- "Gaza War Role Is Political Lift For Ex-Premier"; By Ethan Bronner; A1, A10
- "Israelis Honor Fallen Soldiers, While Seeing the Gaza Campaign as Justified"; By Isabel Kershner; A10
- "Gazans Express Grief and Rage Outside U.N. School"; By Taghreed El-Khodary; A12
- "As Gaza Battle Goes On, Israel Is Set to Negotiate With Egypt on Cease-Fire"; By Steven Erlanger; A12
- "What You Don't Know About Gaza"; By Rashid Khalidi; A31
- "Fighting to Preserve a Myth"; By Gideon Lichfield; A31
- "The Gaza Boomerang"; By Nicholas D. Kristof; A31
Can I get an “Oy! Oy!”?
Rashid Khalidi solidified his reputation as a defamer of Israel - rather than a critic - and the editorial page offered a whole lot of point but no counterpoint today.
Gideon Lichfield argued that Israel’s goal in confronting Hamas is to “re-establish deterrence” but provided not one quote from any Israeli official to that effect. Every fair account published in the last thirteen days has stated that Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas’ ability to fire rockets into southern Israel, not “re-establish deterrence.” Lichfield came extremely close to advocating legitimizing Hamas, a recommendation the NYT editorial board has hinted at but never been senseless enough to state outright.
Nick Kristof provided readers with the awkward metaphor of a boomerang – are we in Australia? – to replace the cliché “cycle of violence” theorem; and he framed Israel’s rationale for blockading Gaza - “to make ordinary Palestinians suffer” – to strengthen the misperception of Israel as an oppressor. He concluded with a shout-out to Aaron David Miller’s diplomatic approach of “tough love” for Israel. Nick - Love, alone, will be good enough.
The news articles, however, were fairly good. Ethan Bronner reported on how Ehud Barak has won support for the Labor party through his performance as Defense Minister over the last two weeks.
Isabel Kershner, out of form, provided a captivating introduction to an article on Israel’s fallen soldiers. Her conversations with Israelis reveal that they are behind the government in its efforts to incapacitate Hamas. Lastly, her description of Sderot, which “has borne the brunt” of Hamas rocket fire, is on point.
Pleasantly surprising is Taghreed El-Khodary’s description of “Palestinian refugees and their descendants” (my italics), an obvious deviation from PA propaganda. El-Khodary reports on a sad episode – the death of innocents at a U.N. school – but rightly vindicates Israel, which declared that two Hamas operatives had fired from the school. She states, “Israel blames Hamas for civilian casualities, saying it knowingly endangers civilians by operating among them” and further substantiates Israel’s point by reporting that “[fighters] wear normal clothes.”
Even Steve Erlanger joined the fray with decent reporting. Israel said “it would end its assault if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel and ended the smuggling of weapons from Egypt,” he writes. Really, it is that simple.
He also explained how a resolution can be reached, highlighting the importance of preventing “new smuggling tunnels from being built under Egypt’s border with Gaza.”
Despite these successes, one outstanding error is made by Ethan Bronner in the news section. On the front page of the Paper of Record, he neglects key context in his account of the failure of Camp David 2000 and the initiation of the “violent Palestinian uprising” that followed. Yasir Arafat was responsible for both the failure and the “uprising.”
Gideon Lichfield argued that Israel’s goal in confronting Hamas is to “re-establish deterrence” but provided not one quote from any Israeli official to that effect. Every fair account published in the last thirteen days has stated that Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas’ ability to fire rockets into southern Israel, not “re-establish deterrence.” Lichfield came extremely close to advocating legitimizing Hamas, a recommendation the NYT editorial board has hinted at but never been senseless enough to state outright.
Nick Kristof provided readers with the awkward metaphor of a boomerang – are we in Australia? – to replace the cliché “cycle of violence” theorem; and he framed Israel’s rationale for blockading Gaza - “to make ordinary Palestinians suffer” – to strengthen the misperception of Israel as an oppressor. He concluded with a shout-out to Aaron David Miller’s diplomatic approach of “tough love” for Israel. Nick - Love, alone, will be good enough.
The news articles, however, were fairly good. Ethan Bronner reported on how Ehud Barak has won support for the Labor party through his performance as Defense Minister over the last two weeks.
Isabel Kershner, out of form, provided a captivating introduction to an article on Israel’s fallen soldiers. Her conversations with Israelis reveal that they are behind the government in its efforts to incapacitate Hamas. Lastly, her description of Sderot, which “has borne the brunt” of Hamas rocket fire, is on point.
Pleasantly surprising is Taghreed El-Khodary’s description of “Palestinian refugees and their descendants” (my italics), an obvious deviation from PA propaganda. El-Khodary reports on a sad episode – the death of innocents at a U.N. school – but rightly vindicates Israel, which declared that two Hamas operatives had fired from the school. She states, “Israel blames Hamas for civilian casualities, saying it knowingly endangers civilians by operating among them” and further substantiates Israel’s point by reporting that “[fighters] wear normal clothes.”
Even Steve Erlanger joined the fray with decent reporting. Israel said “it would end its assault if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel and ended the smuggling of weapons from Egypt,” he writes. Really, it is that simple.
He also explained how a resolution can be reached, highlighting the importance of preventing “new smuggling tunnels from being built under Egypt’s border with Gaza.”
Despite these successes, one outstanding error is made by Ethan Bronner in the news section. On the front page of the Paper of Record, he neglects key context in his account of the failure of Camp David 2000 and the initiation of the “violent Palestinian uprising” that followed. Yasir Arafat was responsible for both the failure and the “uprising.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment