NYC Jewish-Related Events

"Israel-Turkey Relations: New Challenges"

2010-05-10T21:07:00.010-04:00

100 people, mostly over 50 years of age, came to Stephen Wise Synagogue on the upper west side to hear former ambassador of Israel to Turkey from 1998-2001, Uri Bar-Ner, speak. The former ambassador referred to himself as "an optimist" and his talk reflected that self-identification. Bar-Ner began his discussion of Turkish-Israeli relations by reminding the audience of three historical facts:

1) Turkey was a haven to Jews after the 1492 expulsion from Spain.
2) It deported no Jews during World War II.
3) It was one of the first countries to recognize Israel in 1948.

Since the Madrid Conference in 1991, military relations between Turkey and Israel have strengthened. Turkey has provided air space for long-range aerial exercises, a luxury Israel does not possess at home. The military relationship also affected Israel's relations with the Kurds. "We stopped helping the Kurds in northern Iraq because of Turkey," reported Bar-Ner. In addition to military ties, relations extend into the American political scene, where American Jewry has prevented passage of bills in the American Congress calling the genocide of Armenians in 1914-5 a genocide. Economically, the relationship has also developed. Trade has grown from $600 million in 1998 to $3.5 billion today.

In terms of the present-day relations, 500,000 Israelis visited Turkey two years ago, and the number is near that figure this year after a slight fall off. That number is second only to Germany. Of course, the ascendance of Erdogan since 2002 has had a deleterious impact on Israel-Turkish relations. Not surprisingly, the American Jewish leadership has soured on Erdogan and would not meet with him last December when he was in the United States. Bar-Ner accredited Erdogan's rise to two factors:

1) His election was a protest vote against the corruption of the present government.
2) The EU has repeatedly rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU.

In fact, in 2001, a high level EU official said that the EU wouldn't accept Turkey because, "We want to keep the EU a Christian club." When asked during the Q&A whether any people or countries were supportive of Turkey's entrance into the EU, Bar-Ner replied, "No. And the most vigorous opponents are Sarkozy and Merkel."

Currently, Erdogan's party holds 330 of 550 seats in the Parliament. Turkey will hold an election next year. At present, support for Erdogan's party is down from 47% to 30%. The two opposition parties combine for 50%.

Egyptian Intellectual

2010-05-04T23:15:00.008-04:00

Tonight, several members of the listserv, American Jewish Independent, were privileged to hear a unique Egyptian intellectual, who will here be referred to as Hanafi, discuss the state of the Arab-Islamic world in a luxurious Fifth Avenue apartment. Hanafi's talk centered on the role of the Saudis in Middle Eastern politics. To start, he explained that, though during the Middle Ages there were four schools of Islam, including the schools of Hanafi and Hambali, an alliance between a Hambali sect called the Wahhabis and the proto-house of Saud in the middle 1700s, led to the dominance of Islam by the Hambali-Wahhabi-Saudi coalition in the post-World War II era. Hanafi was critical of the American-Saudi relationship, in general.

Hanafi made several remarks that gave interesting clues into his outlook and his evolution as a commentator on the current state of the Middle East:

1. "I'm a great admirer of Anwar Sadat, but his vision did not extend beyond an Egyptian nationalist narrative, which sought to stick it to the British."

2. The recent Arab League offer to Israel reflects its "isolation from reality," as it dictated terms as if it was the winner, not the loser in past wars.

3. "I like Attaturk very much."

4. "Mubarak would like his son to succeed him. If he does not, the military will take over. If he does, the military will still eventually take over the country."

5. The Egyptian government, like all Arab governments, is "an alliance of ignorance and corruption."

6. "I agree with Bernard Lewis who says that 'Wahhabism is like the KKK taking over Texas and enforcing its version of Christianity there.'"

7. "The British encouraged Wahhabism to flourish in order to defeat the Ottoman Empire."

8. At one point, Hanafi referred to "the old Marxist inside me." At another point, he said, "I am from a corporate culture."

9. "Objectivity and tribal sociology do not match."

10. Baradi, who has challenged Mubarak electorally, "is very valuable."

11. "Remember that Hamas was once simply called the Muslim Brotherhood Branch in Gaza."

12. "American aid to Egypt must be tied to conditions."

13. "Egypt was a Mediterranean society until it started to look to the southeast."

Relativism And Reporting On The Arab-Israeli Conflict

2010-05-03T09:42:00.012-04:00

Gershom Gorenberg highlighted the first event of a new organization at Columbia University, a campus in need of as much help as it can get since the notorious Joseph Mosad likely gained tenure - the matter is strangely still not official. Danny Hertz, son of Eli Hertz, the director of Myths & Facts, co-founded the new organization known as Campus Media Watch.

The other speakers featured were Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum, Senior Fellow at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University; Dexter Van Zile, a Christian Media Analyst for CAMERA; and Charney Bromberg, the executive director of the non-profit Meretz USA for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace. The panel thus was split two and two between pundits who are likely to criticize the Palestinians - Teitelbaum and Van Zile - and those who are likely to criticize the Israelis - Gorenberg and Bromberg.

Van Zile was the most impressive of the panel. During the Q&A, when asked how one can reconcile Palestinian incitement to violence with the Palestinian desire for peace, he simply said, "I don't think that you can." During his fifteen minutes at the microphone earlier in the evening, he discussed the views of the church that he grew up in and how he decided to leave it because of its dysfunctional narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Regarding Gorenberg, the most famous member of the panel, I was surprised and a bit pleased when he expressed disappointment at the questions during the Q&A, which were highly politicized. "People are writing questions with their made-up minds and asking us to respond to their made-up minds. We are here to provide information to genuine questions, people seeking to complexify their view." A call for complexity was the note on which Gorenberg ended his comments, calling upon the students to not be on this side or that side but to be on the side of complexity. Such an appeal may be the most successful appeal possible on college campuses because it fits in with the general program of university education. But, it also had a ring of relativism to it in that it denies that one can come to a clear, determinate understanding of a topic through the acquisition of knowledge. For this reason, I remarked to one of the audience members after the event that Gorenberg was the most sophisticated member of the panel. I didn't mean that as a compliment.

As for Bromberg, an apparent lightweight, in conversation afterward, he referred to Netanyahu's cabinet as "mad men," used the f-word when referring to the last American president, and assured those within ear shot that "the majority of Palestinians want peace."

The audience did contain a few potential and actual rabble-rousers, including the repulsive self-hating blogger Philip Weiss. Students wearing keffiyahs laughed to one another during the comments of Van Zile. Nevertheless, a strong showing of reasonable students and professionals gave the event an overall aura of respectability.

Carter's Visit to Gaza Unabashedly Cast Symptathetically

2009-06-17T15:21:00.005-04:00

"Carter, in Gaza, Urges Hamas to Meet Demands"; by Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner; A6

Although Jews on the Left, such as Jon Stuart Leibowitz, are quick to state their discomfort with pro-Israel Christians, they are welcoming to Jimmy Carter, whose Christianity is at the heart of his destructive efforts to legitimize Hamas.

In their report on Jimmy C's visit to Gaza, El-Khoidary and Kershner mislead readers. Early on, they remark on Ismail Haniya’s “conciliatory tone," evidenced by advocacy for "the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.” Yet three paragraphs later, they concede, “Hamas leaders have said they will never recognize Israel, and will offer only a long-term truce, not a full-fledged peace treaty, in return for a Palestinian state.” Had these bits of information been placed together, as they could have been, the reporters could not have cast the tone as conciliatory.

Israel is cast villainously, for it “continues to impose a punishing economic blockade.” Unsurprisingly, this language is an echo of one of Jimmy’s talking points, which is a call to end Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Carter’s rhetoric is characteristically uncharitable toward the Jewish state, as he laments “the deliberate destruction that has been wreaked against [Palestinian] people” during the January Gaza War and suggests that Israelis treat them “more like animals than human beings.”

The report closes with a report from HaMoked and Gisha, two intensely ideologically-driven Israeli organizations. "Carter in Gaza...” could provide a case study in bias against Israel at NYT. Jimmy C's visit is cast in sympathetic terms, and the only Israelis who are given voice are those who are far from affirmative about the Jewish state.

Israeli PM Gives a Speech, But Kershner Focuses on the PA's Positions

2009-06-15T10:45:00.003-04:00

"Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats"; By Isabel Kershner; A1

Today, on the front page, Isabel Kershner reports on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv yesterday. Toward the middle of the article, IK editorializes, “[Netanyahu] seemed to offer little room for compromise or negotiation."

To substantiate her claim, she cites Netanyahu’s rejection of “the Palestinian demand for a right of return for refugees of the 1948 war and for their millions of descendants.” Kershner then explains why Palestinians maintain this demand without similarly explaining why Israelis reject it.

Of course, the demand is connected to Israel’s character as a Jewish state, a matter that arose repeatedly in Netanyahu’s speech. Given that, the expectation is that Kershner would connect the dots for readers. In short, Israelis reject the demand because it would compromise the Jewish character of Israel. One would think that in covering a speech by an Israeli leader that the goal would be to convey the Israeli position in depth. By taking the occasion to explain the Palestinian position, however, Kershner demonstrates a subtle bias toward the Palestinian Authority.

IK is at her best when she allows events - and Israelis - to speak for themselves. At the article's conclusion, Kershner prints a fact that NYT is loathe to confront - "[The speech] largely expressed the consensus in Israel." And, as President Shimon Peres says, it was "true and courageous.”

Lieberman May Improve Israeli-Russian Relations, as American Support Wanes

2009-06-14T12:38:00.000-04:00

"Israel's Foreign Minister Cozies Up to Moscow"; By Clifford J. Levy; WK1

Levy does a successful job of framing Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's visit to Moscow in the context of the Obama administration's diplomatic overtures to the Arab and Muslim world.

The warm relations and easy flow of conversation with Russian leaders demonstrate one of the assets Lieberman brings to his position.

The report is fair, with one minor exception. Levy writes,

"With a new diplomacy-oriented administration in Washington and a new hawkish one in Jerusalem, the various parties in the region are trying to...test one another."

Contrasting "diplomacy-oriented" with "hawkish" evidences a bias. For example, a bias in the opposite direction would characterize the Obama administration as pacifist or dovish. Simply conveying that the American administration is diplomacy-oriented and the Israeli administration is not would be most appropriate.

Letter-Writers Embrace Tuesday's Opinion Piece on Egyptian Jews

2009-06-11T21:51:00.004-04:00

"The Uprooted: A Sad Mideast Legacy"; Letters; A30

Of the six letters published in response to Tuesday’s opinion piece by Andre Aciman, which recounted the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, five are overwhelmingly supportive. A Moroccan and a Libyan Jew as well as an Armenian Christian confirm the horror endured by non-Muslim, non-Arab people in the last several decades in Muslim lands.

Letter-writers make several important points:

“Vibrant Christian communities, including Armenians and Greeks, also suffered from discrimination in Arab countries, leading many to flee. A paucity of cultural diversity has arguably contributed to the Arab radicalism seen today,” writes Stephan Pechdimaldji.
“Israel always welcomed Jewish refugees into its society. In stark contrast, Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps throughout the Arab world, pawns in the long battle with Israel,” writes Edwin Andrews.
“One cannot forget that nearly half the population of Israel is made up of refugees from Arab countries and their descendants,” write Vivienne Roumani-Denn and Maurice Roumani.

Why is Israel "Wary"?

2009-06-10T13:09:00.016-04:00

"U.S. Envoy Reassures and Presses a Wary Israel"
A14, Wednesday 6/10/09
By Isabel Kershner

If Obama’s current Mideast peace push is making Israel "wary," Times readers may find it difficult to understand the real reasons why.

Summarizing the U.S.-Israel dispute over settlements, Kershner accurately cites the U.S. position as “an unequivocal halt to all settlement activity”. She then imprecisely cites the Israeli position as “no new settlements, but building within existing ones should be allowed.”

In actuality, the Israeli position speaks of continued building within existing settlement blocs, not simply in existing settlements. The distinction is key since it has been widely agreed – by the U.S. and even by the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that these blocs will be kept by Israel in any future agreement. There are many existing settlements, outside Israel’s West Bank barrier, in which the Israeli government does not plan to build.

Kershner further makes the Israeli position seem hawkish by needlessly stating that it comes from Israel’s “hawkish” prime minister. Several paragraphs later she correctly fashions the Israeli position on settlements as one of consensus:

“While the Israeli leadership does not speak in one voice on all issues, there has been a certain uniformity regarding the settlements.”

Kershner states that Mitchell’s reference to Israel as a Jewish state was a “nod to Netanyahu, who says that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is essential for any peace deal.”

Stating this is "a nod to Netanyahu" diminishes the importance of this fundamental requirement for peace. The refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not simply a PA tactic to keep alive the right of return, as Kershner posits, but one to deny the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, thereby perpetuating the conflict.

Recently commenting on this Palestinian position, cabinet minister Moshe Ya’alon stated that “in the (Palestinian) view, one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well.”

Kershner writes of the Palestinian refusal: they say “it would contradict the Palestinian refugees’ demand for a right of return and that it is detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens”.

First, it is widely understood that the right of return is anathema to the two-state vision; Second, the PA recently, and again, retracted its offer to accept Jewish citizens in a new Palestinian state, rendering hollow their concern for minority rights in Israel. While Kershner was fair in citing the Palestinian position, she should have reported on how that position measures up to reality.

Revealingly, reference to the deep PA-Hamas rift – considered almost an afterthought – is left for the article’s end. Juxtaposed next to the President’s recent call for a Palestinian state within two years (unreported), this reality would make all the more understandable Israel’s wariness of, and Netanyahu’s reluctance to publicly endorse, a Palestinian state.

NYT Publishes Opinion Critical of the President

2009-06-09T21:06:00.008-04:00

"The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention"; By Andre Aciman; A27

Andre Aciman pens an incisive critique of President Obama’s speech, which has been almost exclusively lauded in the American media. In doing so, Aciman also brings attention to the forgotten refugees, the Jews of Muslim lands who have been expelled since the advent of Israel.

As to why the President omitted these particular Jews’ plight, Aciman offers readers three possibilities: “[Barack Obama] either forgot, or just didn’t know, or just thought it wasn’t expedient or appropriate for this venue.”

The writer’s focus is on the Egyptian Jews, but a larger inference can be drawn from his writing about the Conflict. One of the factors that perpetuate it is the collective effort to forget crimes perpetrated against Jews by Muslims.

“It is a shame that [Obama] did not remind the Egyptians in the audience of [the expulsion and looting of Jews], because...their memory banks have been conveniently expunged of deadweight and guilt. They have no recollections of Jews.”

In part, as a result of this amnesia, Israel's peace with Egypt is cold and much of Hamas’ weaponry in Gaza comes through Egyptian territory.

Tough Love for Israel Has Arrived

2009-06-08T21:46:00.004-04:00

"Israel's Premier Promises Major Peace Plan"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's refusal to "respect understandings" reached between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former President George W Bush under the 2003 Road Map is not a sign of goodwill. These "understandings" are connected to Jewish communities on the Jordan River's west bank, or settlements, and the issue of natural growth.

Rather than regard Clinton's inflexibility toward an American ally as uncharacteristic, Isabel Kershner treats it matter-of-factly, as this is the tough love toward the Jewish state for which she and others at NYT have been waiting.

Beginning with Equivalences, Bronner Ultimately Undermines Them

2009-06-07T17:11:00.007-04:00

"The Divisions Among Israeli and Palestinians"; By Ethan Bronner; WK1

An article plagued by equivalences between Israeli settlers and Palestinian terrorists quietly gives the nod to Palestinians as the ones who have held up an agreement between the two.

There are "fierce and explosive divisions within each society between those who favor a deal and those who oppose one,” begins EB. The following paragraphs seeks to substantiate this claim.

Then suddenly, in the eleventh paragraph, EB betrays his equivalence, writing, “Among Palestinians, the problem is worse.”

At this point, he allows Gerald Steinberg, chairman of the political science department of Bar Ilan University, to undermine his treasured equivalence. “Mr. Steinberg rejected what he called an 'artificial symmetry' between the peace opponents in Israel and among the Palestinians,” reports EB.

Israelis are skeptical about peace because of practical concerns; whereas, most Palestinians are ideologically opposed to negotiating an agreement with Israel, Steinberg argues.

When at the conclusion of his report, EB tries to shift the focus back to Israel and the “schism” inside it, the reader hardly notices. The truth about Palestinian disfunction and intransigence has seeped through into his consciousness, holding sway.

Bronner Mischaracterizes Fourth Geneva in Article

2009-06-06T16:51:00.003-04:00

"Obama Pins Mideast Hope on Limiting Settlements"; By Ethan Bronner; A1

Ethan Bronner starts to present a balanced view of the conflict between Israel and the United States - initiated by President Obama - over settlement growth in "Obama Pins..."

He quotes Yossi Beilin, Oslo's architect, but counters him with Efraim Inbar of the Begin-Sadat Institute and Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post.

As the articles nears it end, however, balance is upset and a slant sets in.

"The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids a country to settle its civilians in areas conquered militarily. Israel set up military outposts that turned into civilian settlements."

The Fourth Geneva prevents the forcible transfer of civilians to areas conquered militarily; it does not prevent citizens who settle of their own volition, as Jews have in Judea & Samaria on the Jordan River's west bank.

"Palestinians were enraged [by settlement construction]. Some resorted to terrorism, leading some Israelis to argue that settlements were a vital front line to protect the heartland."

The causal link between settlement construction and Palestinian terrorism is abhorrent. Palestinian terrorists, usually sent by Hamas, have been against the existence of Israel, in general, not just settlement construction. To suggest that terrorism is a direct result of settlements is a fabrication.

In Cairo, Obama Lays Himself Bare Before World Jewry

2009-06-05T13:33:00.015-04:00

"Addressing Muslims, Obama Pushes Mideast Peace"; By Jeff Zeleny and Alan Cowell; A1
"The Cairo Speech"; Editorial; A22

When he campaigned for the presidency last year, the fairest assessment that could be made about Barack Obama’s view of Israel was that it was an unknown. Campaign statements were concise, even staid, rather than revelatory. Yesterday’s speech in Cairo provides the best material thus far for American Jews to understand how Obama will work with Israel to achieve security & recognition.

As Zeleny & Cowell report, Obama spent a great deal of effort identifying and empathizing with Palestinians, “to get through to his audience," as Paul Wolfkowitz said. The content of Obama’s speech will be analyzed for weeks to come, but, here, a point must be made about how Z&C report on it.

The speech “infuriated some Israelis and American backers of Israel because they saw the speech as elevating the Palestinians to equal status.” This phrasing is ill and strikes me as – perhaps purposely – misleading. Readers may think Israelis resent that Palestinians, their fellow humans, are being cast as equals. Rather, the issue is the equality Obama presumes between a polity, Israel, and a proto-polity, “Palestine,” as he referred to it.

Indeed, the use of the word "Palestine" – not, as NYT mentions, a “reference to a future Palestinian state" as President George W. Bush employed it in March 2002 – is problematic; but it is also simply odd. The President of the United States is the great conveyor of the world’s reality, and “Palestine” is a politicized, propagandistic, fantastical, and, most importantly, non-geopolitical term.

The editorial board could hardly conceal its glee about "The Cairo Speech," but, most interestingly, it didn’t mention this oh-so-provocative word. Even NYT, which seeks to be academic, knows that its usage is problematic, and its lack of acknowledgement of Obama’s usage - even as it reminds readers that “words are important" - was a subtle non-endorsement.

Livni Hits Homer on the Democratic Process in Times Op-ed

2009-06-05T13:13:00.002-04:00

"Democracy's Price of Admission," A23 (Op-ed), by Tzipi Livni

In a rare New York Times op-ed that is favorable to Israel, leader of the Kadima Party Tzipi Livni surprisingly offers her views on those groups that should participate in democratic elections and more importantly, on those that should not.

She based her piece off of Obama's assertion in his Cairo speech that "Elections alone do not make true democracy." Livni then cogently argues that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have "sought participation in the democratic process not to forsake their violent agenda but to advance it. For them, electoral participation was merely a way to gain legitimacy — not an opportunity to change. Some of these groups were better seen as “one-time democrats” determined to use the democratic system against itself." She furthers her point by saying, "We cannot offer international legitimacy for radical groups and then simply hope that elections and governance will take care of the rest."

In the end, Livni proposes the compelling idea of " a universal code for participation in democratic elections" which would "include requiring every party running for office to renounce violence, pursue its aims by peaceful means and commit to binding laws and international agreements." It should be self-evident, for example, that Hezbollah's maintenance of its own militia is contradictory to democratic principles.

Livni perceptively notes that democracy "is about responsibilities as well as rights." If Obama is serious about democracy in the Middle East, he will heed Livni's comments and demand that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist gruops disarm in order to participate in the democratic process.

Settlement Freeze or Brain Freeze? Obama's Singular Focus on the Settlement Issue

2009-06-04T23:13:00.003-04:00

"Israelis Say Bush Agreed to West Bank Growth"; By Ethan Bronner; A6

In an important factual article, Times reporter Ethan Bronner airs Israeli complaints that President Obama failed to acknowledge “clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement ‘freeze.’”

Through this piece, it appears that the Bush definition of a settlement freeze entailed no new construction of settlements but permitted construction within the “existing community outline” of major settlement blocs that were expected to stay under Israeli sovereignty after a final agreement. The difficulty seems to be that these community outlines were never specifically outlined.

On the other hand, the Obama definition of a settlement freeze is absolutely no construction of any kind within all existing settlements in the West Bank. This includes the “natural growth” of the settlements, as any town or city has a natural population expansion. Bronner fails to note that the Israeli consensus is that this is a preposterous and onerous demand given that 1) certain settlement blocs are expected to be part of Israel 2) settlements are not the principal impediment to peace, so why place it under a magnifying glass while ignoring other key issues?

And another key question is what the legal status of Bush’s 2004 letter to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (who let us not forget is still somehow alive!) which stated: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

To Obama, it apparently means nothing. In his world, Palestinian grievances far outweigh Israeli concerns (maybe if Israel yelled loud enough to they would be grievances too), so the only just solution must be Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. Unfortunately, Palestinian grievances aren’t so limited. Can Obama see that?

Obama and the Settlers' Children

2009-06-02T11:09:00.014-04:00

"Israel and U.S. Can't Close Split on Settlements"
A1, Tuesday 6/2/09
By Isabel Kershner

****************

"Obama Talks of Being 'Honest' With Israel"
A8, Tuesday, 6/2/09
By Helene Cooper

****************

This is more of the near daily coverage of the U.S.-Israel "split" over settlements.

Kershner implies that "building within the confines of established settlements" is "expanding settlements" and then goes on to cite the population growth of Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, without specifying whether they live in blocs. The distinction is key, since the settlement blocs would not preclude the viability of a Palestinian state.

Kershner, citing "many critics," takes to task "the notion that settlers' children have an absolute right to continue living in their parents' settlement." She quotes activist Dror Etkes, who embarassingly takes literal the word "children". "A newborn does not need a house," says Etkes. "It is a game the Israeli government is playing."

"Settlers' children" more likely refers to a young couple wanting to live close to their family. With housing in some larger settlements in short supply, they would be forced to live elsewhere. This is not only hardly a "game," but it is not a fringe notion. As Netanyahu recently stated, but which the Times is loathe to even explore, "the will of the public" is behind preserving the major settlement blocs.

********

Meanwhile, Helene Cooper follows up her article just yesterday with new material from President Obama. "Part of being a good friend is being honest," explains the President.

There is some positive in Obama's interview with the BBC in which he states "I think we have not seen a set of potential gestures from other Arab states, or from the Palestinians, that might deal with some Israeli concerns." Nevertheless, Arab states have remained defiant that overtures to Israel will not precede a finalized peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, which is nowhere near to happening.

The President should understand that to be honest with a friend, you have to fully understand your friend's predicament.

Obsession with Settlements Plagues Cooper's Reporting

2009-06-01T17:51:00.004-04:00

"Weighing Tactics on Israeli Settlements"; By Helene Cooper; A7

In a region with perhaps the worst Freedom House ratings measuring democracy, liberalism, and human rights, Helene Cooper preposterously focuses on Israeli settlements as she forecasts Barack’s trip to the Middle East this week.

By putting the issue at the center of today’s article, NYT is subtly pressuring Barack to show American “ire” with Israel.

Speaking of economic and political interaction between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Cooper describes the prospect as “a tall order for the Arab kingdom, which has, thus far, eschewed taking much of a role that could be seen as acknowledging Israel.”

For a moment, readers must reflect on this point, one which demonstrates the unrelenting intransigence of Saudi Arabia. Having considered it, one can hardly believe that Barack's stance on Israeli settlements is the key factor to Middle East peace.

Settlements Red Herring Deepens

2009-05-29T17:28:00.011-04:00

"Obama Calls for Swift Move Toward Mideast Peace Talks"
A10, Friday 5/29/09,
By Helene Cooper

President Barack Obama, May 28, 2009:

“I mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments to peace.”

That all or at least part of this admonishment from President Obama was not referenced in this article is testament to the misguided obsession the New York Times has with Israeli settlements. This article was the lone piece dedicated to the Obama-Abbas meeting and the absence of these remarks by the President is simply unacceptable.

There is also something perverse in the admonishment itself, if one can even call it that. The Palestinian Authority (PA) should “continue” to make progress in reducing anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement, that are "sometimes" expressed? What specific progress has the PA made? Has the Times been monitoring this? What does it mean that Israel is systematically demonized by its supposed peace partners?

Perhaps this incitement, and the associated anti-Israel terrorism, helps explain Israel’s reluctance to expel West Bank Jews from their homes and demolish their communities – especially if such actions are meant to make room for a peaceful Palestinian state.

As the prominent Arab-Israeli journalist, Khaled Abu Toameh recently conveyed at a forum in Canada, “Israel's West Bank settlements are no obstacle; they’re a red herring: a minor issue that Jerusalem will easily handle—based on its readiness to dismantle its settlements in the past—when the moment is right. That time is not now, and is not coming soon.”

Blinded by a dogma that overlooks this unfortunate reality, the Times obsessively focuses on the red herring of settlements, and in so doing, misleads the public regarding the issues that matter.

Times Cheerleads for US Pressure on Israel; Israeli Consensus: Settlement Freeze Stupid

2009-05-28T13:22:00.017-04:00

"Israeli Settlement Growth Must Stop, Clinton Says,"
A10, by Mark Landler & Isabel Kershner

Although nominally a neutral news article, one can sense the Times’ excitement over continuing U.S. rhetorical pressure on Israel to halt all settlement growth. Secretary of State Clinton said, “He [Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Reporters Landler and Kershner note that Clinton's remarks are "the administration's strongest to date on the matter."

In support of the White House’s position, the Times marches out the same old tired “facts” and experts.

“Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.”

The great majority of settlers live adjacent to the 1949 Armistice Lines, within Israel’s security barrier. Regarding international law, the world may interpret it one way, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. The Times ignores UN Security Council Resolution 242, which does not demand Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank, as it would imperil Israel’s basic security.

“Expert” Aaron David Miller, leading (Jewish) proponent of US pressure on Israel: “She [Clinton] is stripping away whatever nuance, or whatever fig leaf, that would have allowed a deeply ideological government to make a settlement deal that is politically acceptable at home. They’ve concluded, ‘We’re going to force a change in behavior.’”

The Times frequently use Miller for an expert quote, even though he simply repeats his same stance: more pressure on Israel will bring about peace. It’s troubling that the Times does not cite an analyst with an opposing view, leading to the clear deduction of NYT bias.

“Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have said repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.”

How exactly did this prevent the Palestinian leadership from accepting Israel’s Ehud Barak’s final status offer in 2000 at Camp David or Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008?

Ultimately though, the idea of a US-pressured settlement freeze, focusing on the issue of natural growth (since Israel doesn’t build new settlements or expand the territory of existing settlements), doesn’t really make any sense. If the US is attempting to address Palestinian grievances, this will fail, since Palestinians continue to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish State and demand an implementation of the right of return. And what will happen when the Palestinian Authority continues to reject Israel’s peace overtures? The Israeli concern is that such a freeze will be indefinite since the PA is not rushing to make a peace agreement.

If the US intention is to induce Arab regimes to support American efforts against Iran, this will also fail as the last thing these weak regimes wish to do is to produce more internal discontent.

Secondly, there is the matter of practicality. To the Times' credit, they quote Defense Minister Ehud Barak in which he “gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement: ‘Now there are six children. Should they be allowed to build another room or not? Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.’”

Main point being, it is a consensus issue in Israel that a settlement freeze is impractical, wrong, and will achieve very little to nothing in relation to the Palestinians. How about the Times reports on that?

Not when it stands by and acts as an active cheerleader of US pressure on Israel.

Iran Is at the Center of Nuclear Activity This Week

2009-05-27T17:02:00.004-04:00

"Israel Ties 2 Nations to Iran's Uranium"; AP; Tuesday, May 26; A7

"North Korea Nuclear Question"; Letters; A26

The problem of nuclear proliferation is at the forefront of news so far this week. As yesterday’s report from the AP indicates, Venezuela and Bolivia are aiding Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran’s nuclear program arises again today, as letter-writers respond to an article about North Korea’s recent nuclear test. Both countries continue to snub international efforts to curb their militaristic and nuclear activities.

“The only country with the courage to take military action against Iran is Israel,” says Paul Schoenbaum in a letter.

Times Continues to Honor Israel's Harshest National Critics

2009-05-26T17:39:00.007-04:00

"Amos Elon, Israeli Author, Dies at 82,"
B8 (Obituary), by Ethan Bronner

The Times continues to honor Israel’s harshest national critics with an obituary for Israeli essayist and author Amos Elon. The article is very similar to an August 2008 obituary for Abie Nathan, an eccentric peace activist but marginal figure in Israeli history.

Regarding Elon, Bronner writes he “examined his society’s flaws and myths.” In fact, Elon typically went far beyond that in his hyper-critique of his own country. He is quoted as saying that his country is a “disappointment.” He truly had nothing positive to say about Israel.

To get a real sense of the loathing Elon had for his homeland, one must read his sensationalist 2004 interview with Ha’aretz’s Ari Shavit in which he shares:

I think that Zionism has exhausted itself. Precisely because it accomplished its aims. If the Zionism of today isn't a success story, it's the fault of the Zionists. It's because of the religio-zation and Likudization of Zionism and because what was supposed to be a state-of-the-Jews has become a Jewish state.

In response, Shavit challenges him:

Or maybe you just can't identify with a state that isn't secular-European. I want to remind you that in your classic book, "The Israelis," there are no Sephardim or religious people or traditional people. The Israel you loved was the secular-European Israel. Its others didn't really interest you.

And there is the essence of a man profoundly disconnected with his country, who was always prepared to demean it. As Shavit notes, Elon “is known throughout the world but has become nearly anonymous here [in Israel].” Forgotten in Israel, The Times resurrects the man’s memory in order to further its own mission of heralding the failures of the Jewish State.

It's a match made in heaven.

Times' Letters Scrape Bottom

2009-05-26T15:41:00.037-04:00

"Israelis, Iranians and Existential Threats,"
A18, Letters to the Editor

In this case, two out of three is bad.

Two of three letters published, in response to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent "Amalek" piece, reflect a disturbing pattern at the Times: letters critical of Israel – no matter how inane or shallow – receive space on its opinion page.

One letter observes that Israel is in a “precarious” state due to “its continuing reliance on military power to solve political problems.” But are Israel’s conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas diplomatically resolvable? Both militant movements continue to make clear that their problem is Israel’s existence – not its policies.

And does Israel “depend on its nuclear umbrella to dominate the Muslim Middle East," as this same writer absurdly contends, or does Israel depend on its nuclear umbrella to serve as a deterrent to fanatics clearly intent on destroying it?

Israel’s "failure to negotiate”, the writer continues, will do Israel in. “Nuclear parity with Iran,” may even be to Israel’s benefit as it “might shock Netanyahu into finally accepting peace — meaning a state for a people whose existence is truly precarious, the Palestinians.”

First, Israel doesn't need to be threatened with nuclear war to accept Palestinian statehood. They've accepted it, and negotiated for it, many times, only to be rebuffed by a Palestinian movement uninterested in ending the conflict.

Second, far from precarious, the Palestinians’ existence is on quite a strong footing. Palestinian health standards have dramatically increased under Israeli rule; its population has boomed; nearly all Palestinians in the territories live under PA control; they receive unprecedented international attention, backing and funding; all this for a people's movement that does not simply want its own state, but the demise of another.

What's most disturbing here is that the Times would take heed of the idea that Iranian nukes could lead to peace.

In the second letter, Israel may be threatened, but it needn't worry, since it has nukes and a first-rate army. In the third letter, Israel is not even threatened. It just “decimates the infrastructure of Lebanon, the civilians of Gaza, and now threatens Iran.” There’s no Hezbollah, Hamas or radical regime in Tehran controlling both.

“Instead of pre-emptive strikes, a mature, powerful country would engage in diplomacy, mutual agreements and safeguards to assure security, prosperity and peace.” If only Israel had such options.

These letters do not simply offer an alternative view, or criticism, of Israel's policies. They offer nothing constructive, serving merely as anti-Israel counterpoints. One wonders what interesting critiques of Goldberg’s piece were left out because they didn’t fit the Times’ view of the conflict – in which threats to a mighty Israel are supposed, and Arab states' grievances are rooted in concern for justice.

Unfortunately, the letters the Times chooses to publish on Arab-Israeli peace continue to scrape the bottom of the public discourse barrel.

Goldberg's Review of Morris' New Book Is a Hit

2009-05-24T18:42:00.001-04:00

"No Common Ground"; By Jeffrey Goldberg; NYTBR; 12

Reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s review of Benny Morris’ One State, Two States is a welcome relief considering the anti-Israel bias of the majority of books and reviewers published in NYTBR.

Muhammad Dahlan’s statement about Fatah’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is one of the few occasions where this matter is brought before NYT’s reading public. And as Goldberg points out, it substantiates Morris’ argument in One State, Two States that Arab rejectionism is the cause for continued strife between Israel and her neighbors.

The turning point for Morris that allowed him to reach this conclusion was Yasir Arafat’s rejection of Ehud Barak’s offer of a state in December 1999.

One problem is outstanding in this review, and it comes from the reviewer when he pushes to hard to find fault with Morris’ narrative. The author, argues Goldberg, “ignores the possibility that recent Israeli mistakes have marginalized” moderate Palestinians. The mistake Goldberg has in mind is Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal of 2005.

Apparently, the reviewer subscribes to the myth that Israel's Gaza withdrawal was a missed opportunity for coordination with the Palestinian Authority. This is a myth, as Goldberg ought to know, because the PA can never be seen as coming to an interim agreement with Israel. Only a final status agreement can be had. That is why it rebuffed Sharon's offers for coordination.

That Goldberg suggests otherwise weakens the review and this reader’s opinion of the reviewer. After all, the best part of the piece is the opening, which demonstrates that rejectionism is part of the PA – the supposedly moderate peace partner – but the ending undermines the opening, as it resuscitates the notion that the PA wants to peacefully end the Conflict.

More Misreading of PA, Arab and Muslim Views of Israel

2009-05-23T17:17:00.004-04:00

"Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu"
A20, Saturday 5/23/09,
Editorial

While the Times’ latest editorial shows some fresh sensibility on Iran, it is victim to the tired dogma that informs its view of Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

Obama is urged to “come up with a strategy for constraining Iran’s nuclear program — with compelling incentives or far more dissuasive sanctions. There isn’t a lot of time for either.” Israel is “right that time is clearly on Iran’s side.” Obama should be “using the time now to prepare Europe and Russia for the necessity of much tougher sanctions if (diplomacy) fails.”

This is a start. Yet what would’ve been truly welcome is an admonishment that U.S. coalition building on Iran must not wait for, or be linked to, progress in peace talks between Israel and its neighbors – a linkage in which the President, unfortunately, believes. The Arab states, knowing, that at the end of the day, Iran will be stopped by someone else, will exploit the linkage to apply pressure on Israel while pussyfooting on the peace process.

On the two-state solution, the Times incredibly, like clockwork, urges only Israel to “embrace” the two-state solution. Lest the Times appear soft on the Palestinian Authority (PA), it writes that the PA “must do more to prove that they are capable of self-government.” In the Times' logic, promoting coexistence, let alone refraining from demonizing Israel, is not one of these responsibilities.

The rejection of Israel that underpins so much of Fatah’s politics is truly revealing when listening to the multitude of supposedly moderate calls from the region that acceptance of Israel will come when the Palestinian issue is solved. To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, "we'll accept whatever the Palestinians accept".

This also reveals the danger in the linkage the Times promotes – “working credibly and even-handedly on a peace deal is central to repairing (US) relations with the Muslim world.

Contrary to perception, a peace deal will inflame the Muslim world. This isn't because the Muslim world hates peace, but because Israel, however truncated, is seen as a colonial project. Many dishonestly, and honestly, see Muslims living there as being treated inferior to Jews. No matter the “bolstering of Abbas,” he and the PLO (ironically, itself rejecting and undermining Israel) will continue to be seen as Israel’s lackeys.

This reality makes all the more wild The Times' next idea: Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech should be used as an opportunity, not only to preach harmony with the Muslim world, but to “do better” than George W. Bush’s endorsement of a Palestinian state. What is better than that endorsement? Endorsing it to the masses in Cairo or just making good on the endorsement? Spell it out.

The Times believes that since he's a popular U.S. President, with a Muslim background, Obama will be able promote peace in the Middle East. Thought of like this, it makes sense. Thought of as promoting enduring colonialism in the heart of the Middle East, it makes less sense. Obama is already widely seen – at least on the issue of Palestine – as a Zionist tool. Okay, so try.

The problem is not that the Times sees Obama's message of accepting Israel (if it'll even be that explicit) making a difference. The problem is that the Times sees it making enough of a difference to force a policy change toward Israel. This is beyond hope. It's naivete.

The Times' dogma on the Arab-Israeli conflict misreads an undeniably monolithic Arab and Muslim view of Israel. This paper needs to stops projecting and to start tackling the realities of that region's politics.

With Lebanese Elections Looming, Times Instead Focuses on Spies for Israel

2009-05-23T14:32:00.001-04:00

In the fourth article on Lebanese citizens spying for Israel in the past month, Times reporter Robert Worth finally gives some context to the issue, though fails in other regards.

Worth importantly notes that “It is no secret that Israel has long maintained intelligence agents” in Lebanon (so why so many articles on the issue?). The difference being now that the Lebanese government, in greater coordination with Hezbollah, has actually succeeded in capturing more of these alleged spies, “including a retired general, several security officials and a deputy mayor.”

One must then ask, what is motivating these Lebanese to spy for Israel? Worth argues, without any sort of corroboration, that “most seem to have been motivated by the promise of money.” He doesn’t address any sort of other motivations though, such as opposition to Hezbollah, which would like to create an Islamic Republic modeled off of Iran’s regime in Lebanon.

Many Lebanese are deeply opposed to such an outcome. Hezbollah would logically be the focus of Israel’s spying efforts. One would assume that many of those that are spying for Israel have no love for Hezbollah (otherwise they probably wouldn’t spy on them), but Worth doesn’t wish to go there.

Worth also is compelled to use contentious descriptions to Israel’s detriment, referring to the Second Lebanon War as Israel’s “punishing bombing campaign.” Of course, he makes no reference of Hezbollah’s use of human shields by embedding itself deep within the civilian population.

Ultimately, it is surprising that Worth devotes such a lengthy article to this marginal issue when greater analysis is needed for the upcoming Lebanese general elections on June 7, 2009. The results of this election will have great implications for both Lebanon and Israel, as well as the entire region.

The Times instead places the magnifying glass on Israel, which is par for the course.

As De Facto Sovereign, Hamas Responsible for Attacks Against Israel

2009-05-23T13:44:00.002-04:00

"Israel: 2 Palestinian Militants Are Killed," A8 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

A more explanatory title would be desired, detailing that these militants were directly engaged in hostile activity, but at least the brief piece gets the context correct.

This was a further act of unbridled Palestinian aggression as operatives from Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine attempted to maim Israeli soldiers.

It is important to note that Hamas possesses "effective control" of Gaza, but is unwilling to prevent attacks against Israel, because, well, it supports "armed struggle" against Israel. As the de facto sovereign of Gaza, Hamas bears primary responsibility for these attacks.

Israel's Extremes are Laid Before the Reader in Strong Relief

2009-05-22T13:11:00.003-04:00

"Israel Removes an Illegal Settler Outpost in the West Bank"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Two statements stand out in Isabel Kershner's article, "Israel Removes...," one from former outpost resident Daniel Landesberg, the other from Peace Now's Yariv Oppenheimer. Both expose the weaknesses of thought and argument from those at Israel's extremes.

Landesberg exaggeratedly suggests that Israel will do whatever the US wants. Oppenheimer is dismissive of the dismantling because Maoz Esther is not "significant."

Landesberg's comment is typical of those affiliated with religious Zionist Gush Emunim movementfor whom Israel can never act affirmatively enough. There is even a strain of anti-Americanism in this movement. In contrast, for Oppenheimer and those in Peace Now, America must effectively parent the ever recalcitrant son, Israel, and Israeli independence is regarded negatively. In rebuttal to Oppenheimer's statement, the destruction of people's homes and enforcement of the law are always significant matters.

From the vantage point of the middle ground, which is solid, firm, sensible, and moderate, settlements are not definitively illegal, and illegal outposts, constructed without the approval of the Israeli government, should be dismantled.

Coverage of the Failed Bombing Attacks Continues

2009-05-22T12:25:00.006-04:00

"In Ex-Convicts' Bomb Case, Steps and Missteps, on Tape"; By Michael Wilson; A1, A24
"Suspects in Terror Bombing Plot: Drug Arrests and Prison Conversions"; By Al Baker; A24
"Interfaith Understanding Wins Out, and a Plot Loses"; By Clyde Haberman; A25
"In Riverdale, New Anxieties, and a Resolve to Carry On"; By Lisa W. Foderaro; A25

Regrettably, unavoidably, one must note how poisonous anti Semitism has infected the black community during the last several decades and how that impacted the perpetrators of Wednesday night's failed attack. According to the accounts published, these were broken men who found vigor in the prospect of murdering Jews.

Clyde Haberman’s piece on interfaith dialogue is the cheesiest. Its equivalences are regrettable, as it gives the impression that Jews and Muslims feel equally threatened, one from the other. Threats from Muslims toward Jews are real, evidenced by attacks across the globe. Threats from Jews toward Muslims, while not non-existent, are a fraction of the former.

Placing attention on adolescents’ efforts to reach interfaith understanding indirectly exempts adults from that responsibility. Although the youth work is important and foundational, a much more important and difficult conversation needs to take place between Muslim and Jewish adults, wherein Muslim anti-Semitism is laid bare.

Fatah's Resistance to Israel Remains Non-Issue

2009-05-21T20:44:00.047-04:00

"Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party"
A14, Thursday 5/21/09, Memo from Ramallah
By Ethan Bronner
****************
"Vote Fatah (or Hamas)"
A35, Thursday, 5/21/09, Op-Ed
By Khalil Shikaki
****************

In two feature pieces on the Palestinian Authority (PA), and its ruling Fatah party, the Times’ Ethan Bronner and op-ed contributor Khalil Shikaki offer a measure of critical analysis on several issues, yet overlook perhaps the most relevant: the PA’s failure to genuinely accept Israel's existence.

Bronner appropriately writes that Fatah “has the organizational transparency of a Soviet republic,” and has been painfully slow to reform. Shikaki writes more of a defense of the PA. In an incomplete, or simply dishonest, assessment, he writes that the PA has not just restored order, but defeated the terrorists. In reality, the IDF is preventing a Hamas coup in the West Bank and the PA is nowhere close to assuming total control of security.

Shikaki then laments that the PA hasn’t been “able to translate its recent accomplishments into political gains in its negotiations with Israel”. Shikaki seems unable to translate the news from just months ago, when the PA again turned down a desperate Israeli government offering statehood.

Shikaki writes that Israel’s failure to “dismantle its widespread network of checkpoints in the West Bank” is a violation of the road map, and puts the PA in a tough position with its citizens – who expect results. In Shikaki’s reality, where Israel has no role in preventing attacks and the PA has “disarmed nationalist and Islamist groups,” Israel’s checkpoints will come across to readers as simply a slap in the face of its Palestinian peace partners.

On the issue of peace with Israel, Bronner offers no penetrating analysis and fails to connect the dots from otherwise revealing quotes.

"Fatah used to be a movement focused on armed struggle,” Bronner cites a Palestinian activist. Yes, but Abbas has spoken of keeping armed struggle as an option down the road. And of course, dropping armed struggle doesn't preclude the adoption of political struggle as a way to ensure the conflict continues, a strategy that's an obvious facet of Palestinian politics. This deception must be called out, especially by such an important and reputable newspaper.

Bronner writes of Palestinians' hopes for a new leader, “Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison,” failing to mention the dastardly crimes of which he was convicted. Bronner writes also of a future Fatah that “could also be more militant,” without exploring this problematic prospect. He then cites a PA official who says that if political discourse to pursue “national goals” (not "peace with Israel") “doesn’t work in a certain time frame we should resort to other options, including armed resistance.” There's no follow-up on this disturbing point. (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, Shikaki openly cites some of his poll findings, such as the Palestinian public supporting armed attacks against Israeli civilians at its highest level in four years. Considering Fatah is doing an "impressive" job stopping these attacks, what better time for Israel to dismantle its provocative network of checkpoints.

"Many would argue," writes Shikaki, “a Hamas victory would derail the peace process. But to many Palestinians, this statement misses the point; if the Palestinians don’t speak with one voice, the peace process cannot go far.”

Palestinians could be missing the point. Peace with Israel doesn’t hinge only on speaking with one voice, but with one peaceful voice. Armed struggle (Hamas), indoctrination (Hamas and Fatah) and lawfare (Fatah) against Israel may be the voice unity produces, but this is not the voice of peace and moderation.

Struggle within Fatah is a theme throughout. In an “identity crisis" and deciding “what exactly it stands for,” Fatah is divided. However, the truly sad – and unreported – reality here is that unending violent or political resistance to Israel is a point on which all of Fatah can agree.

Syria Interested in "Process" not Peace, Netanyahu does the peace jig

2009-05-21T18:48:00.003-04:00

In an article that really lacks any deeper the analysis, the Times reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports peace talks with Syria without preconditions. The Times doesn’t really explore whether Syria will respond in kind or has any serious commitment to peace, instead choosing to focus exclusively on Israeli actions, as if Syria doesn’t exist.

Of importance though, reporter Isabel Kershner quotes Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, who properly observes that Syrian leader “Assad is only interested in the peace process in order to get his country out of its international isolation and to remove the pressure of the international community.” This is a key point which many analysts fail to note (including the Times): Syria is interested in the “process,” not peace.

Time and again, Syria has shown that it is not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices for peace, feigning interest in a peace process so that it can reap dividends from the international community. For the Syrian regime, it is more worthwhile for Israel to be its eternal enemy and scapegoat on which to blame national and regional ills, rather than recoup the Golan Heights.

Despite Syria's clear lack of sincere attentions, Netanyahu understands he must do the tired old peace jig in order to mollify those voices that believe Israeli intransigence is the barrier to an agreement.

