"Israeli Party Leader Seeks Early Elections"
A6, Sunday 10/26/08
By Ethan Bronner
This factual article details Kadima's Tzipi Livni's decision to call for early elections. The decision is scheduled to be formally announced at the residence of Israel's President, Shimon Peres, on Sunday afternoon. Over the past few weeks, Livni has been attempting to put together a new governmental coalition following Prime Minister Olmert's resignation. One of her main impetuses for deciding to call for elections has been her inability to bring the ultra-orthodox Sephardic Shas party into the coalition, which has the third-most parliamentary seats (tied with Likud).
Comically enough, the New York Times still entertains the thoroughly absurd notion that "the move to elections effectively ends any slim hope that existed for a peace deal with the Palestinians before President Bush leaves office in January." Pray tell, how is an Israeli-Palestinian peace within reach whilst Hamas continues to control Gaza!? This is just one of the inconvenient facts that makes the possibility of establishing peace in the near future seem quite futile.
At the end of the article, the author provides a brief overview of the three main candidates for Israeli Prime Minister in these coming elections: Livni (Kadima), Ehud Barak (Labor), and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). Per usual, the NYT uses the buzz-word "hawkish" to describe Netanyahu without providing any substance to back up that point.
Lastly, it would have been interesting if Bronner delved into why Shas refused to join the coalition - principally demands for increasing child welfare payments. Livni was quoted as telling her advisers, "I'm sick of this extortion." So are we all.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A few typos:
ReplyDelete- One "of" (not "on") her main impetuses
- Sephardic should be capital
Agree that if NYT brings up the slimming of peace deal hopes, it should at least mention the slim hopes with Hamas in Gaza.
Glad you noted the robotic labeling of Netanyahu as a hawk. I'd bet they'd respond in their defense: Israeli media itself refers to him that way. Our response: pretend your readers aren't as informed about Israel as Israelis and just explain why he's viewed as, or why you view him as, a hawk.
Also a good job in taking Bronner to task for not exploring the "why".