Yesterday's News Has No Bearing on Today's Reporting

1. "West Bank: Death Penalty for Land Sale"; Agence France-Presse; World Briefing; A6
   
2. "Palestinian Rivals to Try Once More for an Accord"; By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner; A9
   
3. "One Hundred"; Editorial; A22
   

Today's articles exist as if yesterday's newspaper does not. On Tuesday, readers learned of Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This refusal is problematic and represents the most significant obstacle to an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

But in the editorial titled "One Hundred," NYT writes, "Mr. Obama's commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace is already being tested by Israel's new prime minister, who says he doesn't believe in a two-state solution." One would have hoped that NYT would at least balance such a statement with the aforementioned news from yesterday. 

Whereas Israeli-Palestinian matters are only a small piece of the editorial, they occupy a central place in "Palestinian Rivals to Try..." And once again, yesterday's news is, as the cliche goes, "yesterday's news." 

In order for Hamas to enter a unity government with Fatah it must recognize "Israel's right to exist," report Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner. As Tuesday's article made apparent, however, that is not enough. Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

As if to further cloud the matter, El-Khodary and Kershner permit Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas leader, to assert - without subsequent rectification - that Fatah "recognized Israel long ago," which is patently false in light of yesterday's reporting. 

On a positive note, El-Khodary and Kershner refer to the Palestinian Authority as "the Western-backed Palestinian Authority," an appropriate description. 

Lastly and separately, a World Brief demonstrates that Palestinian authorities in Judea & Samaria, or the west bank, have nearly as skewed a sense of justice as those in Gaza, as a man is up for execution after selling his property to Jews. 

Palestinian Extremism Exposed for All to See

"Abbas Rejects Calling Israel a Jewish State"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

PM Benjamin Netanyahu's tactic of placing the matter of Israel's Jewish character at the forefront of discussions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has succeeded, as Abbas, in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state, reveals his extremist core. 

Although printing Abbas' statement was likely difficult for NYT, as one of its policies is to present Abbas in the most flattering, agreeable light possible, Isabel Kershner could have gone farther in explaining to the reader the implications of Abbas' refusal.

Instead, she gives voice to Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide, who deftly avoids the matter at hand to hammer at the PA's favorite issue - Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria, or settlements. 

Abbas and Erekat's efforts not so much to explain their position as to brush the issue away - with Abbas making a poor joke and Erekat wrongly interpreting a historical document - are not just embarrassing but notably sinister.

Worth is Worthless in Presenting Lebanon Accurately

"Lebanon Arrests 3 on Charges of Spying for Israel"; Robert F. Worth; 8

Few can pack an anti-Israel punch like Robert F. Worth. His ability to minimize Hezbollah and maximize Israel as threats to Lebanon's uneasy, unstable existence is remarkable and, therefore, disturbing. 

The problem really begins in the third paragraph, in which Worth writes, "Lebanon considers Israel, which carried out a major bombing campaign here during the 34-day war with Hezbollah in 2006, an enemy state." The phrasing of this statement indicates that Israel may have started the war with Hezbollah in 2006 and that, somehow, Israel's status as "an enemy state" is something more than a reflection of Syrian control over Lebanon, a fact of nearly thirty years.

Egregiously, Worth neglects to mention Hezbollah's ties to Iran, an omission that cannot stand at this time. That Hezbollah is a greater threat to Lebanon's sovereignty than Israel was, is, or will be, garners no print. 

Worth concludes with a non-sequitur paraphrasing of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's threats against Israel. 

Isabel Does Not Hide Hamas' Malevolence

"Israeli Military Says Its Actions in Gaza War Did Not Violate International Law"; By Isabel Kershner; A10

Isabel Kershner returns to the IDF's action in Gaza of late December and early January after the military released a report that countered accusations of misconduct yesterday.

Tiredly, she recounts the discrepancy between Israel's and Palestinian groups' civilian death counts.

To her credit, however, she quotes Maj. Gen. Dan Harel who brings attention to the kind of warfare that Hamas practices, which purposely puts civilians in danger as a way to gain international sympathy. Civilian casualties "'occur in all combat situations, in particular of the type which Hamas forced' on the army 'by choosing to fight from within the civilian population,'" he said. 

This was the second time in the article that Kershner quoted the military's description of Hamas' tactics. In the second paragraph, IK prints a military statement which calls Hamas 'an enemy that aimed to terrorize Israeli civilians whilst taking cover' among Palestinian civilians' and using them as human shields.'"

Hamas' malevolent strategy has been underreported at times, but today, it receives adequate coverage.

Abe Foxman Schools NYT's Editorial Board

"Letters: Hate Speech at a Racism Conference"; A26

In response to yesterday's editorial - ostensibly - about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's hate speech at the UN Conference on Racism, one letter gets it right and is a must read - that of Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. To quote:

"Injecting the issue of Gaza in response to the outrageous attack by the Iranian president on Israel's very legitimacy as a nation...gives credibility to the...extremists."

Of course, Foxman's successful critique should have stood on its own, but the editorial board printed Palestinian propaganda - Kamran Nayeri's letter - perhaps in order to rationalize the content of "More Hatred From...."

Coverage of Durban II Displays NYT's Bias

1. "U.S. to Skip U.N. Conference";Reuters; 8; Sunday, April 19
2. "Concerns Keep U.S. From Talks On Racism"; By Neil MacFarquhar; A7; Monday, April 20
   
3. "More Hatred from Mr. Ahmadinejad"; Editorial; A24
4. "Iranian Calls Israel Racist At Meeting In Geneva"; By Neil MacFarquhar; A4, A7

In an otherwise reasonable account about the decision of the US and other European countries not to attend the UN Conference on Racism, called Durban II, on Monday, one criticism is in order:

In discussing the 2001 world summit against racism, referred to as Durban I, Neil MacFarquhar writes, "[C]ritics said [it] served as a platform to bash Israel." Attributing the remark to "critics" is a way to leave the matter open to dispute, when there is none.

Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen's remarks must be printed here in full since they are so important. I have emboldened key parts:

"Several countries that still have a great deal to do in the area of human rights are misusing the summit to elevate religion above human rights, to place unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression, to ignore discrimination based on sexual orientation and to implicitly single out Israel and put it in the dock."

A news article and editorial appear in Tuesday's paper about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's hateful speech on Monday.

The next day, Wednesday, Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League penned an excellent response to the editorial. The letter covered the pertinent faults of the piece, so it need not detain us here. 

The news article, however, written by Neil MacFarquhar, was nearly as problematic as the editorial, but no letter could appear in print to similarly expose it. 

What separates the West from other countries, writes MacFarquhar, is "whether Israel's treatment of the Palestinians under occupation belongs at a forum on discrimination and xenophobia." Placing this matter at the fore is rather deceptive since what is at the heart of Durban II is outright delegitimization of Israel, not Israel's behavior as administrator of Judea & Samaria.

MacFarquhar misconstrues matters on another account when discussing Ahmadinejad's condemnation of the Jewish state and denial of the Holocaust. The Iranian president takes "visible delight" in making such statements because "it so irks Iran's opponents," he states. This characterization conveys the impression that Ahmadinejad is an unruly child, not a malevolent anti-Semitic dictator. 

He delights in these statements because he believes in them; they are his truth and his salvation. The childishness, as opposed to the evil, which is at the heart of the Iranian worldview is underscored by MacFarquhar in his remark about Iran's portrayal of Israel "as a regional boogeyman" later on in the article. 

"Iranian Calls Israel Racist..." concludes with remarks from the Pakistani ambassador to the UN that are sympathetic to the Iranian president, evidencing once again Muslim leaders' refusal to disassociate themselves from hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric.

On Yom HaShoah, a Lesson Not Learned at NYT

1. "New Looks At the Fields Of Death For Jews"; By Ethan Bronner; A6
   
2. "Museum Lets Local Voices Memorialize Distant Death"; By Susan Saulny; 14, 19; Sunday, April 19
   

With Yom Hashoah, the Jewish people's day of remembrance for the Holocaust, taking place from Monday night to Tuesday night, NYT printed two articles that dealt with, arguably, the greatest tragedy in Jewish history. 

First, it must be said that since Max Frankel's account of NYT's conscious effort not to publicize the horror in Europe during World War II, the paper of record has been particularly respectful in its coverage of Holocaust-related matters. 

A rather somber piece, "New Looks At the Fields...," possesses two statements, however, that speak to how NYT approaches the Shoah, the Hebrew for the Holocaust.

The first is a quote from David Bankier, head of Research at Yad Vashem. He says that the work he is doing to reveal death totals at killing fields "provides material for research on genocide elsewhere, like in Africa." From this, the reader learns that the universalistic lessons of the Holocaust are what matter. In other words, the Jewish Holocaust teaches us about genocide in general, more than it does about the Jewish hatred that led to the Holocaust. 

This emphasis on the universal - and implicit downplaying of the particular - is reinforced by Ethan Bronner's casually dismissive remark about Holocaust deniers in the second paragraph. "Holocaust deniers aside, the world is not ignorant of the systematic Nazi slaughter of some six million Jews in World War II." This statement is a bit too comfortable considering that the day it was printed, Iran's Ahmadinejad was denying the Holocaust in the most important international forum of the week, the UN Conference Against Racism.

"Museum Lets Local Voices..." similarly mentions the universal lessons of the Holocaust twice and the particular lesson - the need to fight anti-Semitism in its many varieties, including anti-Israelism - not once. 

NYT's efforts to make-up for the non-publicity of the Jewish tragedy of the 1940s appear inadequate, as it turns away from the role that hatred of the Jews plays in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Irrefutable Evidence of Hamas' Nature

"Report Says Hamas Killed Foes in Gaza"; Reuters; A12

While NYT has dedicated a great deal of print to purported war crimes committed by the IDF - an accusation that has been substantially weakened by a recent military investigation - only a small article deals with Hamas' verifiable atrocities. And Reuters, not an NYT reporter, is the author.

Hamas killed 32 civilians in Gaza. No trial, no judge and jury. Just old-time authoritarian executions. 

Letter-Writers Maintain Sanity at NYT

1. "Letters: My 'Good Book'"; BK Review; 8
2. "Letters: Obama's Rabbi"; NYT Mag; 8
   

Once again, readers carry the day in NYT print through the the Letters' sections. Rabbi Ariel Stone thrashes David Plotz, author of Good Book, which was reviewed nearly a month ago in NYT's Book Review. 

Calling Plotz an "alienated modern," Rabbi Stone demonstrates a respect for the Tanakh combined with a modern sensibility, the mark of a good Jewish teacher. Unphased by Plotz's "casual condemnation" of the Jewish holy text, Rabbi Stone praises the "profound impressions" of our teachers. 

In the Magazine, Zev Chafets, who wrote "Obama's Rabbi" on April 5, also receives a lashing - from Holly Rothkopf. Chafets "[glosses] over the whole Black Hebrew Israelite movement...[and] doesn't come close to explaining why the world's Jewish community might be unwelcoming or suspicious of [the] movement," writes Rothkopf.

A second letter-writer, Susan Kessell, expresses disappointment with another hateful association maintained by Michelle Obama's cousin, Capers Funnye - Louis Farrakhan.

Most lamentable with regard to Chafet's piece and the response to it, however, is the printing of a letter expressing a fringe view about Ashkenazi Jewry and its relationship to the Khazar converts of the eighth and ninth centuries. The way the letter-writer frames the relationship borders on a kind of hate speech, as it seeks to delegitimize American Jewry.

Slackman's Non-sequitur Leaves Readers Hanging

"Egypt's Tomb Raider - Off and (Mostly) On Camera"; By Michael Slackman; A12

A rather strange, oblique, and unexplored statement about Zahi Hawass, the subject of Michael Slackman's Saturday Profile, sticks out: 

"[H]e has been taken to task for his critical statements about Jews. He insists, though, that he is not anti-Semitic and that his remarks were aimed only at Israeli Jews and their treatment of the Palestinians."

Putting aside the uncomfortable, though frequent, truth that, today, the best indication someone is an anti-Semite are his assurances that he is not, the purpose here is not to expose Hawass but, rather, to challenge Slackman. 

The statements quoted above are almost as out of context here as they were in the article. They followed a remark about Hawass' love for publicity. This pursuit of attention "does not always win him friends," remarks Slackman, and that is the lead-in to Hawass' views on Jews, to put it too charitably. 