Who Won the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting? Who Cares!? We're Allies!

2009-05-21T18:21:00.002-04:00

"Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu," A14, by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler

Straight from the title, the Times skews the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, writing as if the Obama-Netanyahu meeting was some sort of zero-sum game, rather than a reciprocal relationship. Need the Times be reminded that the U.S. and Israel continue to be strong allies, despite the Times frequent call for increased American pressure on Israel.

In the article, the Times creates the impression that Netanyahu “won” this round by securing from Obama a timetable for dealing with Iran, while Obama was unable to extract a settlement freeze from Netanyahu.

First of all, Obama’s declaration, “We’re not going to have talks forever,” does not really amount to much of a timetable. Does anybody believe that any administration would hold interminable talks with the unyielding regime in Iran? Secondly, was Obama’s goal to induce Israel to freeze settlement construction? His goal seemed more related to securing Netanyahu’s support for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Two-State Solution.

On this issue, a senior White House official contentedly comments:

The president was clear, both publicly and privately, that all parties, including the Israelis, have obligations as they relate to settlements, as they relate to Gaza, and as they relate to two states.

Another administration official importantly notes that “Mr. Obama’s timetable on Iran was not predicated on a quid pro quo from Israel.” President Obama and his staff are intelligent enough to know that Israeli concessions to the Palestinians will make dealing with Iran no easier.

So in the end, who won? Who cares!? We’re allies!

A Church Leader's Complaint, Hate Crime, and Judicial Action in Argentina

2009-05-21T15:51:00.015-04:00

"Security Faulted for No-Shows at Papal Mass"; By Isabel Kershner; A14
"Madoff Loss Hits Art Aid for Young in Israel"; By Daniel J. Wakin; C1
"Israeli Companies Seek Global Profile"; By James Flanigan; B5
"Argentina Seeks Colombian in Attack on Jewish Center"; World Briefing; By Alexei Barrionuevo; A10
"4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues"; By Al Baker and Javier C. Hernandez; A1

A slough of articles connected to Israel and the Jewish people mark the pages of NYT today - from complaints by a church leader in Jerusalem to a failed bomb attack in the Bronx to a judicial action against a Columbian terrorist in Buenos Aires.

It is important to note that the church leader featured at the center of "Security Faulted..." was not part of the Vatican, as Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, points out.

“The pope was caught up often in the region’s fraught politics and raw sensitivities,” writes Kershner, placing the church leader's comment in a larger framework. Last week’s reporting indicates that Israelis' sensitivities were disregarded and Palestinian grievances were attended to.

An article in the C section demonstrates that reverberations from the Madoff scandal continue in the Jewish community, as a musician's scholarship program - nastily described by Wakin as "unabashedly aimed at casting Israel in a positive light" - may not have enough funding to continue next year.

In the Business section, an article appears about Israeli companies, which avoids dragging the Conflict into the reporting - for the most part. In response to a reference to Israel as "a safe bet" by Sharona Justman, the managing director of a consulting group, reporter James Flanigan, obnoxiously writes,

"Though 'safe' is not a word often associated with the Middle East or Israel, Ms. Justman noted that through years of regional tension, the economy has grown and venture capital has continued to flow to Israel.”

Nonetheless, more articles like this need to appear in NYT's Business section.

Other good news comes from Argentina where a court is taking steps to bring to justice those who perpetrated the 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Finally, the attempted attack by four Muslim American citizens on two Bronx synagogues is a painful reminder of the threat the Jewish community worldwide faces. As quoted in the article, Representative Peter T. King, Republican from Long Island, said, "There’s a real threat from homegrown terrorists and also from jailhouse converts.”

Iranian Missile Launch Heightens Importance of Obama-Netanyahu Talks

2009-05-21T15:17:00.004-04:00

"Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range"; David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi; A6

An Iranian missile test is the latest embarrassment to the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, as it is a signal of the Islamic Republic’s belligerence.

Reporters Sanger and Fathi suggest that the missile launch was part of President Ahamadinehad’s re-election campaign. The other candidates, readers are reminded, are more moderate than he. Being more moderate than a mad man isn’t the tallest task. Moreover, for a missile launch to occur, sanction must have been given at the highest level. As Westerners are frequently reminded, Ahmadinejad is a figurehead. Sanger and Fathi do not quote responses from the other candidates. If they really are moderate and are in disagreement with Ahmadinejad, then one would expect a public statement. One can hardly imagine an election in America where such an action would not provoke a response from the opposition.

The end of the article references the meeting earlier in the week between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who achieved a compromise on the Iranian nuclear issue. Netanyahu supports Obama’s diplomatic efforts, and Obama has accommodated Netanyahu, declaring that the these efforts have a deadline – year’s end.

Inventing Obama's Iran Timetable

2009-05-19T23:50:00.005-04:00

"Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has an Iran Timetable"
A12, Tuesday 5/19/09,
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

If there was a story here about an Iran timetable, it's that Obama doesn't have one.

Netanyahu has been looking for a deadline on U.S. engagement with Iran, but came away empty from his first meeting with the President. Yet right there in the headline, the implication is that Netanyahu got from Obama what he was looking for.

Obama stated that by the end of this year, the U.S. would reassess the productivity of talks with Iran. This is the most specific Obama was on this point -- in reality and as reported in this article. Stolberg even seems to soften the headline's point when she rights in the 11th paragraph that "the exchange was the first time Mr. Obama had seemed willing to set even a general timetable for progress in talks with Iran". (emphasis mine)

It's unclear how "general" a timetable can actually be. A timetable is by definition a schedule (with more than one item), and Obama's vague reference to a year end evaluation should not be confused as one.

Stolberg makes another misstatement that Netanyahu got what he wanted. She writes "the more hawkish Mr. Netanyahu thanked Mr. Obama for keeping 'all options on the table' with respect to Iran. This is language that Mr. Obama rarely uses."

This is language that Obama rarely uses and did not use here, notwithstanding Stolberg's implication. Stolberg quotes Obama saying if diplomacy with Iran fails, he "did not intend to foreclose 'a range of steps'." The implication is that military action is part of this range. Interestingly, though, Stolberg shortened Obama's quote. The President had intoned something different when he said "we are not foreclosing a range of steps...including much stronger international sanctions." (emphasis mine)

Netanyahu may have spun what he wanted the press, and notably Iran, to hear. The Times either fell for the spin, or is set on framing the meeting as one in which Netanyahu got what he wanted.

Arab-Israelis: Holocaust Optional

2009-05-19T21:15:00.004-04:00

"Israel: Holocaust is Denied in Survey," A12 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

In an article that was much more deserving of a deeper analysis (rather than the mere 85 words the briefing was given), the Times reports that a University Haifa of survey found that 41% of Arab-Israelis don’t believe the Holocaust happened, up from 28% in 2006.

The survey’s director, Arab-Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha, “thinks the increase signals a rising frustration among Arabs, who say they believe that recognizing the Holocaust gives justification to Israeli policies.”

So it’s about Arab-Israeli grievances over (Jewish-) Israeli actions? What about Arab-Israeli accountability for their radicalism? Do not Arab-Israelis have their own agency or are they simply reactionary pawns to Israel’s behavior?

The article also fails to note, among other radical postures exposed in the survey, that 12.6% of Arab-Israelis now believe that “any means, including military, should be used to improve their conditions” (up from 5.5% in 2003). Additionally, “47% of local Arabs object to having a Jewish neighbor” and 22% believe Israel has no right to exist.

What seems most disturbing though is how historical fact and truth seem to be optional for many Arab-Israelis depending on their attitudes toward Israel. However, there exists no grievance to justify the denial of historically documented fact. Truth is not discretionary.

Terrorists Use Facebook!?

2009-05-19T20:59:00.002-04:00

"Israel Warns About Web," A5, by Reuters

Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, warns that terrorist groups are using social networking sites such as “Facebook to recruit and possibly kidnap, Israeli citizens.”

There was nothing more newsworthy happening in the world? And what isn’t happening on Facebook? Wouldn’t we be more surprised if terrorist groups weren’t trying this?

Note to Times: not everything related to Israel is newsworthy.

Reporters Must Question Whether Espionage Cases Are Good for Lebanon or Hezbollah

2009-05-19T10:59:00.003-04:00

"2 Lebanese, Suspected of Spying, Escape to Israel"; AP; A5

“2 Lebanese…” is the most recent of several articles published in the last two months about a crackdown on Lebanese who spy on behalf of Israel.

What each report has lacked is a broader analysis of how these prosecutions are connected to the ascent of Hezbollah, itself an organization alien to Lebanon. In other words, Hezbollah, which takes directives from Iran and Syria, drives the espionage charges, but no reporter has cast an ironic glance toward them.

As the AP reports, “The arrests…appear to have singled out those suspected of gathering information about Hezbollah’s militants.” Reporters should question whether the charges are in the interest of Lebanon, a state fighting for its independence, or Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.

One could make the case that those who spy on Hezbollah are acting in a patriotic fashion. The fact that Israel backs them is not an indication that the spies are lovers of Israel but, rather, that Israel is the only force in the region that is stronger than Hezbollah.

Lastly, readers should be assured that Hezbollah-directed raids intended to gather incriminating evidence are done outside of any legal framework, reinforcing the chaotic, lawless environment in Lebanon.

Times Gleefully Hopes for Greater Pressure on Israel in One-Sided Article

2009-05-17T21:45:00.002-04:00

"World Watches for U.S. Shift on Mideast," A16, by Helene Cooper

In a terribly tendentious article, the Times Helene Cooper anticipates a policy shift by President Obama on American-Israeli relations in favor of the Palestinians.

In support of this view, Cooper only interviews partisans for greater pressure on Israel, including Aaron David Miller, Daniel Levy, and Charles W. Freeman Jr. (It’s truly incredible that she didn’t interview anybody that disagrees with this tact.)

Charles W. Freeman Jr.? Yes, the former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who withdrew his nomination as Director of National Intelligence earlier this year in at least part due to his derogatory remarks against those that support a robust relationship between America and Israel. Following his withdrawal, the Washington Post published a scathing editorial, lambasting him as a “conspiracy theorist” that engages in “crackpot tirades” as Freeman blamed the nefarious (Israel) “Lobby” for his failure to receive the directorial position.

In his interview for the Times article, Freeman continues to prove why he was a “poor choice” for the nomination, using the vitriolic label “skunks” to describe those that support strong American-Israeli relations. It’s amazing that the Times would choose to publish such slanderous remarks.

Notwithstanding Freeman’s inclusion in the article, it would seem that the Times wholeheartedly supports Aaron David Miller’s assertion that Obama “understand the needs and requirements of Palestinians.”

And what exactly does that mean? That the Palestinians have limited grievances that extend to settlements, checkpoints, and military occupation? If there’s anything that we should have learned from the past two decades of failed Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, it is that Palestinian demands are not limited to specific grievances, but extend to the maximalist desire to see Israel dismantled or destroyed.

The Times continually fails to understand the deep-rooted Palestinian rejectionism of a Jewish State in the region and instead freely airs the views of those that believe American-extracted Israeli concessions will bring about peace. And if the Palestinians won’t take these concessions, the rest of the Muslim world won’t be following either.

Let the wishful thinking continue.

A Travel Article Shows Israel in Her Glory

2009-05-17T18:47:00.001-04:00

"In Israel, History With a Whiff of Adventure"; By Nancy M. Better; Travel Section

Avoiding the pitfall of allowing the Conflict to dominate even an article in the Travel section, Nancy M. Better offers a lively, enticing account of a trip to Israel for the family. The glory of the Jewish state and the natural beauty of eretz Israel are vividly on display. More articles that illuminate the wonder of Israel - be they in the Travel, Arts, or Business sections must appear!

Bibi, Amalek and Jewish History

2009-05-17T17:46:00.005-04:00

"Israel’s Fears, Amalek’s Arsenal"
WK14, Sunday 5/17/09,
By Op-Ed Contributor, Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg offers an interesting background on both Jewish views of "Amalek" (an existential threat successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront), and on the scholarship of Benjamin Netanyahu's father, a pre-eminent historian on Spanish Jewry. Both coincide to form an entry point into Netanyahu's thinking on Iran. Most important, Goldberg paints a more sober and thoughtful portrait of Netanyahum, departing from past Times coverage.

Iran as the new Ameluk perhaps helps explain Jewish history, its patterns, ironies and traditions, but may actually mislead those who seek a realpolitik explanation of why Israel may preemptively strike Iran. For instance, Goldberg writes that "if Iran’s nuclear program is, metaphorically, Amalek’s arsenal, then an Israeli prime minister is bound by Jewish history to seek its destruction, regardless of what his allies think." (my emphasis)

Goldberg subsequently writes that, in their conversation, "Netanyahu avoided metaphysics and biblical exegesis, but said that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons represented a 'hinge of history.'" However, some readers may be left with the impression that abstract considerations like Jewish history and tradition, not clear-eyed self-defense and self-preservation, are what influences an Israeli prime minister.

Although not the focus of this piece, Goldberg offers a snapshot on Netanyahu's and Israel's options for peace with the Palestinians. It's a somewhat disappointing one.

"(Netanyahu) believes the Palestinians, divided and dysfunctional, their extremists firmly in the Iranian camp, are unready for compromise." While this is true, it omits a far more fundamental truth about Palestinian society and politics: if there were no Iranian camp, division nor dysfunction, the long and deep-rooted tradition of Palestinian rejectionism would still preclude compromise. This is a point too important not to make, lest readers conclude the problem is one of Palestinian unity or "extremists".

Goldberg treats Iran and the peace process as distinct, and while in reality they are, Obama is using Palestinian statehood as a political fig leaf in crafting his Iran policy. Thus, the realities of actually achieving a Palestinian state should've been given a bit more thorough attention.

Nevertheless, some myths were importantly confronted head-on by Goldberg: notably the myth of a "hard-line" Netanyahu. Goldberg notes Netanyahu "betrayed the principles of the Greater Israel movement by relinquishing part of Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron, to the control of Yasir Arafat."

Also noted is Israel's concern not that Iran will necessarily launch a nuclear weapon at Israel, but, as he paraphrases Netanyahu, "Iran could bring about the eventual end of Israel simply by possessing such weaponry," and terrorist groups on Israel's northern and southern borders would enjoy a "nuclear umbrella". Islamic militants around the world "would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.”

Goldberg importantly quotes Netanyahu's lament that Iran's threats are a "monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion." Apart from "perfunctory condemnations...there’s no shock."

Goldberg also writes that to garner the major players (Europe, China, Russia) necessary to halt Iran's nuclear program, they need to be convinced that at stake is not only Middle East stability, but welfare of their own economies.

Goldberg should be commended for his admonitions of Netanyahu's critics. He writes, to see Netanyahu as, "at bottom, a cynic who will bluff vigorously but bend whenever he thinks it expedient or unavoidable...is to misread both the prime minister and this moment in Jewish history.

For Times, Perception is Reality

2009-05-15T15:52:00.000-04:00

"Netanyahu to Meet Obama as U.S. Priorities Shift"
A8, Friday 5/15/09,
By Mark Landler

On both the U.S.—Israel relationship, and on Arab-Israeli peace, perception is reality for the Times.

This relationship, stated as fact, has become “unsettled”. In reality, the two country’s leaders have yet to meet and policy has not changed, no matter how many pundits and observers are unsettled.

Stated is former President George W. Bush offering “unstinting” support of Israel. This was a “hallmark” of his administration. In reality, Bush made a Palestinian state the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the region, publicly and privately urged Israel to dismantle settlements and outposts and denied the overflight rights and weapons Israel requested in dealing with Iran.

Stated are both countries having “sharply different” ways of dealing with Iran. Obama is “asking for time to pursue its diplomatic overture to Tehran; the Israelis are warning that they will not stand by while the Iranians build a nuclear bomb.” This Israeli warning doesn’t contradict Obama’s agenda. In fact, Israel has stated that it agrees with Obama about engaging Iran, but has consistently warned of Iran’s exploiting the engagement. Landler himself makes these points in subsequent paragraphs.

Martin Indyk is cited, speaking on whether Netanyahu and Obama can find common ground on Iran. “Without that, he said, it would be hard to imagine the Israeli government’s making progress on negotiations with either the Palestinians or its Arab neighbors.”

So if common ground is found on Iran, it would not be hard to imagine Israel progress on negotiations with neighbors committed to its demise. If Israel believes that Iran is a threat to its existence, General Jones feels it should pursue talks with the Palestinians. In reality, Israel has time and again pursued talks with the Palestinians, an entity that has time and again articulated its opposition to Israel’s permanence.

If only Israel lived in the reality of politicians, pundits and publishers.

Pope's Silence on Iran Still Non-Issue

2009-05-15T15:40:00.000-04:00

"Netanyahu Asks Pope to Condemn Iran"
A6, Friday 5/15/09,
By Rachel Donadio

As this article progresses, the pope’s silence on Iran’s genocidal intentions takes a back seat to his supposed disagreement with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state. With this, the article reflects an unfortunate reality.

For the pope to use his moral authority to call out the glaring genocidal hatred of the Iranian regime, (hatred he has so far ignored), he is getting “entangled in politics”. Shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the pope? At the same time, it's not considered politics for the pope to be calling for a Palestinian state?

Donadio further skews reality with her description of Iran’s stated intentions towards Israel. “In the past, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel’s destruction, although on at least one occasion last year, he used somewhat less severe language, saying Israel would collapse. (my emphasis)

The Iranian regime’s (not just Ahmadinejad’s) call for Israel’s destruction is a frequent occurrence. Writing that Ahmadinejad has “in the past” called for Israel’s destruction, gives a false impression of moderation. Furthermore, the regime’s rhetoric forecasting Israel’s collapse in no way mitigates its own war against Israel...it's meant to enhance it.

That the Vatican has full diplomatic ties with Iran was importantly pointed out. Donadio also made the point that “Benedict has not directly spoken about Iranian statements on Israel,” yet writes “but the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, has.” (my emphasis)

This automatic point-counterpoint is a disturbing pattern. Iran has called for Israel’s destruction, “although…” The pope hasn’t responded to this call, “but…” Since the original points weren’t sufficiently rebutted, they should’ve been left alone. Nothing needed to be added. That there may be another point of view does not necessarily warrant its inclusion.

Donadio Weakly Explains the Barrier But Continues to Take Pope to Task

2009-05-14T18:06:00.002-04:00

"In Bethelehem, Pope Laments Israeli Wall"; By Rachel Donadio and Sharon Otterman; A12

Throughout the article, Donadio and Otterman make reference to "the separation barrier." In fact, they use "barrier" six times, thrice with the root word separate, once with the descriptive - "concrete-and-barbed-wire" - beforehand.

Not once did D&O use the word security in connection with the barrier. In the two instances where they connected the barrier to security, they are quick to associate it with Israeli spokespeople. They explain,

"Israel began building the separation barrier in 2002, saying that it was necessary to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities. Military officials insist that it has saved hundreds of Israeli lives."

At this point, some independent research could have been advanced to verify the claim. NYT, however, apparently desires to leave the matter open, to Israel's detriment.

