The author should acquaint himself with the language of the anti-semite. He whitewashes their comments because they are Jews. Had they been said by non jews, there would be no doubt to their intent.

It is not the fact that certain writers are critical of the current Israeli policies that is the problem. It is the established pattern of a newpaper being ultra critical of Israel, while ignoring the geographic and historical context in which Israeli actions are undertaken, that is the concern. As always, there will be Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world (e.g. George Soros) and will do their best to counter any nationalistic feelings of the Jewish people. Are these people anti-Semites or just misguided? Does it matter if the end result is encouraging our enemies?

reason . The Bias is so obvious . Who now owns the NYT? The world's media is being controlled against Israel . Its defamation is the greatest tool of Israel's enemies when lies after lies or half truths are publishes .

There is no new, modern term for the enduring Marxist (Leftist) hatred of the concept of Israel as Jewish homeland. While "antisemitism" is a misnomer in this case-- "self-loathing Jew" - is better but not widely accepted, thus lets take a look at the origins of all things considered. Marx in his thesis "On the Jewish Question" (1843) was the first who rejected the Jewish existence altogether: as ethnicity, religion, culture and history. The "Yevsektsiya" (Jewish section of the Communist Party, Russia, 1917) labeled the Zionist ideology as "Bourgeois nationalism" and opposed it. Few things changed since those times, Haaretzniks, Leftists, American Jewry are united in opposition to Israel in accordance with their Marxist teachings. Only those who were born yesterday have no knowledge of the classic Leftist Jewish anti-Zionism but us, older folks we are well acquainted with it.

- this is what I frequently read on various websites. It always makes me feel extremely angry! But now I'm like: maybe it's partly true... As far as I'm concerned, it sounds ridiculous that even a JEW can be called an ati-Semite!...

Barnea asks why any Jews who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite. The answer was given 45 years ago (1967) by one of the United States greatest heros, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Look up Dr. King's "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend"

I 100% disagree with the op ed .I have read the NY times for years and quite frankly am dismayed by their anti-Israel bias. The piece by Abbas was so filled with lies and fabrications I cringed. The old adage tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth is so apparent with the NY Times. As for Friedman I have seen his movement from an ally of Israel to I am not quite sure anymore. Sad when the greatest paper in the world is looking more and more like the Guardian

Anti-semitism is also condemning only Jews for crimes or poor behavior conducted in greater degree by other groups (namely Arabs and Muslims) an example: Cast Lead was condemned by many people who know of, and never condemned the bombing of Dresden. example II: condemning Israeli targeted killings of terrorists in Gaza but never mentioning the incessant rocket attacks by those terrorists on Israeli civilians living around the "Palestinian" controlled area which IS a real war crime. Example III: condemning the Jews for allegedly forcing Arabs out in 1948 while ignoring the Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem, Judeah, Samaria, and Arab countries throughout the globe.

New York Times op-ed pieces are consistently anti-Israel. In addition to Friedman there is Nick Kristof, Roger Cohen and Robert Mackay whose views are worse than Friedman. There is absolutely no attempt at balance. Recently there was a guest op-ed column attacking Israel for its progressive gay policies. Pinkwashing was the term used. The Times never misses an opportunity to condemn Israel, no matter what the subject.

Ron Dermer's point in his letter to the NYT is purposely being misinterpreted in this piece of garbage editorial in an attempt to further discredit Israeli PM Netanyahu. Dermer's was simple: The NYT wanted Neanyahu to write an article so the NTY could hold it up as proof that it's reporting is balanced and fair regarding Israel - which is hogwash. This editorial is meant to justify the "arrogant intellectual superiority mentality" that those on the left - who claim a "progressive perspective". Once again.....hogwash.

