Case Closed

"Israeli Army Ends Inquiry Into Soldiers' Accounts of Gaza Abuses"; By Isabel Kershner; A9

Since Friday, March 20, NYT has printed several articles about accusations of Israeli misconduct during the Gaza Offensive in January. 

After investigating the matter, Israel's advocate general stated that the incidents reported were unfounded. The supposed accounts "were based on hearsay." In other words, no one witnessed them. 

The man who leaked the stories to the press, Dany Zamir, unconvincingly claims that "it was not his intention to attract media attention." 

The article concludes with inconsistent Palestinian death totals for the Gaza Offensive from the Israeli Army and The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza. 

Isabel Kershner neglects to explain the discrepancy, as Ethan Bronner did on Saturday. 

Ignorance of the Holocaust

"Palestinians Condemn Concert For Survivors of the Holocaust"; By Isabel Kershner and Khaled Abu Aker; A8

The performance of teenage musicians from Jenin in Holon, Israel last Wednesday was "a shock and a surprise to the children and their relatives," according to Palestinian leader Adnan al-Hindi. Isabel Kershner, however, provides no independent statements from relatives to verify al-Hindi's claim. The reader, therefore, cannot know whether or not al-Hindi is propagandizing.

Although Kershner reports on the "widespread ignorance of the details of the Holocaust," she links that abominable fact to a piece of Palestinian propaganda. The reason for this ignorance, she writes, is "a feeling that Palestinians paid a price for" the Holocaust because Israel was established in its aftermath. 

Palestinian ignorance of the Holocaust is a stand alone issue and a reason why the Conflict continues.

IK offers readers a classic case of he-said, she-said in her description of the Jenin refugee camp, "the capital of suicide bombers to the Israelis and a symbol of resistance to the Palestinians." Her problematic representation is linked to NYT's refusal to define terrorism. 

The suggestion that suicide bombings earlier in the decade from Jenin were a form of "resistance" is a function of the relativism that pervades NYT reporting on Israel. 

Blaming Religion

"Israel Fights Accusations Of Abuses In Gaza War"; By Ethan Bronner; A4, A7

When sticking to the matter under investigation - the purported shooting of women in two separate instances - Ethan Bronner's reporting is professional. When he extrapolates on the matter and seeks to fit it under more general topics, the article suffers. 

Early reports from the investigation indicate that soldiers who claim the IDF shot innocent women had not witnessed such an account, EB writes. One would think that the article would end there, but extrapolations follow. 

Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 are not quite news, as EB links the unfounded accusations to civilian death counts, religion in the IDF, the use of military force, the nature of Hamas, an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, and the boycott of Gaza. NYT's laundry list of important issues is dumped on the reader.

Several paragraphs later, EB explores the discrepancy between Israeli and Palestinian civilian death counts. The Israeli numbers appear better substantiated. 

The conclusion of the article addresses the matter of religion in the army, echoing the cliche charge that religion fuels war. The statements of four Israelis, however, defend religious soldiers and refute the baseless accusation.

Great Readers

"Letters: Waiting for a New Step in the Mideast"; A20

All four of today's letters are critical of Friday's editorial and present an alternative vantage point for viewing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Several comments stand out for their astuteness.

Menachem Z Rosensaft, in counterdistinction to the skepticism of NYT's editorial board, sees promise in Netanyahu's statement that his government will be a "partner for peace." 

For the peace process to succeed, "it must have the support [those] most likely to distrust its very feasibility," Rosensaft sagely states.

Jessica Weber asks why NYT questions Netanyahu's commitment to peace rather than focusing on how Hamas is the obstacle to an agreement. "A rebuke of Hamas' unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist" is in order, she writes. 

NYT's "criteria [for Netanyahu] are the same cant that has been recycled for years," remarks Nathan J Diament. The editors "should be open to new thinking," he advises.

Finally, Tom Rockland says that all Israeli leaders want peace, but some, like Netanyahu, are skeptical that "peace is attainable" because no Palestinian partner exists. 

Once again, NYT readers demonstrate that they are more reasonable than the paper's editors.

A Dictator Says

"Officers Charged in Synagogue Attack"; AP; A8

An article not written by an NYT reporter seeks to solidify the false barrier between anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism:

"Mr. Chávez, who condemned the synagogue attack, has repeatedly said he simply opposes Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and holds nothing against the Jewish people."

Nowhere has the link between vitriolic anti-Israel statements and anti-Semitic attacks on Jews been more obvious than in Caracas. AP should have quoted someone to counter Chavez's statement, rather than allow the dictator an authoritative voice.

Israeli Intelligence

"U.S. Officials Say Israel Struk in Sudan"; By Michael R Gordon and Jeffrey Gettleman; A7

A fair account of a likely Israeli strike in Sudan leads to a simultaneously troubling and heartening conclusion: the Sudanese government is incompetent and vulnerable. Two months after an attack, it has almost figured out what transpired.

Sudan's inability to quickly comprehend the strike suggests that the international community could intervene successfully in Darfur if it possessed the proper will.

The fairness with which Gordon and Gettleman treat Israel is evidenced by a statement and an enumeration of Israel's intelligence successes.

In the second paragraph G&G note that the attack was consistent "with other measures Israel had taken to secure its borders." Viewing the attack as an act of self-defense exhibits justness.

In the third to last paragraph, G&G provide a litany of instances in which Israeli intelligence enabled it to successfully defuse threats from abroad.

Editorialist Petulance

"Being a Partner for Peace"; Editorial; A28

In an editorial that is loaded like a gun, the dislike is palpable and the tone petulant. 

The fifth and sixth paragraphs are essentially a list of demands regarding settlements, roadblocks, demolitions, the blockade, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Iran.

The most surprising, and warped, demand calls upon Benjamin Netanyahu to "allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians." 

To suggest that the Israeli government is in a position to "allow," or to prevent the American government from acting is strange and even conspiratorial. 

A Failed Comparison

"Palestinians Serenade Survivors In Israel"; By Isabel Kershner; A10

Isabel Kershner mars an otherwise touching account of an encounter between Holocaust survivors and Palestinian musicians with an offensive equivalence. 

Describing the encounter between the two groups, IK writes,

"Each appeared to have only the sketchiest knowledge about the other side." 

The Israeli Holocaust survivor says she is familiar with Jenin, the city from which the musicians come, because it was a center of the suicide bombing campaign conducted earlier in the decade. When asked about the Shoah, a Palestinian musician "looked blank. He knew only that these people lived alone as children because their parents had been killed."