The quote about Jews is a non-sequitur. The reader never learns what Hawass' statements were nor gains any more illumination about them in the course of the article. 

Kershner Cannot Untangle Actuality and Propaganda

1. "Israel: Netanyahu Demands Recognition of Israel First"; World Briefing; A12; Friday, April 17
   
2. "Palestinians Urge Envoy To Press Israel On Statehood"; By Isabel Kershner; A12
   

A rather hilarious formulation, worthy of The Onion, begins Isabel Kershner's article, "Palestinians Urge Envoy...":

"Palestinian leaders asked the American envoy to the Middle East on Friday to press Israel's new government to accept the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

The statement is a recitation of clever Palestinian propaganda, as it adheres only slightly to actuality. PM Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his support for the Road Map of 2003, which calls for a Palestinian state after the Palestinian Authority dismantles the terrorist infrastructure in areas under its administration. What Netanyahu is doing, in contrast, to his predecessor, Olmert, is insisting on fulfillment of this condition before calling for a Palestinian state. 

To suggest, however, that Israel does not "accept the notion of a two-state solution" is a purposeful mischaracterization.

Contradictions between Palestinian propaganda and reality mar the article throughout. Netanyahu calls upon Palestinians to "recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a condition Palestinian negotiators have long refused to meet," writes Isabel Kershner.

Two paragraphs later, however, Saab Erekat, a senior Abbas aide, refers to Netanyahu's demand as "a stalling tactic." Here is the propaganda. The reader, at this point, is not certain what the actuality is. Has the Palestinian leadership accepted Israel as a Jewish state or not? Instead of a paragraph clarifying the matter, Kershner delves into Palestinians' rationalization for not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, showing, in a backhanded way, that they have not. 

"Palestinians contend that recognition of Israel's Jewish character would negate Palestinian refugees' demand for the right of return," she writes. Here, she could have also stated that this demand - "the right of return" - is the primary obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Finally, IK repeats a charge of "activists" who battle with the IDF near the security barrier on a weekly basis. Tear gas canisters, they complain, are shot "directly into the crowd" in order to harm people. The ability of pro-Palestinian advocates to contort every action of Israel into a vicious attack is remarkable.  

An Affirmative Op-Ed About the Jewish State!

"A Loud and Promised Land"; By David Brooks; A29

An op-ed such as this occurs all too infrequently in NYT. David Brooks offers an empathetic, intelligent, and rather precise account of Israeli social and behavioral norms. 

There are four wonderful statements I will recount:

• "Israel is a country held together by argument. Public culture is one long cacophony of criticism."
  

Generally, NYT characterizes the argumentative nature of Israeli society as a sign of weakness, fractiousness.

• "As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel, but I have to confess, I find the place by turns exhausting, admirable, annoying, impressive and foreign."
  

The honesty here welcome.

• "Most important, this argumentative culture nurtures a sense of responsibility. The other countries in this region are more gracious, but often there is a communal unwillingness to accept responsibility for national problems." 
  

This one is the best! Not only does it affirm the first statement about the role of argument in Israeli society, it offers a contrast to the Arab countries, where conformity is prevalent and poverty and authoritarianism prevail.

• "This conflict will go on for a generation or more."
  

To quote Metallica, "Sad, but true."

Political Science Professor Reveals Hamas' Anti-Semitic Nature

"Letters: What the Hamas Charter Says About Jews"; A28; Thursday, April 16

One thing can be said about many of those that read The New York Times: They are sharp people. Thus, when the content is not up to snuff, they are right there to set that matter straight. 

On Monday, April 13, a preposterous, biased op-ed appeared on A21 that, among other infractions, sought to equate Benjamin Netanyahu to the leader of Hamas in Damascus. For several months now, NYT has slowly sought to legitimize Hamas' participation in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This op-ed was part of that subtle campaign. 

Shlomo Avineri, professor of political science at Hebrew University, put a wedge in this effort by reminding readers that Hamas is an enemy of all Jewish people. In his letter, Avineri points out that Hamas' charter expresses hateful, venomous language toward Jews, not (just) Israelis, strengthening the position that Hamas is an anti-Semitic group not to be dealt with.

