The New York Times op-eds from November overwhelmingly anti-Israel

From David G:

---

New York Times Op-Ed index for November 2012

1) Palestinians at the U.N., Again - Editorial - November 4, 2012

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has refused to make any serious compromises, and the two-state solution seems to have a diminishing chance of ever happening. Mr. Netanyahu’s recent decision to jointly field a slate of candidates with the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu Party in parliamentary elections in January suggests his approach could become even more hard-line. 

Any analysis of the Middle East that fears Yisrael Beiteinu but doesn't even mention Hamas is anti-Israel. Furthermore the editorial persists that Israel is still an "occupier" and doesn't acknowledge that the New York Times actually encouraged Mahmoud Abbas's intransigence by giving him an op-ed in which he outlined his strategy of how to marginalize Israel, and never criticized him for his bad faith.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 1 / Pro-Israel 0 

2) Turkish-Israeli Relations on Trial - Andrew Finkel - November 8, 2012

Turkish justice moves slowly, and the case against those who gave the order to storm the Mavi Marmara will limp on for months, if not years. Meanwhile, Turkey will not abandon its demand for an apology from Israel and for compensation for the victims — or for the lifting of the Gaza blockade. And if the Israeli government hems and haws before giving in to the first two conditions, it will not on the third. This means that Turkish-Israeli relations will not be mended until a solution is found for the misery in the Gaza Strip.

Aspects of this essay seem somewhat balanced. However a reference to the IHH doesn't identify it as a terrorist organization.  The concluding paragraph, cited here, makes clear that the author blames Israel and its defensive stand rather than the extremism of Turkey's leaders.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 2 / Pro-Israel 0 

3) My President is busy - Thomas L. Friedman - November 10, 2012

You should be so lucky that the president feels he has the time, energy and political capital to spend wrestling with Bibi to forge a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I don’t see it anytime soon. Obama has his marching orders from the American people: Focus on Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, not on Bethlehem, Palestine, and focus on getting us out of quagmires (Afghanistan) not into them (Syria). No, my Israeli friends, it’s much worse than you think: You’re home alone. 

This is a typical Friedman tantrum. Things aren't going his way so he mocks. To some degree I think he's correct. In other words, the President isn't likely at this time to push for a peace settlement. But contrary to Friedman's premise, that's a good thing. Even if Israel were willing to make peace, there's on one on the other side or capable of making peace. So leaving Israel alone is precisely the correct move at this time. Only someone who believes that Israel is uniquely at fault for the lack of peace in the Middle East could hold Friedman's views.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 3 / Pro-Israel 0 

4) America's Jewish Vote - Jeremy Ben Ami - November 12, 2012

For decades a loud minority of Jewish Americans has made the case that their hawkish views represent the entirety of the Jewish community. Their well-funded campaigns and lobbying between elections reinforce the appearance of broad-based support for their conservative views.

There is some truth in Ben Ami's column. Jewish voters are liberal and Israel isn't necessarily their primary concern. However here he's setting up a straw man. "Hawkish" in Ben Ami's vocubulary is AIPAC, which is not. Support for Israel is strong, mainstream and bipartisan. (Though there seems to be a trend among Democrats to be less supportive of Israel.) Jewish pro-Israel American don't necessarily reject peace efforts or coexistence; what they reject is Ben Ami's path for achieving these things. Ben Ami and J-Street would be insignificant if not for the fact that they're well-funded and get plenty of sympathetic press in publications like the New York Times. When Robert Elman of the American Jewish Committee wrote that Israel didn't need lectures on how to make peace, it was published as a letter to the editor. It's harder to rate an op-ed at the New York Times if you're supportive of Israel.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 4 / Pro-Israel 0

5) Has Bibi lost his touch? - Shmuel Rosner - November 12, 2012

Still, an Olmert-Livni alliance may be Netanyahu’s greatest threat. Many voters see the pair as the only possible remedy for a fractured center-left with no serious unifying candidate for the top job.