The survivor's slight knowledge of the musician's city, Jenin, is hardly analogous to the musician's ignorance of an historical tragedy as great as the Holocaust. To suggest otherwise demonstrates skewed reasoning and emotional distortion. 

Not Just Rightists

"Netanyahu Adds Labor To Coalition In Israel"; By Isabel Kershner; A8

Labor's decision to join Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition is a remarkable turn of events that demonstrates the strength of Israeli society in the face of great danger emanating from Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Isabel Kershner writes that the decision eliminates the prospect of a "hawkish" government of right-wing parties. Since she never uses the word dovish to describe Israeli political parties such as Meretz, her terminology betrays her prejudice. 

IK also uses an odd term to describe those who marched through the town of Umm al-Fahm in northern Israel on Tuesday. They are "far-rightists." Not just rightists, mind you, but far-rightists. Viewing the event objectively, stripped of this pejorative term, one can hardly understand how a non-violent march casts one as an authoritarian extremist, as "far-rightist" implies.

A Limited Picture

"Netanyahu's Party Tries to Enlist Labor"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Today, Isabel Kershner sustains the howl about “Israeli Army misconduct during the recent military offensive in Gaza," citing two reports submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) yesterday.

She neglects, however, to mention HRC’s record of anti-Israel bias. Furthermore, one of the reports was submitted by Richard Falk, a United Nations special rapporteur and a notorious defamer of the Jewish state. Yet IK conceals Falk’s record of offensive remarks and actions.

Fortunately the discussion inside Israel about the allegations, which have arisen, in a more moderate form from within the state, evidences reason and concern. Chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said, “Isolated cases, if found to have taken place, will be dealt with individually.”

Finding His Purpose

"A Religious War in Israel's Army"; By Ethan Bronner; WK1

Conflict in Israeli society garners front page of the Week in Review, perpetuating NYT's reputation for giving Israel bad press. 

Moreover, Ethan Bronner has finally found his purpose for reporting on the collection of testimonies that were leaked to the press last week about the conduct of certain Israeli soldiers during January's Gaza Offensive: Right-wing religious leaders caused the misconduct of a number of Israeli soldiers. 

In rather understated language, EB describes the "war in Israel's army." When depicting the real, and often violent, conflict between Fatah and Hamas, Bronner characterizes it as "splintering," but the disagreement between religious and secular in Israel is a "war."

On his third day of reporting on the testimonies, EB reveals key biographical information about the man, Dany Zamir, who leaked the testimonies to the press. Zamir "was sentenced to prison for refusing to guard a ceremony involving religious Jews visiting the West Bank city of Nablus."

In a classically equivocal statement, EB writes, "For some, that refusal is a badge of honor; for others it is an act of insubordination and treason." Even those who consider it "a badge of honor" recognize that it is also "an act of insubordination." 

My impression is that the center in Israeli society considers such an action extremist, just as it regards the non-participation of soldiers in the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza.

Self-Reliance

"Letters: Israel's Actions, and Its Place in the World"; A20

Rita Cohn's letter is well-argued, but its publication alongside the letter of Peter J Purdy diminishes the impact it should have. The editors wanted to publish one really pro-Israel letter and one really pro-Palestinian letter for the sake of the ever-sought-after objective of balance. The really pro-Palestinian letter, however, is inferior to the really pro-Israel letter, not because of its argument, but because it barely addresses the article and is, in fact, a rant. The uninformed reader, however, may be fooled into thinking that the letters are the same, though they represent different sides.

Purdy's letter is largely about his experience observing checkpoints, which is not the topic of the article to which he responds. In fact, the article is barely addressed, which should not be the case for a letter to the editor.

Purdy calls upon readers to "set aside the historical data of Israel's creation," a veiled way of suggesting that the only reason for a Jewish state is the Holocaust. This understanding of the origins of Israel is standard fare at NYT but does not conform to historical reality.

Fortunately, Cohn's call for self-reliance is being heard by more Jews each day.

Deciding to Investigate

"Israeli Accounts Allege Loose Rules of Engagement in Gaza"; By Ethan Bronner; A6

In what is a continuation of yesterday's article, "Accounts of Gaza Killings Raise Furor in Israel," Ethan Bronner pursues the release of a series of testimonies by Israeli soldiers about their conduct during January's Gaza offensive. Although no evidence exists of systematic abuse, NYT is eager to report any information that will cast a pall over Israel's decision to enter Gaza to fight Hamas. 

The most important part of the article is reportage about the military advocate general's decision to investigate the allegations. This decision is what makes Israel unique. No matter how limited the infraction, Israel willingly examines its own conduct for the sake of improving it. 

Unconvincing Inconclusiveness

"In Village, Palestinians Face Gas With Rocks"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

The beginning of a report about a confrontation between the IDF and Palestinians in the village of Nilin casts Israeli soldiers as hunters stalking prey: "Camouflaged among the olive trees...they were waiting for the village youths to arrive."

The offensive characterization is followed by counterclaims from the IDF and Palestinian protesters regarding the latter's adherence to non-violence. The reader is eager to discover who the journalist will expose as the liar through her investigation.

In the meantime, Isabel Kershner presents a skeptical account of the purpose and success of the security barrier, despite evidence that testifies to its effectiveness in preventing suicide bombings. She offers one of her classic he said, she said accounts:

"Israel started building the separation barrier in 2002, saying that it was necessary to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities...The [Palestinian] villagers and their supporters are convinced that this barrier is not about security, but about the Israeli occupation and appetite for land." 

Returning to the issue of who initiates the confrontation between the IDF and Palestinians, IK concludes weakly and anti-climactically on what she observed:

"The crowd quickly dispersed; it was hard to determine whether the protesters started throwing stones or whether the Israeli forces waiting for them opened fire first." 

IK's inconclusiveness is unconvincing.

United Jerusalem

"Mayor's Vision of a Unified Jerusalem Also Divides"; By Ethan Bronner; A7

In an article about Jerusalem, Ethan Bronner neglects to mention the Jerusalem Law of 1980, by which the Knesset annexed the eastern portion of the city. Inserting this crucial fact might cast Mayor Nir Barkat’s vision for Jerusalem in a less negative light than that cast by the reporter. In addition, Bronner does not independently investigate a matter, preferring to present Palestinian advocates’ of a position as if it were definitive.

