by Ethan Bronner
http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/tzipi_thurs,_9_18.html
Abes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
2. Journalistic Devices
He-Said, She-Said Journalism Moral Equivalence, Equivalence of Responsibility The Last Word
Methodology
What is methodology?
1. Narrative Falsehoods
Fatah's Immoderacy Settlements are THE Impediment to Peace The ONUS is on Israel Responsibility for Palestinian Extremism There is no military solution Multiple Narrative Views Terrorism
2. Journalistic Devices
Labels
- Non-News (1)
Twitter Updates
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(163)
-
▼
September
(24)
- Mining for the Truth
- Morally Equivalent Manichaeism
- A Tragedy Requires Greatness
- A Developing Danger
- Removing the Agency from the Actor
- Girl Power!
- The Ayatollah Did Decree
- Israelis and Israel are One
- Jenin the Ruin
- Hilary's Disgrace
- Extreme Anti-Jewish Feelings in Predominantly Mus...
- Unhawkish Livni Prevails
- Judging the Status Quo
- Hamas: Protector of the People, Imposer of Order
- West Bank Violence
- NYT Does Not Challenge Bedrock Convictions Against...
- Digging Deeper: Discovering the Truth of Palestini...
- Wither Olmert, Wither the Peace Process?
- If Gazans Watch "Friends," Then They Can Surely be...
- Of All the Reasons to Arm the Palestinian Authority
- Israeli Elections Are Not an Impediment to Peace
- Wilfull Misinterpretation: Israel's Warning to Leb...
- The Bi-National Bogeyman
- Framing the Failure of Annapolis: Israel's Leadership
-
▼
September
(24)
Overall, the article is quite informative regarding the results of the election and Livni's upcoming challenge of building a coalition.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the use of the term hawkish is problematic and deserves deeper discussion.
In one sentence, Livni is described as "diplomatic" while Mofaz is "hawkish." Thus, the NYT sets up the opposition of these two terms, diplomatic being reasoned and hawkish being a visceral predilection to resort to armed conflict.
That is not a fair assessment of Mofaz or the Israeli public. Unfortunately, warfare is sometimes necessary and does not make an individual irrational.
It seems the NYT is of the mind that warfare is almost never necessary, particularly in relation to Israel.
According to this mindset, it is understandable that Palestinians resort to violence (while it is quite irrational) while Israel is lambasted as irrational for resorting to calculated military activity in self-defense (which is quite rational).
Are we living in a bizarro world?