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.