This is ridiculous. Netanyahu might have lost some seats due to the merger with Yisrael Beiteinu,  but he's still favored as the most credible candidate for Prime Minister by a large margin. I wouldn't call this essay anti-Israel as it is more about internal Israeli politics. But that doesn't make it credible. I'm ranking this as neutral.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 4 / Pro-Israel 0

6) The Need for U.S.-Iran Talks - Roger Cohen - November 12, 2012

The risk was real that Romney — surrounded by hawks like the former United Nations ambassador John Bolton, beholden to the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and prodded by his friend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel — might take the United States to war in Iran. Certainly, any chance of a diplomatic resolution of the crisis caused by Iran’s nuclear program would have receded for the foreseeable future. 

The biggest threat to world peace would have been President Romney egged on by Netanyahu and controlled by Adelson.  Compared to that, what difference does it make if Iran is able to make a nuclear device?

Current Score: Anti-Israel 5 / Pro-Israel 0

7) The Plight of the Palestinian Olive Tree - Raja Shehada - November 13, 2012

The Israeli government displays considerable tolerance toward this kind of harassment. According to the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din, of 162 investigations conducted since 2005 by the Israeli police concerning acts of vandalism against Palestinian-owned trees in the West Bank, only one produced an indictment.

Of course there could be a reason why there was only one indictment: most of the cases were not cases of vandalism. 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 6 / Pro-Israel 0

8) Another Israel-Gaza War? - Editorial - November 14, 2012

Israel has a right to defend itself, but it’s hard to see how Wednesday’s operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests. It has provoked new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries, including Egypt, whose cooperation is needed to enforce the 1979 peace treaty and support stability in Sinai. 

When no one else lifts a finger to prevent the flow of arms into Gaza, how else is Israel supposed to defend itself? Essentially the Times is arguing that Israel has a right of self-defense but is better off not exercising that right. I wish the Times was as vociferous in condemning the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and the targeting of Israeli civilians. Most of the letters to the editor - including one by Abe Foxman - criticize the editorial.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 7 / Pro-Israel 0 

9) A Call From the Shelter - Shmuel Rosner - November 16, 2012

My five-year-old daughter Yael just called from Tel Aviv to say that she’s doing fine. She’s a bit scared, but that’s only because I’m not there to watch her — if I were home, she would not be afraid. The brave soul: it was her first time in a bomb shelter. Until yesterday, for our family rocket fire was a troubling part of life but not a personal experience: the last time that Tel Aviv was under fire was during the first Gulf War, back in 1991.

It took half the month before the New York Times deigned to publish an opinion article that cast Israel in a sympathetic light.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 7 / Pro-Israel 1

10) Israel’s Shortsighted Assassination - Gershon Baskin - November 16, 2012

I believe that Israel made a grave and irresponsible strategic error by deciding to kill Mr. Jabari. No, Mr. Jabari was not a man of peace; he didn’t believe in peace with Israel and refused to have any direct contact with Israeli leaders and even nonofficials like me. My indirect dealings with Mr. Jabari were handled through my Hamas counterpart, Ghazi Hamad, the deputy foreign minister of Hamas, who had received Mr. Jabari’s authorization to deal directly with me. Since Mr. Jabari took over the military wing of Hamas, the only Israeli who spoke with him directly was Mr. Shalit, who was escorted out of Gaza by Mr. Jabari himself. (It is important to recall that Mr. Jabari not only abducted Mr. Shalit, but he also kept him alive and ensured that he was cared for during his captivity.) 

Is it possible to suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome due to someone else's captivity? There was nothing moderate about Jabari.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 8 / Pro-Israel 1

11) I’m Losing Hope for a Peaceful Israel - Jessica Apple - November 16, 2012

When I moved to Israel 15 years ago, the picture was very different. There was never a question of whether Israel and the Palestinians would make peace, only of when. The dream of peace inspired me, and even after an intifada, scores of suicide bombings and a war, I stayed in Israel. I remained hopeful. 

What was the source of the the intifada and suicide bombings? Why did they not prompt any soul searching from Ms. Apple? 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 9 / Pro-Israel 1

12) The Israel-Palestine Conflict Won't Go Away - Yossi Alpher - November 16, 2012

The coming months of transition in Washington provide a unique opportunity to review failed strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian context and examine new ones, even if the objective is stabilization and limited progress rather than an elusive end-of-conflict.