Likud governments have given up land for peace! That is a fact!! To finger point Israel and it's Likud Govt and Mr Netanyahu as the primart obstacle to peace is in itself a very distinct clear message to the Palestinians that they don't have to make concessions because Israel has to accept the 67 borders. In reality there is absolutely no way that Israel can return to the 67 boders due to the 300,000 Jews that can't be moved. There is also no reason for Israel to go bk to the 67 borders because as we all know - The Arabs turned down peace in 47,67 and in 2000 and declared war on Israel - There are consequences to starting a war. So If Mr Friedman sincerely wants to contribute to advancing the peace process - He should call out to the palestinians tocome to the table to negotiate - . Yes many in Israel support a 2 state solution but not at the 67 borders

I thought that you are smarter than that. Don't you have other subjects to write about.. I would expect Haaretz to publish such articles.

Of course not everyone who thinks we go around things the wrong way are Anti-Semetic. But when New York journalists take to a column to spew out crap about Israel, and make themsevles out to be Middle East experts, that's also not Anti-Semetic, it's just loud and vile arrogance.

Elliot Abrams is no friend of troth or of law. During the 1980s he worked to break the law by sending arms to the contra terrorists who were busy murdering Nicararaguan peasants as part of Reagan's plan to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua. Abrams should have been sent to prison. Unfortunately he was not. What is wrote is just another part of what Abrams does best. LIES. There is nothing that either Thomas Friedman or Joe Klein wrote that isn't true. Yes, the lemmings of Congress jumped to their feet when Netanyahu spoke because they knew that AIPAC was watching every move that they made. And yes, the neocons want to send American boys to die for Israel. Just look at Iraq. That was a war pushed by the neocons in which more than 4000 American boys and girls died with countless more maimed. We won't even speak of the million Iraqi dead or the destruction of the country. If Israel didn't figure in this act of aggression by the US I don't know what elese did.

Let's take Tom Friedman for example. He wrote that Israel uses "Hama rules". He meant that Israel uses the same tactics as Hafez Assad in Syria, who slaughtered 20000 people in the city of Hama. Friedman was wrong, as current events are proving. Then a couple of weeks ago he wrote that Netanyahu's ovation in Congress was "bought" by the "Jewish lobby." Friedman was so wrong and reaped so much justified criticism that he actually said admitted afterwards that he was wrong by making such a wrong and vile statement. Netanyahu was right not to write an op-ed. By not doing so he puts the spotlight on the NYT and its writers, who have indeed not just singled out Israel for disproportionate criticism, but as in the example of Friedman - downright slander.

T. Friedman is Obamao's very close golfing partner. In many cases he's Obamao's unofficial spokesman for he can say nasty things that Obamao would not dare to utter in public as president. It's reasonable to assume that the N.Y. Times conveys the administration's policy without implicating itself in the anti-Israeli drive.

The Communist attempt to overtake Latin America á la Cuba is an open book, Ortega connections to the Soviets is also well known. Your trite Bolshevik propaganda is obsolete for even your hero, Chavez is a fading star. The USSR has disappeared too: you're behind the times. Name a nation under Bolshevik rule which is or was prosperous. Lastly: name one American who died fighting in Israel: there were many wars, so just name ONE U.S. GI. Can you?

Do you know that Czech communists supplied a huge quantity of weapons to Israel in 1948?

PAPER IN DECLINE FOR 20 YEARS AND NEARLY BANKRUPT, A LEFT WING RAG BELIEVE ME

The zionism that dominated the yishuv from the second aliyah on to 1977 was a leftist, secular zionism. It was they who created the state and it was they who formed the leadership of the Palmach and the Hagannah that defended the state and won the battles of 1948. (the irgun was good at killing civilians but little else as Benny Morris and others point out). It was the left that wrote the declaration of independence (BG specifically.) if you have problems with the secular progressive mind you have a problem with the spirit and ideas that founded the Jewish state. Majorities can rewrite laws they cannot rewrite history.

Find me one positive article that Friedman about Israel except when Israel gave in to the PLO or PA and it was not a leftist Israeli government? Since the early 80s Friedman support the PA cause and that's a fact! He is driven by his ideology not facts. Bibi did right to boycott the newspaper.

Reading the subtext in this article's title, one could reasonably deduce that accusing leftist Jewish journalists of anti-semitism is a fairly widespread phenomenon. However, to back up your bombastic thesis, you can only bring forth a single example of a politician who's not even Israeli. And based on this one example, you exaggerate and generalize. As far as journalism goes, this article is very unprofessional.

Did Dremer accuse the NYT or those who criticize Israel of being anti semites? He didn't. NYT was accused of bias and it should be- some of the latest op-eds that were published by this so called "world’s most prominent newspaper" were truly laughable and have no business being in any respectable publication. Example: Israel and 'Pinkwashing' by Sarah Schulman, a piece that wouldn't even pass as a freshman college paper, was published in the coveted op-ed spot in the NYT. Why? The only answer I can think of is that the NYT editorial bias is so strong it is even willing to discard its own standards in favor of pieces that are anti Israel.

I wont talk about your views over the Don Quixote and about how far they are of any serious interpretation. I prefer to talk about a category that you didn't mention and that I believe engulfs people like Ehud Olmert, Tom Friedman and many others (maybe you?) I'm talking about Post-Zionists, people who forgot about the love for the land of Israel, Am Israel and of course Jewish religion. Your view of the world is to be a sort of Puerto Rico, there you have Latins, here Jews, those Latins lose identity with time and your plan is that Jews also. Than you very much, but we Israelis, 95% of them, are proud to be Jewish, proud to be Israelis and not afraid of being different.

mr. Bornea's opinion that the NY Times are "without a doubt the world’s most prominent newspaper"... does not change the facts. The NY Times is consistently, as during the days of WWII... anti Jewish, and today, both anti Jewish and anti Israel. Friedman has never written an article that I have read that did not promote the hateful palestinian agenda and crticize Israel for actions or policies, real, imagined, or plain... made up. I believe Bibi did well by not accepting the Times' invitation. To do so would be to dignify and to encourage the newspaper, it's editorial staff and hacks, I mean writers. Simply, after knowing and understanding the Times disinterest in reporting facts rather than opinion, I have relegated this "world’s most prominent newspaper" to the bottom of my daily reading list.

You can criticize Israel without being Anti Semitic. The issue is that some "liberal" Jews took it as their life mission to become part of what I would call “The Elders of Anti Zion”. They are more or less blind to the faults of other countries and single out Israel for criticism, whether justified or not. The NY Times is an incubator where some of those writers flourish

That's the BIG difference! Israel is not perfect, but Muslims are VERY FAR from being perfect. People who see ONLY Israel as the party responsible for all and any problems in the Midle East and thye world, are Anti-Semites. That's the actual definition of Anti-Semitism - blaming everything on the Jews - and Israel is the new "Jew". People who demonize Israel over imaginary sins or distort reality so that Israel gets the blame for what happens - regardless of what happens - are quite simply put, racist pigs. So gimme a break with all these convoluted logic and attempts to divert the attention of the NYT real agenda. NY Times is a activist paper with an activist Thomas Friedman with a clear anti-Israeli agenda. There is no need to do more than scratch the surface of NYT to see it, and anyone claiming otherwise is either blissfully ignorant, blind or holding the same views and attitude as NYT - and as such they are irrelevant.

or you're just parrotting the Ultra-Liberal slogans that you picked up while you were sober - which seems to be quite rarely. Don't regale us with your clueless and insulting preaches "truthseeker". If truth is what you really seek - YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT YET!

It was when I got to your reference to "neocons" that who and what you are became as clear as the midday sun. This is a term invented by Pat Buchanan - a Hitler apologist - to replace an open reference to what he would otherwise define as insidiously evil Jews. (evidently his publisher, Townhall, got to him) Inasmuch as he avoids mention of Jews these days (including reference to "neocons"), his articles serve as a lightening rod for the most rabid anti-Semites who openly and proudly equate their anti-Semitism with a superior intelligence. When someone assures you that he is telling the truth you know that what you'll hear is probably anything but the truth. So it is with the name you chose to represent yourself. It's your life fella. Choke on it.