Amos Oz, Approaching 70, Keeps Israel at a Chilly Distance

"Amos Oz, Approaching 70, Sees Israel With a Bird's-Eye View"; By Ethan Bronner; C1

Amos Oz has asked himself the question, What if I were him? for several decades now - an important question, to be sure, certainly for one who is serious about being human. 

Knowing Oz's politics, however - their unchanging manner, no matter what the current of events - perhaps, he needs to ask himself, How do I, myself, feel about these events? Indeed, loving one's neighbor - the Other, in much of Jewish thought - demands that one love oneself. Love of oneself, one's people, is not Oz's strength.

As he conceded in a 1990 interview that Ethan Bronner quotes in this article, “There’s always a part of me that’s uninvolved, that sits on the sidelines and observes. Sometimes it looks on from the distance, almost hostile. Very chilly.”

That is hardly the description of a man of his people. It is one of a man who is aloof, who specializes in criticizing his own from an emotional distance. Such a tendency, though not necessarily a weakness - and even, conceivably, a strength - has proven itself to be detrimental to the Jewish state, in Oz's case. 

An Op-Ed's Misplaced Employment of Shakespearean Themes

"Hamas Comes Out of Hiding"; By Paul McGeough; A21

"Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts Mr. Mishal’s terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is — he now proposes only 'economic peace' between Jews and Palestinians," writes Paul McGeough.

This assessment is pure fabrication, one that can be made only by being excessively literal in one's understanding of the statements at hand. What this assertion reveals, however, is a distorted- need I say Orwellian? - perspective, in which PM Benjamin Netanyahu is the barrier to an agreement and Hamas leader Khalid Mishal, its gatekeeper.

To conclude, the editorial is more theatrical than it is social scientific. McGeough tries to reduce the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian discourse to the "personal enmity" between Netanyahu and Mishal. Let not this "enmity...swamp the more pressing complexities of the Middle East crisis," he implores condescendingly. The author should not permit Shakespeare to shape his understanding of Israel's predicament. 

Personal enmity aside, Hamas' very existence and Syria's support for it keeps peace at bay.

Cohen Proposes a Fantastical Deal

"Realpolitik For Iran"; By Roger Cohen; A21

To read Roger Cohen is to enter an alternate reality. Similar to science fiction, the narrative that Cohen constructs is tied closely enough to our world to keep our attention. The deviations are fantastical, attractive because of their very unlikelihood and improbability. 

An op-ed about the Bush administration's policy toward Iran concludes with demands upon Israel. Talk about chutzpah. 

"The deal" Roger Cohen fantasizes about "can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel." In Cohen's worldview, Israel is the party-pooper. The solution, he argues, is for Obama "to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years." Aaron David Miller's call for "tough love" has made the rounds, and Cohen, too, is a subscriber.

Title Purposely Misleads Readers

"Israeli Police Kill Palestinian Motorist in East Jerusalem"; By Isabel Kershner; A7

The title misleads readers, as the article reveals. On Tuesday, a motorist tried to run over three officers at a roadblock in Jerusalem, though Isabel Kershner reports that the driver "ran into" officers. 

The state of denial among East Jerusalem Arabs about this attack and a previous one, which led to a house demolition that also occurred on Tuesday, is remarkable. 

Mahmoud Atar, a witness, claims the motorist "was driving a little fast, and [the officers] opened fire." Injuries to all three officers sustained during the attack apparently escaped Atar's attention. 

The father of Hussam Dweikat, the man who murdered three Israelis last year in a driving attack, "assumed his son was in a traffic accident."

Kershner is sure to send her usual message to NYT's reading public that efforts to deter terrorism will only abet it, which leaves Israel the option of appeasement. She does so through a quote from Hussam's father at the end of the article. 

Letters to Editor Replete With Rhetoric

"Letters: Israel, Gaza, and Accountability"; A24

Seven letters are printed in response to George Bisharat's Saturday op-ed. Three are critical of it, three are supportive, and one is altogether unrelated. 

Of the three that are critical, two make the same point, perhaps an indication that the NYT editorial board is sympathetic on the matter. Bisharat "dismisses the violations by Hamas in a single sentence," complains Barry Salwen. "If Hamas is also guilty of war crimes...why does [Bisharat] call only Israel to accountability?" Peter A Pettit rightfully asks.

The three that are supportive of Bisharat's op-ed are replete with unsubstantiated statements and typical anti-Israel rhetoric.

• Israel commits "crimes against humanity," says Maha Mehanna.
• The international community should hold "the Israeli Army accountable for the crimes that have been documented in Gaza," demands Emily Crawford.
• Israel can no longer hide "the colonization process driving [its] militarism and ethnic nationalism," opines Garth Massey. 

That NYT prints such garbage is shameful. The bigger problem, however, may be the one letter that is unrelated to the op-ed and is most reflective of NYT's unstated narrative about Israel. 

Benjamin Solomon sounds the alert against Israeli settlements and American aid to Israel, the "two phenomena [that] provide the context for the serious allegations of George Bisharat." 

These are two of NYT's pet issues, which it heaps upon readers at every opportunity.

Review of NPR Reminds Readers of NYT

"The Two Sides of One Wall: NPR Reports on the Mideast"; By Mike Hale; C2

Although the NPR report is called "Israel's Barrier," the title NYT selects for its review of the report uses the word "wall," a term which is mostly inaccurate. Those who are anti-Israel call it a wall in all instances. "Wall" is used once more in the article and in the caption for a photo, but the more accurate word, barrier, is not employed once. 

Beneath the photo of an Israeli patrolman walking along the barrier, the text reads, "the wall that divides Israel from the Palestinian West Bank." This language will confuse readers about the barrier's intent. Its purpose is to protect Israelis from suicide bombers, not to "[divide] Israel from the Palestinian West Bank." In addition, the "West Bank" is neither Israeli nor Palestinian, as it is disputed. 

The fourth paragraph, which operates as the he said-she said component of the article, begins with "vignettes" sympathetic to Palestinians, blithely mentions the 90% reduction in suicide bombing targeting Israelis since the barrier's construction, and then caps off with more pro-Palestinian cant. 

In conclusion, Mike Hale questions the wisdom of the topic NPR has chosen for its new feature, the multimedia report, since more pressing domestic concerns are at hand. Hale might similarly question NYT, which has been covering news in Israel as if its headquarters were in Tel Aviv. 

The decision, Hale suggests, is largely a function of NPR's being "locked in a comfort zone," wherein its listeners gobble up whatever it produces. A similar remark could be made about NYT.

Welcome Signs From Iraq on Palestinians

"Palestinians Are Top Topic In Abbas Visit To Baghdad"; By Campbell Robertson; A5

The statement of Iraq's foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari - "Gone are those days when Iraq and other countries used to use the Palestinian issue for political bargaining and score settling" - in the aftermath of his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, is welcome. 

In addition, discussion between Abbas and Zebari of resettling 2300 Palestinians from two refugee camps between Iraq and Syria, is promising. 

A third hopeful indicator is Abbas' statement that the 11,000 Palestinians living in Iraq are "part of the Iraqi people." Offering citizenship to Palestinians in Arab countries should be part of any solution to the Palestinian predicament.  

A Mixed Account of Bahrain Jewish Life Confuses

"In a Landscape of Tension, Bahrain Embraces Its Jews. All 36 of Them."; By Michael Slackman; A7

Michael Slackman renders a mixed account of Jewish life in Bahrain, one so mixed that, in summation, it is confusing.

Slackman notes that Bahrain is different from other Muslim countries in the Middle East, where “anti-Semitism is often preached from government-controlled mosques and hating all Jews has become interchangeable with hating the state of Israel” - a surprisingly truthful and sympathetic statement.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia, in contrast, “has done nothing to preserve or even acknowledge that [Jews] once lived in the Arabian Peninsula;" whereas, Bahrain sustains an open Jewish community.

So far, these points support the opening paragraphs, in which Slackman calls the claim – "It's O.K. to be Jewish in Bahrain" – “an understatement.”

But a quote from a Bahraini businessman who spouts classic anti-Semitic declarations about money and power weakens the case that Jewish life in Bahrain is better than OK.

In addition, though the Jewish cemetery has not been defaced, the lapsed synagogue has. The synagogue is lapsed because no religious life exists, but Mizrachi Jews are not known for their indifference toward Judaism.

Finally, a history professor at Bahrain University acknowledges that he is a friend of one of the 36 Jews in Bahrain explaining that “I don’t feel he is a Jew.” The remark, a veiled insult, suggests that even educated Bahrainis view their world through anti-Semitic lenses.

With such anti-Semitic ideas and perceptions, the argument that Jewish life in Bahrain is better than OK is hardly supportable.

Note: Slackman calls the Jews of Bahrain “Jewish Arabs,” a term that few Mizrachi Jews would embrace.

American Jewish Financial Support Does Not Hurt Israel

"Israeli Nonprofits, Shaken by Madoff Scandal, Regroup"; By Isabel Kershner; 13

As a result of the financial crisis in the US, writes Isabel Kershner, "Israel...has been forced once again to confront its dependance on American donors' largess." 

Jewish institutions in Israel have been dependent on the assistance of Jews outside of Israel since before the founding of the State in 1948. Surely greater economic support from Israelis would be good for the nonprofit sector in the Jewish state but to suggest that the economic relationship between Jews in the US and Jews in Israel is flawed is hypercritical. This opinion sounds like an outcome of a dogma that look askance, in general, at financial ties between American Jews and Israel.

Egyptian Travails Not a Function of Accord

"For Egypt, Promise of 1979 Peace Remains Unfulfilled"; By Michael Slackman; 6

The discontent of certain sectors of Egyptian society with the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Accord is a result of the Israeli offensive in Gaza, argues Michael Slackman. But although the Accord mentions the goal of Palestinian autonomy, it is an agreement between Israel and Egypt and has nothing else to do with Israeli-Palestinian relations. The anger many Egyptians feel toward Israel is familiar, as Muslim solidarity generally expresses itself in this fashion. When the prospect of incorporating Gaza into Egypt, however, is discussed, Egypt rejects the notion, showing the shallowness of brotherly love.

The Accord is also a source of resentment, according to Egyptians, because it initiated “Egypt’s decline,” an extreme view, disconnected from reality, that has gone mainstream. Slackman misleads readers into thinking that somehow this extreme view is justifiable. The ills of Egypt – poverty and authoritarianism – are independent of the Accord.

To be sure, the non-connection between the Israeli offensive in Gaza and the Accord and between authoritarianism and poverty and the Accord, may be why Slackman does not quote from it directly.

George Bisharat's Poor Editorial

"Israel on Trial"; By George Bisharat; A19

George Bisharat pens a dated, repetitive, and biased opinion piece today.

Dated

"Chilling testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel's Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law," writes George Bisharat. But last Tuesday, Isabel Kershner reported that, according to an internal Israeli investigation, the testimony was "based on hearsay and not supported by specific personal knowledge."

Repetitive

Bisharat outlines "six offenses" committed by the IDF, but items two and three – about civilian causalities – are effectively the same. Compare language from each, respectively:

“The laws of war permit attacking a civilian object only when it is making an effective contribution to military action and a definite military advantage is gained by its destruction.”

“International law authorizes killings of civilians if the objective of the attack is military.”

Biased

• Bisharat uses the numbers of the UN special rapporteur for civilian deaths rather than those of the IDF. 
• He makes unwarranted predictions about the future stating that because Likud is in power, there will be “violations to come.”
  
• He describes one Israeli procedure of warning civilians of an impending attack as a “cruel flaunting of international law.”
• He highlights the “particularly weakened conditions” of Gaza’s residents.

To conclude, the greatest problem with Bisharat's argument is that it conforms to a reality unlike the one that exists in Gaza, where Hamas has purposely blurs the line between civilian and military/terrorist personnel and infrastructure. This flaw, by the way, pervades "offenses" two and three.

Furthermore, what underpins Bisharat's piece is his belief that Hamas is not a terrorist entity. "Many countries do not regard violence against foreign military occupation as terrorism," he writes. 

Explanatory Passages Evidence Fair Reporting

"New Israeli Foreign Minister Questioned by the Police About His Business Dealings"; By Isabel Kershner; A14

Isabel Kershner weaves forth and back between two events in "New Israeli Foreign...":

1. A police interrogation of Avigdor Lieberman
2. A terrorist attack near Bat Ayin, a Jewish community on the Jordan's west bank

The attack's victim, a thirteen year old, is called a "teenager" rather than a boy, a word choice that may have been made to downplay the horror of the incident. 

To her credit, IK grants Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev ample space in the fourteenth paragraph to forcefully respond to the attack.  

However, Kershner does not interview Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, despite the fact that Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade, a Fatah terrorist faction, claimed responsibility for the murder. The omission is not surprising since NYT rarely puts Palestinian leaders on the spot. 

Unrelated to the two events at play are explanatory passages about Israel's position regarding a final agreement with the Palestinians.

The Israeli government will pursue a policy of "fewer Israeli concessions and more proof from the Palestinian side that it wants peace," reports IK. 

And, in reference to Bat Ayin, IK writes,

"Israel intends to keep the area under any future peace accord with the Palestinians, who demand the whole of the West Bank as part of an independent Palestinian state." 

 Both passages evidence fair reporting.

Follow the Road Map

"New Israeli Foreign Minister Bluntly Dismisses U.S. Peace Effort"; By Isabel Kershner; A5

Avigdor Lieberman's decision to follow the 2003 Road Map but scrap Annapolis 2007 is well-thought-out and sensible.

Because of his "unsubtle" manner, Lieberman is NYT's new whipping boy. According to Isabel Kershner, he is:

• a "hawkish nationalist"
• the leader of "the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu"
• and a "racist"

Now, either he is a nationalist or an ultranationalist, but he can't be both. The charge of racism is slander, as Lieberman has never argued that Arabs are not human or that they are inferior to other people. 

Kershner notes that Lieberman has "aroused trepidation in Israel," a remark that is unbalanced and absolute. Surely some feel trepidation, but considering that his party won the third greatest number of votes in the recent election, many must feel admiration for him as well. 

Several commendations are in order for Kershner, despite the previously discussed shortcomings of the article. 

First, she states that Lieberman demands "loyalty as a condition for Israeli citizenship." Others have mischaracterized his position as demanding that Arab Israelis - alone - take a loyalty oath. 

 

Secondly, she reports accurately on the Road Map, which makes "the creation of a Palestinian state contingent on the Palestinians ending all violence and dismantling terrorist networks." With this description bared before the reader, Lieberman's position looks reasonable, though NYT would never call it so. 

Misreporting Bibi's Two-State Ambiguity

"Netanyahu Offers Conciliation, but Not Concessions"
A13, Wednesday, 4/1/09,
By Isabel Kershner

Does Netanyahu "oppose the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state"?

Further along in this article, Kershner quotes Netanyahu as saying "under the final settlement, the Palestinians will have all the rights to govern themselves except those that endanger the security and existence of the state of Israel.”

A demilitarized Palestinian state has been a commonly and logically accepted vision of Palestinian independence. Does such a condition negate a state's sovereignty? That Kershner can attribute to Netanyahu that he proposes only "a more limited form of self-rule" is too vague and too little to conclude that Netanyahu opposes a "sovereign Palestinian state".

Perhaps this report could’ve taken the opportunity to pose the question: what military capabilities that could "endanger Israel's security and existence," if taken away, would render Palestinian self-rule less than a sovereign state? But Kershner's article is not this penetrating, instead painting a black-and-white picture of Netanyahu's strategy on the peace process.

Kershner writes that Netanyahu's "refusal to endorse the two-state solution has led to skepticism and despondency on the Palestinian side". Here, Kershner states that the Palestinian "side" (presumably she means the Palestinian Authority [PA]) is despondent. She doesn't even state that they claim this, instead stating it as fact. Kershner doesn't entertain the notion that Netanyahu is serving as a public relations boon for the PA, which is conducting an international campaign to pressure Israel because of Netanyahu.

Finally, it wouldn't be a Times article about the peace process if it weren't for the gaping non-coverage of the PA's rejection of Israel. Only by not reporting the anti-Israel incitement on PA-controlled media, to Fatah's former security commander Dahlan's recent remarks that Fatah (as opposed to the PLO) has never recognized Israel, can Kershner not look foolish quoting professor Inbar: "as long as Hamas is in power, we (the Israelis) are off the hook."

Another dishonest assessment that Hamas are the only rejectionists among the Palestinian leadership.