EB acknowledges that Arab residents of east Jerusalem build illegally but then offers their own justification without determining its veracity. Arab residents say that “Israel almost never grants them legal permits.” The reporter’s job is to investigate the matter so that readers may know where responsibility lies in this dispute.

As reported, Palestinians say that Barkat’s vision of encouraging Jewish residence in east Jerusalem “could end any prospect for a two-state solution.” Such a fatalistic statement demands explanation, but none is forthcoming from the Palestinians or anyone else. Advocates for a Palestinian state must answer one question, above all, Why is the presence of Jews in a Palestinian state anathema? In other words, Why would a Jewish presence in east Jerusalem derail a two state solution? No reasonable answer can be proffered.

Reiterating the Accusation

"Accounts of Gaza Killings Raise Furor in Israel"; By Ethan Bronner; A1; A9

To his credit, Ethan Bronner pits the casualty count of the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights against the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel for the January Gaza Offensive. The count of the Institute appears to be more accurate.

The topic of the article is a collection of testimonies by soldiers from the recent war, in which they admit misconduct and to tie it to the ethos of the Israeli army. Ethan Bronner quotes Professor Moshe Habertal an author of  the IDF's code of military ethics and a company commander, who offer a countervailing perspective to the testimonies. 

Bronner's report ends strangely with a quote that, at once, sustains the testimonies about civilian deaths while undermining the generality the testifiers attempt to convey about IDF conduct. 

"The army believes that a weak spot of Israeli deterrence is its strong commitment not to kill civilians, and there has grown the sense that it might have to temporarily overcome that weakness in order to restore deterrence," says Professor Yaron Ezrahi.

Thus, the matter of "wanton killing," about which EB promises to report in his introductory paragraph, retains its media life but remains unverified. The effect: Israel receives the bad press that allows its international isolation to continue, but NYT stops short of reporting untruths.

The First Word

"10 Hamas Leaders Arrested By Israel in the West Bank"; By Isabel Kershner; A9

In the introductory paragraph of her article, Isabel Kershner permits Hamas to opine on the IDF's decision to arrest 10 of its leaders Wednesday, an opportunity that it unsurprisingly exploits to propagandize against Israel. 

The arrests were "an attempt to put pressure on the organization after the collapse of negotiations for the release of a captive Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit," Hamas said. 

Although IK allows for the Israeli military to explain the reason for the arrests, she returns to Hamas later in the article, quoting it directly. The statement adds nothing new, but it does reinforce Hamas' message for the reader.

Un-benign Neglect

"Israel Confronts Deeper Isolation In Gaza's Wake"; By Ethan Bronner; A1, A9

Ethan Bronner gives voice to the view that the Gaza Offensive has increased Israel’s diplomatic isolation, but he fails to credit other factors, which, though they arise within his article, are not given adequate attention. The reason for this neglect may be that NYT's unstated goal ofin undermining any military action Israel takes to weaken Hamas.

As noted in the article, Mauritania closed down its embassy two weeks ago, and Turkey has spoken nastily about Israel’s Gaza Offensive. Yet, both of these countries are motivated by their own internal dynamics, as their governments have become increasingly Islamic recently. In a World Briefing on March 7, Isabel Kershner noted that Mauritania has moved closer to Iran of late after a military junta.

The Turkish government shut down two political parties to which the current Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan belonged, first in 1997 and again in 2001, because of their anti-secular, pro-Islamic views.

Another reason that Israel may be feeling isolated, Bronner suggests, is the strong electoral showings of Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, whose successes are independent of the Gaza Offensive. This factor deserves exploration, but one of the consistent weaknesses of Bronner's reporting is his unwillingness to engage Israelis-on-the-street, who supported the Gaza Offensive overwhelmingly and elected a right of center government.

Bronner allows one note of pro-Israel advocacy - from Professor Eytan Gilboa at Bar-Ilan - into his article. “Even suicide bombings by Palestinians are seen as our fault for not establishing a Palestinian state," he says.

To minimize the impact of Gilboa's wry, telling remark, the following paragraph is a litany of complaint from “Israel’s critics” who most generously “support the existence of a Jewish state.”

One Life

"Olmert Rejects Hamas Demands for Soldier"; By Isabel Kershner; A10

Although the continued captivity of Gilad Shalit is sad, it exposes a beautiful facet about Israeli society.  The Israeli Defense Forces is a people's army, made up of the sons and daughters of the majority of families in Israel. As a result, the pain of one family is felt by all. 

The Israelis offered to release 320 prisoners for one soldier, demonstrating the value Israel places on one person and the cheapness with which human beings.

Imagine, the families of those 320 men appealing publicly to Hamas leaders for their release. It is a fantasy.  

Both her sympathies and sense of reason come through in Isabel Kershner's upsetting, but well done, report on Hamas' rejection of an exchange. 

Isabel the Dove

"Forming Coalition, Netanyahu Agrees to Make Nationalist Leader Foreign Minister"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

A title is meant to capture the reader's attention but not at the expense of misleading him. Too often, the title of an article about Israel does not match the content. 

In the latter half of Isabel Kershner's report, the reader learns that "should Kadima join" the coalition "the job of foreign minister would probably be reassigned." Thus, the agreement between Likud and Yisrael Beitenu does not have the permanent quality that the title suggests.

Unsurprisingly, Kershner portrays Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beitenu, in the least sympathetic light possible. Although his proposal of a loyalty oath is controversial, Kershner neglects to mention the frequent traitorous actions and statements of Arab MKs, which provoked it. 

Regarding the matter of unfair portrayals, Kershner refers to the future Likud-led government as "hawkish." Unless she is willing to describe other parties, such as Meretz, as dovish, the use of the word hawkish constitutes a clear bias.

Cohen - A Joke or A Danger

"Iran, Jews, and Pragmatism"; Roger Cohen; A23

Roger Cohen is in pursuit of The Most Irresponsible Columnist award. His take on Iran, its Jewish population, and its pursuit of a nuclear weapon hews close enough to reality to avoid being labeled delusional but constitute more an exercise in fantasizing than critical analysis. 

Cohen relates a meeting he had with Iranian Jews, who were furious with him for minimizing the threat of Iran to Israel and for overstating how comfortable life for Jews is in the Islamic Republic. 

