Carter's Visit to Gaza Unabashedly Cast Symptathetically

"Carter, in Gaza, Urges Hamas to Meet Demands"; by Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner; A6

Although Jews on the Left, such as Jon Stuart Leibowitz, are quick to state their discomfort with pro-Israel Christians, they are welcoming to Jimmy Carter, whose Christianity is at the heart of his destructive efforts to legitimize Hamas.

In their report on Jimmy C's visit to Gaza, El-Khoidary and Kershner mislead readers. Early on, they remark on Ismail Haniya’s “conciliatory tone," evidenced by advocacy for "the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.” Yet three paragraphs later, they concede, “Hamas leaders have said they will never recognize Israel, and will offer only a long-term truce, not a full-fledged peace treaty, in return for a Palestinian state.” Had these bits of information been placed together, as they could have been, the reporters could not have cast the tone as conciliatory.

Israel is cast villainously, for it “continues to impose a punishing economic blockade.” Unsurprisingly, this language is an echo of one of Jimmy’s talking points, which is a call to end Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Carter’s rhetoric is characteristically uncharitable toward the Jewish state, as he laments “the deliberate destruction that has been wreaked against [Palestinian] people” during the January Gaza War and suggests that Israelis treat them “more like animals than human beings.”

The report closes with a report from HaMoked and Gisha, two intensely ideologically-driven Israeli organizations. "Carter in Gaza...” could provide a case study in bias against Israel at NYT. Jimmy C's visit is cast in sympathetic terms, and the only Israelis who are given voice are those who are far from affirmative about the Jewish state.

Israeli PM Gives a Speech, But Kershner Focuses on the PA's Positions

"Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats"; By Isabel Kershner; A1

Today, on the front page, Isabel Kershner reports on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv yesterday. Toward the middle of the article, IK editorializes, “[Netanyahu] seemed to offer little room for compromise or negotiation."

To substantiate her claim, she cites Netanyahu’s rejection of “the Palestinian demand for a right of return for refugees of the 1948 war and for their millions of descendants.” Kershner then explains why Palestinians maintain this demand without similarly explaining why Israelis reject it.

Of course, the demand is connected to Israel’s character as a Jewish state, a matter that arose repeatedly in Netanyahu’s speech. Given that, the expectation is that Kershner would connect the dots for readers. In short, Israelis reject the demand because it would compromise the Jewish character of Israel. One would think that in covering a speech by an Israeli leader that the goal would be to convey the Israeli position in depth. By taking the occasion to explain the Palestinian position, however, Kershner demonstrates a subtle bias toward the Palestinian Authority.

IK is at her best when she allows events - and Israelis - to speak for themselves. At the article's conclusion, Kershner prints a fact that NYT is loathe to confront - "[The speech] largely expressed the consensus in Israel." And, as President Shimon Peres says, it was "true and courageous.”

Lieberman May Improve Israeli-Russian Relations, as American Support Wanes

"Israel's Foreign Minister Cozies Up to Moscow"; By Clifford J. Levy; WK1

Levy does a successful job of framing Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's visit to Moscow in the context of the Obama administration's diplomatic overtures to the Arab and Muslim world.

The warm relations and easy flow of conversation with Russian leaders demonstrate one of the assets Lieberman brings to his position.

The report is fair, with one minor exception. Levy writes,

"With a new diplomacy-oriented administration in Washington and a new hawkish one in Jerusalem, the various parties in the region are trying to...test one another."

Contrasting "diplomacy-oriented" with "hawkish" evidences a bias. For example, a bias in the opposite direction would characterize the Obama administration as pacifist or dovish. Simply conveying that the American administration is diplomacy-oriented and the Israeli administration is not would be most appropriate.

Letter-Writers Embrace Tuesday's Opinion Piece on Egyptian Jews

"The Uprooted: A Sad Mideast Legacy"; Letters; A30

Of the six letters published in response to Tuesday’s opinion piece by Andre Aciman, which recounted the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, five are overwhelmingly supportive. A Moroccan and a Libyan Jew as well as an Armenian Christian confirm the horror endured by non-Muslim, non-Arab people in the last several decades in Muslim lands.