While Alpher wants something done, he doesn't have any serious ideas. Still this isn't critical of Israel. Neutral.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 9 / Pro-Israel 1

13) Trapped in Gaza - Lara Aburamadan - November 16, 2012 

Gaza, after all, is a very small place. Pick a point, any point, along its 25-mile coastline, and you’re seven or so miles — never more — from the other side. The other side is where my grandparents were born, in a village that has since become someone else’s country, off limits to me. You call it Israel. I call it the place where the bombs come from. One thundered to earth just now, as I was writing this.

Exercise for the reader: In the month prior to Israel's launching Pillar of Defense, how many New York Times opinion pieces described life in southern Israel?

Current Score: Anti-Israel 10 / Pro-Israel 1

14) If you've got a hammer - Ronen Bergman - November 17, 2012

Israel has the right to defend itself, especially against the huge numbers of Iranian long-range missiles pouring into the Gaza Strip from Iran via Sudan and Egypt. However, wielding the heaviest hammer — assassinations — against Hamas could lead to further deterioration instead of amelioration.

Bergman calls the killing of Jabari a punishment. But was it? Jabari was reportedly in charge of smuggling arms from Iran. It seems that the killing was a strategic move. Still, overall, Bergman supports Israel's right to defend itself even if he questions one aspect of it.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 10 / Pro-Israel 2

15) Gaza without end - Roger Cohen -  November 19, 2012

Is all this good for Israel? No. Unless good is defined as policies that radicalize the situation, erode middle ground, demonstrate the impossibility of agreement, and so facilitate continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the expansion of settlements there and the steady eclipse of the idea of a two-state peace. This may well be Netanyahu’s criteria for a tactical victory from Operation Pillar of Defense (along with victory for Likud on Jan. 22.) 

The suggestion that Netanyahu led Israel into war for electoral purposes is demonstrably false. How does striking back at an enemy "demonstrate the impossibility of agreement?" Doesn't the enemy fire aimed at civilians show that they are uninterested in any sort of a lasting agreement? There seems to be a skill among columnists for the New York Times to portray self-defense (in Israel's case) as a sign of unreasonableness.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 11 / Pro-Israel 2 

16) How Obama Can Use Pressure to Bring Peace - Yossi Melman and Dan Raviv - November 19, 2012

A coalition promoting stability that includes Egypt and Turkey would also be a potent way to dent Iran’s bid for regional hegemony. The United States and Israel share that aim, and so do the oil-exporting kingdoms of the Persian Gulf. They are all concerned that Iran’s uranium enrichment will lead to a nuclear weapon. 

It sounds nice but Melman and Raviv give Morsi and Erdogan too much credit. They also give President Obama too much credit for his diplomatic skills. Despite referring to Cast Lead as a "pointless war," this essay is neither anti-Israel nor pro-Israel. Neutral.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 11 / Pro-Israel 2

17) Hamas's illegitimacy - Editorial - November 19, 2012

Israel also has a responsibility for the current crisis, which threatens to complicate and divert attention from international attempts to deal with the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and the Syrian civil war. Israel has a right to defend itself, although it is doing so at the cost of further marginalizing the moderate Palestinian Authority that helps administer the West Bank and it risks further isolating Israel diplomatically. 

It must be rare to to blame Israel for Hamas's terror, but here you have it. Sure the words condemning Hamas are welcome. Unfortunately, that condemnation isn't entirely convincing. "Hamas, which took control of Gaza in 2007 and is backed by Iran, is so consumed with hatred for Israel that it has repeatedly resorted to violence, no matter the cost to its own people." The Times blaming Hamas not for targeting Israeli innocents but for the damage that Israeli retaliation cause to Gaza! The word "evil" does not appear in the editorial. The word "terrorist" does, but it's a quote from Prime Minister Erdogan about Israel! (The editorial to its credit appears to dispute that charge.) A letter to the editor attributed the war to Israel's "cruel" blockade of Gaza.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 12 / Pro-Israel 2

18) Violence escalates between Israel and Gaza - Patrick Chappatte - November 20, 2012