He prints the statements of several and then departs from the meeting to opine about "the hawks' [whose] case against Iran depends on a vision of an apocalyptic regime." This transition is so quick that the reader is inclined to just move along with him. But the problem here is that he seeks to blend the testimony of Iranian Jews into the viewpoint of "the hawks." Although there may be overlap between the two groups, this merger is a tactical move by Cohen to dismiss the views of the former group. 

Roadblock Removal Leads to Killings

"2 Israeli Officers Killed in Attack In West Bank"; By Isabel Kershner; A10

Isabel Kershner reports that "Israeli security officials said they were treating the killings as a probable nationalist attack by Palestinians." I am doubtful that Israeli security officials described these killings as a "nationalist attack." They more likely described it as a terrorist attack, but Kershner took the liberty to call it a nationalist attack. An article in the Israeli press confirms that those responsible for the killings were part of a terrorist group called Imad Mughniyeh.

To Kershner's credit, she links Imad Mughniyeh's attack to the Israeli Defense Force's easing of travel restrictions for Palestinians around Nablus, a fact that strengthens Israel's position as administrator of these territories.

Playing Down Anti-Semitism

"Readings And Talks For Pro-Gaza Playlet"; By Patrick Healy; C2

The concern about Caryl Churchill's play is that it is anti-Semitic, yet the only shortcoming that Healy presents to readers is the "incendiary comments about Palestinians...with one character saying, 'I wouldn't care if we wiped them out.'" Such a genocidal remark, attributed to a Jewish character, actually reflects more negatively on Jews than Palestinians, undermining Patrick Healy's forced point. 

Moreover, Healy writes vaguely about the play's topic. It is about a how a Jewish family views "violence affecting them, from the Holocaust to the Palestinian uprisings and the Israeli military campaign in Gaza this winter." 

"How to view violence affecting them" seems to suggest violence against them, but Healy's usage leaves the matter unclear. In short, Healy's report is murky in order to deemphasize the play's offensive portrayal of Jews.  

A Dismissive Account

"Allies' Clocks Tick Differently on Iran"; By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad; WK 1, 4

William J Broad's article in the Week in Review depicts Israel as panicky and overreactive and the United States as a kind of Cool Hand Luke.

This view is fed by Adm. Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence in the Obama administration, who said before a Congressional committee last week that Israelis "take more of a worst-case approach to these things." Picking up on Blair's point, Broad states, "The nuclear-threat clock ticks a lot faster in Jerusalem than in Washington."

Later on, he writes that Israelis "draw...a dire scenario" about Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. 

Broad's account is replete with ranges. Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb in two to three months, say some experts. Others "put the figure between 9 and 36 months." Others still say that Iran won't have enough until 2015. 

Two weakness stand out in Broad's article. First, he states that both American and Israeli officials spoke out last week in response to a United Nations' report on Iran's progress toward nuclear capability, but Israel likely has internal reports through its own intelligence off of which it bases its view. 

Secondly, Broad neglects to mention Israel's history of success in identifying potential nuclear threats before the international community is even aware of them, namely the Osirak reactor in Iraq and a recently bombed reactor site in Syria. In short, Israeli intelligence has proven to be reliable. 

Letting Sadat Off Easy

"The War Widow"; Interview by Deborah Solomon; MM13

Only so much can be dealt with in a Deborah Solomon interview, given the lack of space. Nonetheless, some criticism can be leveled at this week's "Questions for Jehan Sadat."

Solomon asks an excellent question "Why can't the Palestinians, your fellow Muslims, be part of your country?", to which Sadat responds rigidly, myopically. Solomon should have followed it up.

Secondly, Sadat gives Solomon an opening to talk about the status of women in the Middle East. "From time to time, I teach a class about the status of women in the Middle East, mainly in Egypt," she says. Solomon, however, is too concerned about checking off items on her “progressive” checklist to focus in on the matter. Instead, she quickly moves to the issue of homosexuality and Islam.

The most obvious problem with the interview is how Solomon leads and Sadat follows in linking the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, which Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Jehan's deceased husband, forged in the late seventies, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

"How do you feel when you read the headlines these days," asks Solomon. 

Sadat responds, "Sometimes it's very painful for me...[My husband] paid his life for [the peace treaty], and every day there are either Palestinians sending rockets to Israel or Israelis invading Gaza." 

To be sure, Anwar Sadat was assassinated because he signed an Egyptian-Israeli agreement, not an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. 

What Solomon should have asked Jehan Sadat about is why the Egyptian-Israeli peace has been so cold. Assuredly, she would have blamed Israel for the lack of warmth, but at least, such a question would be within her purview.

Vilification of Israel

"American Injured in Clash at Israeli Barrier"; By Ethan Bronner; A7

Ethan Bronner reports that the "Palestinian-led" International Solidarity Movement (ISM) protested "the extension of Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank" on Friday. ISM was “protesting the extension of Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank.” 

Yet, Bronner provides no details on the extension of the barrier - where it had been, where it was going, and, most crucially, why it was being moved.  

As the article reveals, ISM has a fundamental motivation for its actions, which has nothing to do with barrier extensions. It “opposes Israel’s occuption of the West Bank" and "leads demonstrations against the barrier every Friday at several West Bank locations.”

The reader wonders whether ISM is protesting:

1. "The occupation"
2. The barrier
3. The extension of the barrier

Based on Bronner's report any - or even all - three may be the target. The real mission of ISM demonstrations appears to be the vilification of Israel. 

A First Rate Anti-American Polemicist

"The Bad Old Days"; By James Traub; BR6

James Traub twice encourages President Barack Obama to read Rashid Khalidi's Sowing Crisis in "The Bad Old..." The recommendation, however, does not match up with his review, the better part of which is dedicated to addressing a matter to which Khalidi gives scant attention.

Khalidi censures American foreign policy toward the Middle East, arguing, in Traub's words, that "the Bush administration's interventionist posture...is no mere post-9/11 aberration, but represents an especially bellicose expression of a longstanding campaign." 

The more interesting question, however, which Traub investigates toward the end of his review, is "whether Arab failure is, at bottom, a consequence of [US] behavior." 

Despite the note of praise for Sowing Crisis implicit in recommending the book to President Obama, one can hardly come away from Traub's review with a positive impression of Khalidi. Why the reviewer chose to dissemble his criticism evidences the mistakenly charitable manner with which others deal with Khalidi as a scholar. 

After all, as the review concedes, the scholarship is weak and the style, polemical.

