Jewish personage rise my sympathy and indignation.Jews are often suspected in anti-American feelings though they more often have anti-Israel attitude.
I have nothing bad to say about the New York Times. I haven’t bought a copy or read it for over 40 years.
The story that the Times published was baffling. Obviously, they were obfuscating. The Far Left is filled with Jew-haters especially Islamist sympathizers. It is ironic that the Far Left also includes many gays as well as many blacks. Now, many blacks hate gays and Islamists hate blacks and gays and yet they are united with the Far Left. Go figure!
“The New York Times Outdoes Itself by Legitimizing a Vile Opponent of Israel”
Not really.
It’s just doing what comes naturally, it’s very good at it, and, sad to say, plenty of Jewish readers like it, too.
Ron,
Silverstein was not necessarily defending the attack on Chabad House in the quotation you supplied.
He was just saying its point was anti-Israeli rather than anti-semitic
That might be true even if the terrorists are anti-semitic and believing so has no relevance to one’s views on Israel are.
‘So the paper of record has now stooped to the level of using as a source a blatant leftist Israel hater, whom it characterizes falsely as a “liberal”….’
Incorrect and correct. Correct in that Silverstein is not a liberal; incorrect for denouncing the Times for interviewing a person who, far more than a “source,” was a principal actor in the story.
I often wonder: why do Jews think the world hates them? I have been raised among Jewish people my whole life, meeting scumbags and saints alike. There is a difference between us. I have often rejoiced in my Jewish friendships, and I have often wished particular Jews to just die.
Number one: it is not my place do decide if they are bad or good. I leave that to God. I deal with people as I find them.
Number two: Know ye the tree by the fruits thereof. If God ain’t on your side, you guys should’ve been gone 2000 years ago.
Number three: Whereas Christianity flows from Judaism like the Mississippi from the Missouri, Islam denies all of it. How can they say that they are connected to us by the Old Testament, when their every act and value betrays those same truths? The God of Israel was strict, but not completely brutal. If you want to see who’s right, consult Number two. Jews are blessed when they touch things, Arabs are only good at destroying. That they came from the same stem is all the more interesting, theologically speaking. We are free to choose, including the right to choose incorrectly.
Now, I am a complete and utter gentile, but I have definite feelings for the Jewish people. I accept and support Israel to an extent that many Jews do not. But, can someone answer my original question? Why do Jews think people hate them? For a deeply cerebral and reflective people, I have no idea what the answer to that is. None of you would buy it, if I just said, well, those other guys are just nuts. You would argue with me until the sunrise, arguing fine points of theology and history. Yet, for all my life, surrounded by sympathetic Jews, I do not really know what you think.
Perhaps therein lies the rub.
“I often wonder: why do Jews think the world hates them?”
I’ll give you a few hints: Nazi Germany 1933-1945. Russian and Polish pogroms at the beginning of 20-th centuries. Stalinist Russia. Arab world, from Algeria to Iran, 1948 to date. Idi Amin’s Uganda 1976 Air France hijacking. Argentina’s bombing of Israeli embassy and AMIA center, 1992 and 1994. Mumbai massacre at the Chabad House 2008. Israeli-arab multiple wars, 1948 to date. Munich Olympics, 1972. Canadian-US-UK-sponsored BSD activities throughout colleges and academia, 2008 onwards. Zionism = Racism UN resolution, 1975. Saudi Arabia ban of Jews even entering its filthy territory (imagine the uproar if a country would prohibit say, black people, from entering just because they’re black). Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez anti-semitic policies. Turkey’s Erdogan’s anti-semitic policies. Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad’s anti-semitic remarks 2003.
And this is only part of the 20-th century. Why bother with Spain in 1492 or the Crusades or mohammed’s mass murder of Jews or Chmelnitsky’s massacres of Jews or the Inquisition throughout the Spanish and Portuguese empires, or….? Need I go on?
para. 3: “…violating the Espionage Age”
Espionage Act?
One important question is why the FBI/Obama Administration would hire a fringe whacko like Liebowitz. He already had a checkered past (BDS fanatic)when he began working for them. Did they waive a background check or did they hire him to support an agenda?
Peter Hitchens, no left wing radical says that 9/11 was in fact about Israel – http://bit.ly/qpRpGv
“This interpretation doesn’t suit me personally at all. It scares me stiff.”
“I stick to it because I cannot avoid the fact that it is true.”
“I believe it is the duty of the civilised West, having created the state of Israel, to defend its integrity and independence against irrational hatred and murderous threats.”
“I believe also that the West is deeply unwilling to face facts about this.
“It repeatedly pursues a policy of forcing Israel to give up territory in return for unenforceable promises of peace.
“This sort of negotiation was last used by Neville Chamberlain towards Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
“It failed, and is universally reviled as ‘Appeasement’. Yet now it is called ‘Land for Peace’, and applauded.
“Present at the first war against Israel waged by invading Arab armies, Stone reported the Arab exodus as not being caused by Israeli aggression — as he later would argue — but by Palestinians running away to avoid the fighting.”
Research done by the Israeli historian Benny Morris shows that while some Palestinians did flee the fighting there were also expulsions. Does that make Morris part of the ABJ crowd? The IOI crowd? A self-hating Jew?
Yes, I’ve read Morris’s questionable assertion that Ben-Gurion should have finished the job of expulsion and stabilized the nation. I’ve also read the attacks on Morris from the right (Karsh), left (Pappe) and looney left (Finkelstein). But Morris emerges as someone who demonstrates that facing the historical truth is not incompatible with defending Israel.