Chappatte is an anti-Israel cartoonist who contributes to the International Herald Tribune. There's nothing original or profound about his cartoon. He simply equates Israeli self-defense with mindless retaliation. 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 13 / Pro-Israel 2 

19) Hamas Left Israel No Choice but to Strike - Michael Oren - November 20, 2012

Unfortunately, Hamas is not rational. It targets Israeli civilians while hiding behind its own. During a campaign of murder and kidnapping in 2006 and 2007, it gunned down members of its rival, Al Fatah, in the streets. Its covenant says Christians and Jews “must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region”; under its rule, militants firebombed a Christian bookshop. It celebrated 9/11 and mourned the death of Osama bin Laden. We hope some day to persuade its leaders to make peace with us, but until then we must convince them of the exorbitant price of aggression. 

Ambassador Oren masterfully traversed Israel history of seeking peace with its enemies to demonstrate that Hamas is not an enemy that is inclined to make peace.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 13 / Pro-Israel 3

20) A new Israel-Hamas ceasefire - Editorial - November 21, 2012 

The cease-fire that ended eight days of bombing and airstrikes between Hamas and Israel should allow Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza to return to some normalcy as the two sides pull back from a violent cycle that killed 140 Palestinians and five Israelis in the past week. But even if it holds — and that is a big if — this moment of calm will not create real stability if it is not followed by a serious new peace effort aimed at a two-state solution. 

As long as Hamas maintains its stranglehold over Gaza and its arsenal, there can be no "two state solution." Advocating for a coalition between Fatah and Hamas as this editorial does is not a prerequisite for peace but an invitation to disaster.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 14 / Pro-Israel 3 

21) What can the Arabs do? - Patrick Seale - November 21, 2012

My contacts said that these regional leaders should give Obama a clear choice. They should tell him that if in 2013, the first year of his new presidential mandate, he fails to bring Israel to the table to negotiate peace and statehood for the Palestinians, then the Arabs would be compelled to downgrade their relations with the United States. 

The leaders to whom Seale refers are the leaders of Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. No doubt that this threat that would have President Obama quaking with fear. Seale assures us that Israel is a great threat to the Arab world. The ridiculousness of Seale's essay is magnified by his own career. Seale was Hafez Assad's biographer (read: propagandist). That the New York Times allows an apologist for a mass murderer to write in its pages is a disgrace. But I guess since Seale's condemning Israel, his past sins are forgotten, if not forgiven.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 15 / Pro-Israel 3

22) Obama and Morsi discuss Israel - Patrick Chappatte - November 22, 2012

Another unfunny and offensive cartoon from Chappatte.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 16 / Pro-Israel 3

23) Enough - Roger Cohen - November 22, 2012  

Well, ambassador, a powerful Israeli reminder was delivered to Gaza in 2008. Operation Cast Lead left 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead. Since then Israel’s interest in the “dream” of a two-state peace has been expressed mainly in the expansion of West Bank settlements. And here we are again facing the fact that neither side in the Holy Land is going away. 

An ambassador of a free country and a man who whitewashed a war criminal wrote op-eds and who did Roger Cohen see fit to rebut? Cohen's rant about settlements is not credible for those who keep track. But what did Cohen miss? That since Cast Lead Hamas has been re-arming and Abbas has been stonewalling. Has anyone on the Palestinian side demonstrated any interest in "two state peace?" Cohen adds insult to injury by claiming that President Morsi's contribution to the ceasefire show that he is a true pragmatist despite his origins in the Muslim Brotherhood. ( In a more recent column, Cohen excused Morsi's subsequent power grab as a "mistake" and would "give Morsi the benefit of the doubt on his motives.")

Current Score: Anti-Israel 17 / Pro-Israel 3

24) Time to impose a plan - Yonatan Touval - November 23, 2012 

One way out of this conundrum is the following: Between now and Nov. 29, the United States and other key members of the international community should seek to convince the Palestinians to suspend their bid at the General Assembly in return for a Security Council resolution that would, for the first time in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, spell out the general parameters for peace. 