The "Bad Old..." succeeds when it serves as a platform for Traub’s reasonable views on why the Arab world is impoverished. He writes, “the experiences of colonialism and of the cold war have left much of the Arab world with the deeply ingrained habit of blaming its problems on outsiders.” 

President Obama should read the book “to be reminded how very hard it is to make progress in a region where memories are long, and practically everything is blamed on the United States (or Israel).” This knowledge, however, will not be gained through this book, for it is Traub’s view, not Khalidi's.

In fact, it seems that Sowing Crisis will emphasize exactly the opposite – that every failure in the Middle East should be blamed on the United States.

Unsuccessful Nominee

"Letters: The Case of the Derailed Nominee;" A20

Of the five letters appearing in today's paper about Charles W Freeman Jr.'s withdrawal of his candidacy from a top intelligence post, three expressed disappointment about Freeman's decision, and one, the fifth, was informed. 

MJ Rosenberg suffers from the same lack of comprehension that Jon Stuart Leibowitz does. For a government official to be critical of his own government is healthy and normal but to be critical of another country, of which one is not a citizen, can be recognized as hostility. 

The two other negative letters were cliche, betraying a lack of information on the part of the writers. Hanan Watson plays the familiar "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism" refrain, and Michael Scott calls Freeman pro-Palestinian when, in truth, the view he represents is actually that of the Saudi Monarch. 

The one letter that was unabashedly positive about Freeman's withdrawal, by David Harris, was well-written. Harris rehashed the multiplicity of reasons why Freeman was not the right man for the job. 

Freeman Pick Not Just "Controversial"

"Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post"
A1, Thursday, 3/12/09,
By Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper

Played up are Freeman’s more tepid comments about Israel, as well as the response to his prospective appointment of several pro-Israel elements. Played down, or omitted, are Freeman’s more inane comments about Israel and the “Israel lobby,” others [outside of pro-Israel] opposed to Freeman’s appointment, and critical details from Freeman’s resume.

Chas Freeman is not just a couple of cutting comments on Israel. He was the wrong choice for a position in intelligence upon which the leader of the free world relies. Questions unasked are: What was Blair’s motivation in selecting Freeman? What was the administration’s role? Who dropped the ball on this one?

Instead of an appraisal of the Freeman selection, this article provides a platform for him, and “some of his defenders” to take down the bogeyman lobby. They seem to be on trial here, not Freeman.

"Controversial” and “an unnecessary distraction” were what some in the White House thought about Freeman. But is why Freeman is unqualified?

Freeman’s many Israel comments are surely controversial, but they’re also inane, and provide a window into Mr. Freeman’s distorted and unhelpful views on Israel and the conflict. That this is what did Freeman in isn’t entertained here.

Today’s editorial in the Washington Post makes several important points left out of this article.

The editorial’s sub-head notes, it’s the Obama administration’s “latest failed nominee,” yet this obvious angle wasn’t broached in the Times article.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was “incensed by (Freeman’s) position on dissent in China”. Her name, as well as the names of “numerous members of Congress” critical of Freeman were absent from the Times article.

Freeman’s more hysterical sounding words from his announcement yesterday were also absent. Freeman described himself as the victim of the Israel lobby, whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency.”

The article plays up the fact that some in the pro-Israel community are openly critical of Obama’s Israel policies and states that “Mr. Freeman had the potential to touch a nerve.” As evidence, readers are told of Obama’s supposed “distancing” from Zbigniew Brzezinski during last year’s campaign, after “complaints from some pro-Israel groups”.

Readers are told of Freeman heading the Middle East Policy Council, without being informed that this group was Saudi-funded.

There’s some positive here, as in Schumer’s comment that Freeman showed an “irrational hatred of Israel,” and in the idea that Freeman’s views on Israel “reflected bias that could not be tolerated in someone who…would have overseen what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the president.

One would think all of these issues regarding Freeman transcend his hostility to Israel, but this article isn’t even framed around Freeman’s hostility to Israel. It’s framed around the hostility to his hostility – Freeman’s “derailing”.

The article’s title reflects this the most. Whereas the title cites “Israel’s stance” as Freeman’s undoing, it could’ve also cited “conflicts of interest” or "contentious positions". Furthermore, Freeman’s withdrawal could’ve easily been placed in the larger context of another Obama appointment misstep.

Instead, it's all about the lobby.

Psychologists For Gaza's Kids

"An Israeli Playground, Fortified Against Rockets"
A9, Thursday, 3/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner

In its continued coverage of Sderot, the Times again fails to grasp Israel’s impossible situation.

Israel went to war in late December to put an end to the rockets, and though it pummeled Gaza for three weeks, killing some 1,300 people and destroying hundreds of buildings, the rockets have not stopped.”

Israel must not be doing something right.

"Hamas says" the economic siege is the "main motive" for the rockets. Okay, but what about all those rockets before the siege? Rockets beget siege, but that's not pointed out here.

It’s interesting that Hamas tries to “persuade” Israel and the world to end the siege by…firing more rockets. For Hamas, blowing up a kindergarten must be its own version of aggressive diplomacy.

While Israel and the world balk at Hamas’ outstretched hand, Gaza’s children face another problem from war. They’re armed for perpetual conflict by a self-destructive militaristic polity. Not according to Unicef, which feels they don’t have enough psychologists – not like in Israel.

A revealing, and what should’ve been an obvious contrast, could’ve been made between Israel's and Gaza's concept of shelter. Can't Hamas fortify bomb shelters the way Israel has? It's perhaps fortunate that question was not posed, lest Israel's blockade be blamed for Hamas' disregard for human life.

European Psyche

"Israel: Court Blocks Rights Activist From Traveling"; World Briefing from AP; A12

Perhaps to undermine the Israeli Supreme court's decision, a report in the World Briefing did not mention the name of the "militant group" that Shawan Jabarin, director of Al-Haq, was a member. It was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the former Palestine Liberation Organization.

The award Jabarin received, the Geuzen Medal, is named after a World War II Dutch resistance group. That a member of the PLO could receive a medal connected to resistance against the Nazis speaks to the complex and distorted psyche of some Europeans.