Letter-writers make several important points:

• “Vibrant Christian communities, including Armenians and Greeks, also suffered from discrimination in Arab countries, leading many to flee. A paucity of cultural diversity has arguably contributed to the Arab radicalism seen today,” writes Stephan Pechdimaldji.
• “Israel always welcomed Jewish refugees into its society. In stark contrast, Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps throughout the Arab world, pawns in the long battle with Israel,” writes Edwin Andrews.
• “One cannot forget that nearly half the population of Israel is made up of refugees from Arab countries and their descendants,” write Vivienne Roumani-Denn
and Maurice Roumani.

Why is Israel "Wary"?

"U.S. Envoy Reassures and Presses a Wary Israel"
A14, Wednesday 6/10/09
By Isabel Kershner

If Obama’s current Mideast peace push is making Israel "wary," Times readers may find it difficult to understand the real reasons why.

Summarizing the U.S.-Israel dispute over settlements, Kershner accurately cites the U.S. position as “an unequivocal halt to all settlement activity”. She then imprecisely cites the Israeli position as “no new settlements, but building within existing ones should be allowed.”

In actuality, the Israeli position speaks of continued building within existing settlement blocs, not simply in existing settlements. The distinction is key since it has been widely agreed – by the U.S. and even by the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that these blocs will be kept by Israel in any future agreement. There are many existing settlements, outside Israel’s West Bank barrier, in which the Israeli government does not plan to build.

Kershner further makes the Israeli position seem hawkish by needlessly stating that it comes from Israel’s “hawkish” prime minister. Several paragraphs later she correctly fashions the Israeli position on settlements as one of consensus:

“While the Israeli leadership does not speak in one voice on all issues, there has been a certain uniformity regarding the settlements.”

Kershner states that Mitchell’s reference to Israel as a Jewish state was a “nod to Netanyahu, who says that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is essential for any peace deal.”

Stating this is "a nod to Netanyahu" diminishes the importance of this fundamental requirement for peace. The refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not simply a PA tactic to keep alive the right of return, as Kershner posits, but one to deny the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, thereby perpetuating the conflict.

Recently commenting on this Palestinian position, cabinet minister Moshe Ya’alon stated that “in the (Palestinian) view, one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well.”

Kershner writes of the Palestinian refusal: they say “it would contradict the Palestinian refugees’ demand for a right of return and that it is detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens”.

First, it is widely understood that the right of return is anathema to the two-state vision; Second, the PA recently, and again, retracted its offer to accept Jewish citizens in a new Palestinian state, rendering hollow their concern for minority rights in Israel. While Kershner was fair in citing the Palestinian position, she should have reported on how that position measures up to reality.

Revealingly, reference to the deep PA-Hamas rift – considered almost an afterthought – is left for the article’s end. Juxtaposed next to the President’s recent call for a Palestinian state within two years (unreported), this reality would make all the more understandable Israel’s wariness of, and Netanyahu’s reluctance to publicly endorse, a Palestinian state.

NYT Publishes Opinion Critical of the President

"The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention"; By Andre Aciman; A27


Andre Aciman pens an incisive critique of President Obama’s speech, which has been almost exclusively lauded in the American media. In doing so, Aciman also brings attention to the forgotten refugees, the Jews of Muslim lands who have been expelled since the advent of Israel.

As to why the President omitted these particular Jews’ plight, Aciman offers readers three possibilities: “[Barack Obama] either forgot, or just didn’t know, or just thought it wasn’t expedient or appropriate for this venue.”

The writer’s focus is on the Egyptian Jews, but a larger inference can be drawn from his writing about the Conflict. One of the factors that perpetuate it is the collective effort to forget crimes perpetrated against Jews by Muslims.

“It is a shame that [Obama] did not remind the Egyptians in the audience of [the expulsion and looting of Jews], because...their memory banks have been conveniently expunged of deadweight and guilt. They have no recollections of Jews.”

In part, as a result of this amnesia, Israel's peace with Egypt is cold and much of Hamas’ weaponry in Gaza comes through Egyptian territory.

Tough Love for Israel Has Arrived

"Israel's Premier Promises Major Peace Plan"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's refusal to "respect understandings" reached between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former President George W Bush under the 2003 Road Map is not a sign of goodwill. These "understandings" are connected to Jewish communities on the Jordan River's west bank, or settlements, and the issue of natural growth.

Rather than regard Clinton's inflexibility toward an American ally as uncharacteristic, Isabel Kershner treats it matter-of-factly, as this is the tough love toward the Jewish state for which she and others at NYT have been waiting.