Touval explains that Security Council resolutions are binding and would thus be able to force both sides to come to an agreement. The naivete of Touval's proposal is astonishing. Does he really believe this could work? The effect of Touval's proposal, had it been followed would have been detrimental to Israel but his column, on its own was not. Neutral.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 17 / Pro-Israel 3

25) Solution without resolution - Eran Yashiv - November 23, 2012

The bottom line is both tragic and simple. The fact that a well-known solution exists and is rejected speaks volumes. Calls for renewed efforts to resolve the conflict are blind to this reality and to a large part express wishful thinking on the part of their authors. 

Yashiv writes, "In what was a kind of implicit referendum, the notion was resoundingly rejected in the 2001 elections in which Sharon defeated Ehud Barak with 62 percent of the vote." This is exceedingly dishonest. At the time Arafat had rejected the "well-known solution" and embarked on a terror war against Israel. Ehud Barak who had made the offer of the "well-known solution" was blamed for the outbreak of the violence. Put simply, Arafat rejected the "well-known" solution but Yashiv faults Israelis for reacting rationally to the war that was imposed upon them.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 18 / Pro-Israel 3

26) America's failed Palestinian policy - Yousef Munayyer - November 23, 2012 

By constantly condemning Palestinian armed resistance, and failing to condemn Israeli settlement expansion and repression of nonviolent Palestinian dissent, the message the United States is sending the Palestinian people is this: All resistance to occupation is illegitimate. 

Munayyer's argument put simply is "Palestinian terror against Israel is always legitimate." 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 19 / Pro-Israel 3

27) Morsi's moment - Thomas L. Friedman - November 24, 2012

Do I expect that? No more than I expect to win the lottery. The Muslim Brotherhood has long hated the Jewish state, as well as political and religious pluralism and feminism. Therefore, here’s what I do expect: More trouble between Israel and Hamas that will constantly threaten to drag in Egypt. Hamas is a shameful organization. It subordinates the interests of the Palestinian people to Iran (and earlier to Syria), which wants Hamas to do everything it can to make a two-state solution impossible, because that will lock Israel into a permanent death grip on the West Bank, which will be the undoing of the Jewish democracy and will distract the world from Iran’s and Syria’s murderous behaviors.

The editorial, "Hamas's illegitimacy," made a similar argument: Hamas is wrong because it works against the interests of the Palestinians, not because it harms Israelis. "Shameful," is too weak; "evil" is appropriate. Israel has no "death grip" on the West Bank. All that's needed is a Palestinian leadership committed to peace. None exists currently.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 20 / Pro-Israel 3

28) Two State solution on the line - Gro Harlem Brundtland and Jimmy Carter - November 25, 2012

In going to the General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not carrying out a provocative act. Nor is he undermining trust and distracting from the pursuit of peace, as his critics have said. 

Brundtland and Carter are lying. The Oslo Accords spelled out that peace was come about due to negotiations not the imposition of one side's will on the other. Abbas admitted that that was precisely his intent in going to the UN. 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 21 / Pro-Israel 3

29) Support Palestinian Statehood - Yossi Beilin - November 25, 2012 

Now, the Palestinians are admitting their mistake and asking the same assembly to recognize a state of Palestine alongside Israel, and requesting that the boundaries of their state be determined as a result of negotiations with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s right-wing parties — which in 1993 rejected the Oslo Accords that envisaged Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of Palestinian autonomy in those areas — are now using, and abusing, that same agreement to prevent Palestinian statehood. 

Beilin was the architect of the Oslo Accords. As a politician he found no violation of the Oslo Accords by the Palestinians to be too severe. That is why he is now an ex-politician, far outside the mainstream of Israeli political discourse. Yes Netanyahu fought the Oslo Accords, but when he became Prime Minister, he observed them. He didn't observe them to the degree that his critics thought he should have, but he did observe them. I don't believe that Arafat or Abbas made any concrete contributions to the peace process and certainly none as substantial as removing Jews from most of Hevron as Netanyahu did during his first term in office. It is Abbas (and Arafat before him) who have refused to abide by the terms of the agreements Arafat signed.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 22 / Pro-Israel 3

30) The Iron Man - Shmuel Rosner - November 27, 2012 

Peretz may be the one laughing now as Israelis laud him for seeing what experienced generals didn’t see with their open binoculars. Peretz, as defense minister, was the lone knight of the Iron Dome, an essential part of the Pillar of Defense operation and a stunning success. The shield intercepted an astonishing number of rockets in mid-air, enabling — as Peretz was quick to point out in our conversation — the leaders of Israel to make decisions based on cold calculation. “Iron Dome,” he told me “is not just a military tool, it is also a political tool.”