Hamas Demands, Israel "Balks"

"As Olmert’s Time in Office Nears End, Captive Soldier’s Saga Gains Urgency"
A6, Monday, 3/9/09,
By Isabel Kershner

The lone bright spot is Kershner balancing the desire of Schalit’s family, and their supporters, with what a large part of Israel thinks. “People here also remember the names of youths who were blown up on buses by terrorists, and they are debating the morality of releasing those convicted of such attacks in exchange for Corporal Shalit, part of a list of prisoners Hamas wants freed.”

Still, is it the high number on that list, or is one prisoner, a killer, too much? Where is this question? Almost worse, readers don’t even know how many prisoners Hamas has demanded.

Kershner quotes Yossi Mendellevich, who “argues that Israel has not fully examined other options for freeing Corporal Shalit.” Was he asked about these other options? Either way, this point should have been examined.

That the Red Cross hasn’t been allowed to see Schalit is a good point here, but one that hasn’t been pursued by the Times.

"With Israel balking at releasing all the prisoners on the Hamas list…”

"Balking" assumes either a violation, or some sort of deviation from what is to be expected.

Acceding to a Hamas demand about releasing throngs of dangerous terrorists into what should be a peaceful Palestinian society is not simply going through the motions. This is either a misuse of “balk” or a misreading of the situation.

What really should’ve been questioned are the possible effects of releasing over a thousand prisoners. Are these mass prisoner releases supposed to have a moderating effect on Palestinian society or negotiating positions? Have they? Analysts would've been eager to respond.

Fayyad Resigns to Spite

1. "Premier Quits To Help Unify Palestinians"; By Isabel Kershner; 6,12
   
2. "On Middle East Trip, Clinton Turns Up the Caution"; By Mark Landler; 10

To begin, a point of acclaim: Isabel Kershner reports on "the Western-backed Palestinian Authority." This description is more appropriate than the oft-written "moderate" or "more moderate Palestinian Authority."

On a critical note, one glaring question is left unasked in Kershner's "Premier Quits...," How will Salam Fayyad's resignation affect Palestinians, his constituency?

A senior adviser to the former prime minister told Kershner that Fayyad's resignation was an F You to Israel and the United States. Now, that is fine and good, but at the end of the day, Fayyad was the prime minister, the most empowered elected official in the Palestinian Authority. One would hope that he would be motivated by more than spite. His departure will likely hurt his constituency since he is a valued politician.

Independent of Fayyad's decision, Kershner's article has several weak points. She refers to Hamas as an "Islamic group" rather than a terrorist organization. In addition, she describes the PM's resignation "as a conciliatory gesture to Hamas." It could also be described as an act of submission, a backing down, given Hamas' proclivity to violence and aggression. 

Finally, she allows the aforementioned senior adviser to insert propaganda against Israel's policy regarding Jewish communities, or settlements, in disputed territory. NYT has a special distaste for these communities, and its reporters often highlight the trouble that they supposedly cause. 

Mark Landler's coverage of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's overseas diplomacy is a case in point. The third paragraph of "On Middle East Trip..." is about Clinton's response to questions about "Jewish settlements in the West Bank." 

Landler considered Clinton's comments rather mute and explains them as an effort not to "ruffle feathers among constituencies back home," which is a backhanded swipe at the American Jewish community. The possibility that Clinton is aware that incitement to violence and terrorism by Palestinians is more of an obstacle to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority than "Jewish settlements" is hardly broached.

The notion of "pressuring Israel" arises later in Landler's Diplomatic Memo, and its most infamous advocate, Aaron David Miller, receives his weekly allotment of space. (In this instance, he actually appears clumsy and flabbergasted.) 

Nowhere in the article is the prospect of pressuring Palestinians mentioned. 

Most reliably, NYT perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict through its overemphasis on settlements and underemphasis on incitement to violence.

Disputed Territory

"Desert's Sand and Rocks Become Precious Resources in West Bank Dispute"; By Ethan Bronner; A5

In what is intended to be an embarrassing expose of Israeli administration of the Jordan River's west bank, some positive elements come through.

"The land of the West Bank is, of course, disputed," reports Ethan Bronner. The casual manner in which he makes his remark is, at first, surprising. Nothing that NYT has reported for as long as I have read it suggests that the Jordan's west bank is anything but "occupied territory." 

Describing the territory as "disputed" gives greater credence to Israel's position than does the designation "occupied."

Further deviating from standard NYT reporting, Bronner writes, "Many Israeli experts say it is wrong to consider the West Bank a classically occupied territory." The use of the word "disputed" compounded by the opinion of "many Israeli experts" represents a potential turn of events in NYT's reporting. Whether these alterations are a blip remains to be seen.  

Nonetheless, the article proceeds in all other regards as intended, replete with propagandistic rejoinders by Palestinians about Israel, its intentions and its character. 

• A businessman in Ramallah says, "It is an example of the way in which economic interests in Israel are perpetuating the occupation."
• Hassan Abu-Libdeh, special adviser to Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad, states, "We view it as another aggression. This is just another example of Israeli businesses thriving at the cost of the Palestinian economy." 

Most reliably, quoted Palestinians characterize Israel as an exploiter and an aggressor. When a population is indoctrinated with crude stereotypes through television, radio, and newspapers, such descriptions will be readily forthcoming. 

The worst part of the article, however, is from Bronner himself. 

"Talk of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza has dimmed since the Palestinian leadership fractured when Hamas took over Gaza and since the right won in the Israeli elections." 

Here, readers confront a classic case of equivalence. In an effort to be fair, Bronner tries to hold Palestinians and Israelis accountable for the failure to create a Palestinian state. "The Palestinian leadership fractured" and "the right won in the Israeli elections." As a result, there is no Palestinian state. 

But there is an offense here. The Israeli public, through the democratic process in an open society with a free press and freedom of speech, decided to bring the right to power. Now, one can personally disagree with the opinion of the majority of Israelis, but one still has to respect the fact that the will of the majority, uncoerced, reached a conclusion by the best means that human beings currently have available - representative democracy. 

On the other hand, a group of anti-semitic terrorists - Hamas - intimidated a population and orchestrated a coup-purge to oust its opposition. 

To suggest that these factors have equal weight in contributing to the non-existence of a Palestinian state is shameful.

Isolating Terrorists Doesn’t Bring Peace, So Try the Opposite

"Britain to Resume Talking With Hezbollah"
A10, Friday, 3/6/09,
By Robert F. Worth

Worth frames the British move to resume talks with Hezbollah as part of a larger response to the Bush administration’s policy of isolating regimes or entities hostile to Israel. Yet before Bush, how much engagement was there with Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran?

According to the warped logic of unnamed “Middle East experts,” the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace has been “impeded” by isolating the aforementioned parties, which have been unambiguous in rejecting peace with Israel [Syria’s ambiguous rejection the exception].

Unmentioned is the possibility that this is engagement for engagement's sake; that this is part of a political exercise – however ill-conceived it may seem – of taking a diplomatic high road in engaging Iran, which may itself just be a diplomatic formality.

Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, thinks “it’s an interesting and positive development”. Two reps from the British Foreign Office are cited, one of whom, Rammell, states that Britain reconsidered contact with Hezbollah “in light of more positive recent political developments in Lebanon.”

Yet Worth skips a paragraph before stating that “Hezbollah militiamen took control of large parts of Beirut last year by force, gaining an effective veto power over government decisions.” This fact, if placed right after Rammell’s line, might’ve thus exposed its ludicrousness. Furthermore, readers may be unsure that the Hezbollah takeover, breezily reported by Worth, is what Rammell referred to.

While Britain’s Foreign Office is quoted three times, Israel’s Foreign Ministry is not quoted, or cited, at all. It wasn’t for a lack of material. In response to Britain’s move, the ministry’s Yigal Palmor said that Hezbollah “uses violence as a means to foist itself and the interest of the country that pulls its strings [Iran] onto Lebanon. All its activities are designed to undercut peace and stability in the Middle East." Palmor continues that "anyone looking to promote compromise, understanding and peace in the Middle East will not find a partner in Hizbollah."

A higher level Israeli official, Zalman Shoval, took issue with Britain’s stated logic of “positive recent political development”. The British “say they are doing this because of the growing role of Hizbollah in Lebanese politics," Shoval said. "But is that growing role a good or a bad thing? Why do they want to encourage it?" This is a relevant question that was left out.

In a positive ending, Hezbollah is seen as the unreasonable organization it is when it, through a statement, condemned the ICC’s arrest warrant against Sudan’s president al-Bashir and insisted that arrest warrants should be issued for U.S. and Israeli officials for “filling the graves of Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan with hundreds of thousands of deaths.”

This goofy anti-Western rhetoric aside, this article fails to convey, at least in part, the inflexible militarily anti-Western agenda of Hezbollah.

Landler Leads Readers Astray

1. "Iran Looms Over Clinton's Mideast Trip"; By Mark Landler; A12
   
2. "Those Who Deny the Holocaust Deny History"; Letters; A30    
   
3. "Israeli Dance Troupe May Draw Protest"; By Daniel J Wakin; C2

Iran is a central “concern” of Secretary of State Clinton. The Islamic Republic is “constantly on her mind;” she is “struck by the depth of fear” Iran arouses in the leaders of the Middle East. The source of the fear, in Clinton’s words, is Iran’s “efforts to fund terrorism, whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies.” 

Indeed the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah have destabilized the Middle East, but they are not the primary source of fear. Rather, Iran’s nuclear program is. Not until the ninth paragraph , however, does Landler report on the threat of “nuclear warheads.” That is the only mention of the nuclear issue, evidencing NYT’s reluctance to acknowledge the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Two other significant problems exist in "Iran Looms." In the sixth paragraph, Landler writes that Clinton “criticized an Israeli plan to tear down dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.” The reader is left without an explanation for why the homes will be torn down and is left to conjure up any number of reasons why this policy is being pursued. Finally, in the last paragraph Landler fills in the rest of the information, explaining that the houses were built illegally, without permits from the municipality. Batsheva Dance Company, an Israeli troupe,

The second significant shortcoming of Landler’s article is his treatment of the border-crossings between Israel and Gaza. Again, in the sixth paragraph, the reader learns that “critics say” Israel is “constricting deliveries of necessary goods.” 

Similar to how he handled the matter of house demolition, Landler neglects to flesh out the matter for ten paragraphs. “Israel heavily restricts deliveries of building materials, like cement, to Gaza. But humanitarian goods, like food and medicine, regularly pass through the crossings,” he reports.

Now, building materials, like cement, food, and medicine could all be considered “necessary goods,” so the “critics’” view may still stand. However, because Landler did not seek out an Israeli response to the “critics,” readers will not learn that cement has been kept out of Gaza because Hamas employs it to build bunkers and tunnels.

By spacing out information on the key issues of house demolition and border-crossings, Landler forces readers to piece together the situation instead of presenting it coherently from the outset.

In the Letters' section, Deborah Lipstadt demonstrates her renowned strength and intelligence in a response to an article about Bishop Williamson and his relationship to Holocaust denier David Irving. The letter is must-read, though Lipstadt should have called out the reporter, Rachel Donadio, by name for referring to Irving as a "historian." 

In New York City, an unnamed group has organized a demonstration outside the Brooklyn Academy of Music in response to the performance of the Israeli Batsheva Dance Company. 

Batsheva's artistic director, Ohad Naharin, displays striking naivete in a statement released Wednesday in which "he forgives and understands 'the frustration' and people who 'want to fight for human rights.'" 

By characterizing the demonstrators as human rights activists instead of defamers of Israel, he simultaneously flatters and misunderstands them. One can hardly imagine a group taking to the street to protest a Palestinian dance troupe because Hamas fires rockets into Israel. 

Why Not to Engage Syria

"Clinton Says U.S. Is Ready to Begin Talks With Syria"; By Mark Landler; A1

‘Regional expert,’ Martin Indyk says, “Syria wants to engage” the West but does not substantiate his claim - nor does reporter Mark Landler, for whom Indyk’s viewpoint is the basis of his article.

Three factors weaken the theory that Syria wants to engage.

First, the government of President Bashar al-Assad allows Hamas leaders to live unperturbed in Damascus. Secondly, Syria is a sponsor of Hezbollah. Third, Syria likely played a leading role in the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri and has been uncooperative with the UN's efforts to resolve the matter. 

On a separate note, Landler correctly notes that Israeli public opinion is against returning the Golan Heights to Syria but does not explain why. Israel's annexation of the Golan in 1982, a fact which explicates said opposition, is omitted.

Two other issues hamper the quality of the article.

First, Hamas is referred to as an “Islamic militant group," rather than a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the US, Europe, and Israel agree on this designation. Secondly, Landler reports that "critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief" but once again, does not explore the matter. 