Rosner pays tribute to the failed defense minister who had an enduring vision. The Wall Street Journal has an extensive report on the efforts to field Iron Dome. 

Current Score: Anti-Israel 22 / Pro-Israel 4

31) Photo Caption Should Have Been Better. But ‘Orwellian’? No. - Margaret  Sullivan - November 27, 2012

The Times’s coverage of this conflict cannot begin to be judged by the choice of one photo on one day. It has to be put in context over time. (I haven’t done that kind of long-term study, though I am paying careful attention to the coverage.) I reject the idea that the choice of this photo indicates an anti-Israeli bias.

Well, no. One photo shouldn't be the basis to judge any news organization. But if it shows systematic signs of bias, then the photo could and should be one more piece of evidence. If the Times didn't regularly report every time alarms sounded in Israeli cities sending residents to shelters but then sent its staff to Gaza to report on the destruction that was caused when Israel struck back, the picture is misleading. If the Times didn't publish aerial mapsshowing that Hamas placed weapons and fighters near schools and then published a photo of the damaged structure, the picture is misleading. Sullivan's in typical public editor mode, defending her paper against any and all charges, but I'm not ready to call this column anti-Israel. Neutral.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 22 / Pro-Israel 4

32) The U.N. to vote on Palestine - Patrick Chappatte - November 28, 2012 

Chappatte's message is that history is passing Israel and the United States by.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 23 / Pro-Israel 4

33) Problems With a Reporter’s Facebook Posts, and a Possible Solution - Margaret Sullivan - November 28, 2012

More recently, during the Gaza conflict, she wrote one Facebook post in which she described Palestinians as “ho-hum” about the death of loved ones, wrote of their “limited lives” and, in another, said she shed her first tears in Gaza over a letter from an American woman. The comments came off as insensitive and the reaction was sharp, not only from media pundits, but also from dismayed readers.

Sullivan reports that to solve the problem of Jodi Rudoren's social media postings, an editor will be assigned to what she writes on Twitter and Facebook. When the New York Times allows an opinion article that effectively endorses anti-Israel terror for it to be so concerned of what it's reporter does on her own time is outrageous. I won't grant Sullivan any benefit of the doubt here.

Current Score: Anti-Israel 24 / Pro-Israel 4

34) The Palestinians’ U.N. Bid - Editorial - November 28, 2012

Earlier this month, Israel warned that if the resolution passed, it could cancel the 1993 Oslo accords, oust President Abbas and dismantle the Palestinian Authority. Some in Congress have also threatened more sanctions. Israel has since toned down the threats, but it should drop them altogether, as should Congress. It makes no sense to punish the one Palestinian institution that has committed to a peaceful solution. 

But that one Palestinian institution has done nothing to demonstrate that it is committed to a peaceful solution. Negotiations "have been at an impasse since 2008" since Abbas refused then Prime Minister Olmert's offer and then hoped that President Obama would pressure Netanyahu to make unilateral concessions. The New York Times does the chances of peace no favor by whitewashing Abbas's passive aggressive refusal to deal honestly with Israel.

Final Score: Anti-Israel - 25 / Pro-Israel - 4 / Neutral - 5


Methodology: I surveyed all opinion articles in the New York Times from November 1 - 30, 2012 containing the word "Israel." I excluded all letters to the editor and included articles substantively about Israel. Given Israel's war against Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas's effort to avoid negotiations by bringing his statehood bid to the U.N., as expected, the anti-Israel op-eds increased. (Last month, the totals were nearly equal due to three "Latitude" columns by Shmuel Rosner. This month was a return to the usual imbalance of opinion article unfavorable to Israel.) A number of articles included gratuitous terms like "bellicosely right-wing Israeli government"or suggested that Israel's response to Hamas helps Assad. Nasty as those references were, the articles were not mostly about Israel.