Although Israel does permit food and medicine to enter Gaza, building materials, like cement, are restricted. The reason, however, is that Hamas uses cement to build bunkers and tunnels.

Naivety

1. "Clinton Not Optimistic About Iran-U.S. Thaw"; By Mark Landler; A6
   
2. "Letters: Iran’s View on Uranium"; A26
   

In certain respects, the Obama administration is less naive than its detractors thought it would be. As Mark Landler reports, "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an Arab foreign minister on Monday that she did not expect Iran to respond positively to an American offer of direct negotiations."

Still, with respect to the Palestinians, the feared naivete is apparent, as "the United States pledged more than $900 million in aid to the Palestinians, $300 million of which is relief for Gaza." Because Hamas is in full control of the Gaza Strip, the money will most likely bolster its standing. 

In a requisite critique of Jewish communities in the administered territories on the Jordan River's west bank, Landler reports, "The Palestinians hope to build their state on that land and argue that settlement building drives that goal further and further away." 

Two points, however, remain unaddressed:

First, how do Jewish communities on territory that could be a Palestinian state prevent the state from coming into being? In other words, why can't a Palestinian state allow Jewish residents to remain where thy are. 

Second, how does Landler's presentation of Palestinian hopes reconcile with the broad support that Hamas enjoys among Palestinians and Hamas' explicit demand for all the land of Israel, not just part of it.  

In a letter to the editor, M. A. Mohammadi, Press Counselor for the Mission of Iran to the United Nations, depicts Iran as compliant party in its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). See William H. Tobey's piece in The Boston Globe for a more reasonable, accurate description of the Iran-IAEA relationship.

With Gaza’s Rockets, “No Casualties, But…”

"Olmert Likely to Face Charges in Corruption Case"
A9, Monday, 3/2/09,
By Isabel Kershner

There’s nothing problematic about the reporting of Olmert’s possible indictment. Though there's an odd mixing in with Blair and and donors and “war-battered” Gaza. There isn't even a reference to the "no money until rockets stop" logic coming from Israel.

Kershner cites “Gaza militants” continuing to fire rockets from Gaza, just after reporting on the Gaza donors conference. Which Gaza militants? “It was not clear if Hamas was responsible,” is a line that would’ve served to make more prominent the issue of Hamas’ complicity, if not direct involvement.

No casualties were reported over the weekend, “but” the rockets did strike an empty school. The degree of outrage that is rocket launching into Israel, seems reliant on the damage it causes.

Is Israeli-Palestinian Peace at Hand for Super Sub-Secretary George Mitchell? Not According to Thomas Friedman

1) "Tribunal to Open in Hariri Killing in Beirut," A8, by Marlise Simons
2) "Legal Battles Await Olmert as Term Ends," A10, by Isabel Kershner
3) "A Guide to Israel's Best," CY5, by Howard G. Goldberg
4) "Super (Sub) Secretaries," WK10 (Op-ed), by Thomas Friedman

*****
1) Tribunal to Open in Hariri Killing in Beirut

In a significant piece of news, the Times reports that the "Special Tribunal for Lebanon" is finally beginning, more than three years after the car-bomb assassination of Sunni-Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hariri was "a leading opponent of Syria’s political control over his country." The role of the court is to "try those deemed responsible for that attack." The highest echelons of the Syrian government are suspected to have been involved in the assassination plot.

The reporter writes that "some diplomats fear that if an investigation reached the top of the Syrian government, this could interfere with the thaw in relations between Damascus and the West." The question what "thaw"? While certain Western governments have changed their posture towards Syria, Syria has not altered its own negative behavior, which includes its continued coercive influence over Lebanese politics and its support of Hezbollah and Hamas.

If Syria is guilty for the assassination of Hariri (which seems abundantly clear), it must be held accountable for its action. For too long, Syria has not been held responsible for its dirty deeds in the region. This has only further emboldened its militant behavior, knowing that it has faced little or no consequences. Putting Syria off the hook again will achieve nothing.

In the end, we should expect the same "stonewalling and misinformation" from Syria that has hampered the investigation for three years. This time, however, Syria must be held accountable.

2) Legal Battles Await Olmert as Term Ends

In this detailed article, Times coverage returns to the corruption allegations against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It seems all but written that Olmert will be formally charged, probably after he leaves office.

Given "evidence pointing to the acceptance of bribes, money-laundering and fraud," it is clear that Olmert is not fit to lead the country, regardless of whether or not one agrees with his political decisions as Prime Minister.

Fortunately, the Times did not use this article to call Olmert's downfall a "Demi-Greek Tragedy" as it once had. Even if an individual supports Olmert's peace efforts, he was no great leader and not fit to lead.

3) A Guide to Israel's Best

The Times gives a friendly shout-out to Israeli wine in this short blurb. Despite the brief nature of this article, it is important that the Times is able to report on Israel beyond the conflict and highlight the country's successes.

More coverage like this is necessary to counter-act the belief that Israel is a perpetual war zone, but unfortunately, that is exactly what appeals to readers.

4) Super (Sub) Secretaries

In this article, Thomas Friedman discusses Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's political innovation of "Super Sub-Secretaries of State," who are necessary to manage the affairs of some difficult political issues. The cast of characters are:

• "George Mitchell to handle Arab-Israel negotiations"
  
• "Richard Holbrooke to manage Afghanistan-Pakistan affairs"
  
• "and Dennis Ross to coordinate Iran policy"

Speaking about Arab-Israeli negotiations, Friedman has some insightful things to say. Whereas following the 1973 War, there existed three powerful political leaders that were able to successfully negotiate treaties/cease-fires (Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Hafez Assad of Syria, and Golda Meir of Israel), today the negotiating "parties are either failing states with multiple power centers" (i.e. the Palestinians) "or strong states with governments so fractious and hydra-headed that they border on paralyzed" (i.e. Israel).

Readers and those interested in the conflict should take heed of this reality. The current political situation in the Palestinian territories (struggle between Fatah & Hamas) and Israel (weak governance), make it essentially impossible for any sort of agreement to be reached in the near future. Forcefully attempting to conclude a peace agreement in these circumstances is bound to fail. The political chaos in the Palestinian territories alone is sufficient to make a peace agreement impossible. And that's assuming that all sides actually want to achieve a peaceful compromise, which is far from evident when it comes to the Palestinian leadership (whether of Fatah or Hamas), which continues to educate its populace that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that all the land on which Israel sits is rightfully theirs to rule.