Otherwise, Donadio keeps the heat on Pope Benedict, once again returning to his speech at Yad Vashem, which was an embarrassment to the Vatican. She must be credited for reinforcing this matter before the reading public.

Letters: It Takes Two to Make Peace, Baby (Not Just Israel)

2009-05-14T17:13:00.002-04:00

"Letters: What Should We Ask of Israel Now?" A32

In response to the Times recent unenlightened editorial, "An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu," Glen Lewy, Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, pens an excellent response. Lewy is exactly correct in asserting that the Times "unfairly puts too much onus on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for progress in Middle East issues."

This is a common theme throughout Times coverage of Israel. The onus is nearly always on Israel to resolve the conflict, while essentially ignoring any sort of Palestinian accountability. Commonsense would affirm that agreements can only be achieved when two parties are in accord, but the Times writes as if the Palestinians have no independent agency of their own. It is tragic that the Times, which is ostensibly a guardian of anti-racism, treats the Palestinians in a sub-human manner.

Despite publishing Lewy's great rebuttal, the Times also published a terrible letter by a Ms. Andrea Whitmore, which is greatly lacking in both intellectual content and writing ability. In the letter, she shallowly asserts that American and Israeli interests are mutually exclusive, rather than frequently in accord. She also supports the conspiratorial notion that Israel will "enmesh us in another war" (as if Israel was responsible for the invasion of Iraq).

Does such meaningless drivel really deserve to published in the "paper of record"? And if it does, how does it reflect upon the publication?

Pope Clarifies: I Am No Friend of the Jewish People

2009-05-13T10:35:00.006-04:00

"Pope's Wartime Activities Resurface on Israeli Trip"; By Rachel Donadio; A5, A8

Pope Benedict XVI is no friend of the Jewish people. Though his visits to Israel will still be welcome, he has demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of us and our history. Benedict's unwillingness to confront the infamous legacy of his predecessor Pope Pius XII constitutes a block in Vatican-Jewish relations.

The responses of Israeli journalist Tom Segev and MK Reuven Rivlin to the Pope's lackluster visit to Yad Vashem were appropriate and well-articulated. The Pope spoke like "somebody observing from the sidelines, about things that shouldn't happen...He was part of them," Rivlin said, referring to Benedict's enrollment in the Hitler Youth during World War II.

Rachel Donadio successfully reports on a disappointing moment in Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

Bronner Names Names - Radical Islam Is a Threat to Middle East Christians

2009-05-13T09:53:00.003-04:00

"Mideast's Christians Losing Numbers and Sway"; By Ethan Bronner; A1, A8

Ethan Bronner pens an exceptional, direct article on the front page about the decline of the Christian population in the Middle East, namely Iraq, Lebanon, and Bethlehem.

"[The] dwindling and threatened Christian population [has been] driven to emigration by political violence, lack of economic opportunity and the rise of radical Islam," he writes.

The willingness to name names - radical Islam - is unusual and welcome.

Two other sections are worthy of reprint:

“And since Islamic culture, especially in its more fundamental stripes, often defines itself in contrast to the West, Christianity has in some places been relegated to an enemy — or least foreign — culture.”

“And in Egypt, where 10 percent of the country is Coptic Christian, the prevalent religious discourse has drifted from what was considered to be a moderate Egyptian Islam toward a far less tolerant Saudi-branded Islam.”

Ethan Bronner's article - for once - speaks for itself and should be read in full.

Upsetting Palestinians

2009-05-12T23:53:00.002-04:00

"Israel Closes Media Center, Upsetting Palestinians"
A12, Tuesday 5/12/09,
By Isabel Kershner

This headline could've easily been worded "Palestinian Authority Opens Media Center, Upsetting Israelis". Then the onus would've been on Kershner to explain exactly why opening a media center in East Jerusalem would upset Israeli authorities. She would've had to delve into the rationale behind the law she briefly cites.

Instead, the headline is another standard format when it comes to Times Mideast coverage: "Israel (Verb), Palestinians Upset" or "Israel (Verb), Stoking Tensions"

The Oslo Accords determined that Jerusalem's status would be decided in the negotiations on a permanent settlement. What Kershner fails to point out is that the 1994 law was part of an agreement with which the Palestinians agreed. It is often stated by the Times that by building in East Jerusalem, Israel prejudices a final status agreement. Is this not also true for the Palestinian Authority?

Kershner makes no attempt to seek out the rationale behind this law. Instead, the article is another "he-said, he-said," as Kershner states "Israel and the Palestinians competed to exercise authority in the contested part of the city." Actually, Israel already exercises authority in the contested part of the city and it is the Palestinian Authority that can reasonably be viewed as engaging in a provocative act.

Previous Palestinian Authority events in the city have not simply been political, but have incited against Israel. Kershner should've explored what "background material" was distributed for the papal visit by the PA at its Sunday event. The nature of this material, possibly propagandistic, would've underscored Israel's concern with what the Palestinian Authority does in Jerusalem, and help further explain why it chose to close down the media center the following day.

Not Understanding the Game

2009-05-12T23:16:00.002-04:00

"An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu"
A26, Tuesday 5/12/09, Editorial

In Israel, and among its supporters, there is deep and profound concern both of the looming threat of Iran, and a world that increasingly fails to grasp the nature of its neighbors. This is a pivotal time for Israel and its ability to stave off the threats of a new era -- both military and political. No doubt, Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama will reflect the seriousness of the moment.

Yet what most concerns the Times are not these Israeli concerns, nor is it Israel's rationale vis-a-vis Iran or its policy review on the peace process. What concerns the Times are moves Israel should make that will supposedly ease the current peace process deadlock. "Game-changers," they're called.

Across the Middle East, there is a fundamental and near universal resistance (on a government and street level) to Israel’s permanence. Its manifestations include widespread anti-Israel incitement, the burgeoning popularity of Hezbollah and Hamas, and sham peace proposals.

Worse, the entity with whom Israel is expected to negotiate an end to the conflict, the Palestinian Authority (PA), daily delegitimizes Israel – through media incitement, lawfare and extreme negotiating positions. It should be clear, for those willing to look past sound-bytes, that for the PA, any accommodation with Israel is temporary.

In lieu of understanding these unfortunate realities, the New York Times (among others) has adopted a school of thought – an ideology – that sees both Israel and Arab regimes seeking an end to the conflict, but bogged down in a morass of fear, mistrust, and bad decisions.

In this alternate reality, and only in this alternate reality, “game-changers,” could work.

According to the Times, such moves include Netanyahu declaring “an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations,” followed by Obama “challenging Arab leaders to respond”.

Nevermind that Israel has not built new settlements, nor outwardly expanded existing ones; that the previous Israeli government dismantled outposts and roadblocks; and had their offer of Palestinian statehood (with the farthest reaching concessions, according to reports) rebuffed by the unquestionably moderate PA; or that Arab regimes, on the rare occasion they’re urged to reach out to Israel, will respond, as they always have, that the Palestinian question must first be resolved.

Nevermind all this, since this disturbing history would sully hope.

When it comes to Israel's security concerns -- a prerequisite of any viable peace -- a typical Times editorial renders them as meaningless clichés, token references that go nowhere. For instance, citing the “administration’s list” for Israel, as verbalized by Joe Biden at the AIPAC conference, the Times includes a caveat with the demand that Israel grant Palestinians more responsibility for security: “to the extent that they (the Palestinians) combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel.”

That's a good start, but nothing more is made of it. If it were, readers would know that the PA has folded anti-Israel terrorist groups in to its security services; that Fatah’s own Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades continue to function; that taking on Hamas in the West Bank is more about self-preservation, than about security for Israel; and that incitement against Israel (by the PA itself) has gotten worse. The rest of this editorial would then sound silly for getting tough on Israel.

Instead, “Israeli leaders’ responses (to Obama’s two-state intentions) have been unconvincing and insufficient.” Netanyahu’s recent statement on pursuing peace with the Palestinians “rings hollow” and he may be trying to “ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere.”

Although Israel’s foreign minister has endorsed and even “obligated” Israel to the “Road Map” leading to a two-state solution and spoken frankly of the problems inherent in a rush to final-status talks, he and Netanyahu have “resisted and openly derided the two-state solution.”

Still, what most underscores in this piece the Times’ dopey and dogmatic view of the conflict is its contention that Arab-Israeli peace will be easier as both sides share a deep concern of a nuclear Iran. This view rests on two false assumptions: that an alliance between Israel and the Arab world is even needed to deter Iran; that such a strategic alliance, when played to its benefit, would convince the Arab world to accept Israel.

Avoiding difficult and obvious facts may be self-soothing, but it doesn't make for sound journalism. This latest editorial could be the most fitting tribute yet to the New York Times’ unenlightened view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Times Sanitizes PA Preacher's Radical Remarks

2009-05-12T17:24:00.004-04:00

"On His Tour, Pope Runs Into Politics of Middle East and Holocaust," A12, by Rachel Donadio

Times reporter Rachel Donadio sanitizes the radical nature of Sheikh Tamimi’s tirade at an interfaith meeting in which Pope Benedict was in attendance. Tamimi did not simply urge Muslims and Christians to unite in presumably non-violent "protest" against Israel, but he aspires to see the elimination of the Jewish State.

As quoted in 1994, Tamimi stated, "The Jews are destined to be persecuted, humiliated, and tortured forever, and it is a Muslim duty to see to it that they reap their due…Where Hitler failed, we must succeed."

Notably, Tamimi is the chief Islamic judge in Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) (Donadio only states that he is "the chief justice of the Palestinian Islamic courts"), Israel’s ostensible partner for peace. If a peaceful resolution to the conflict is in fact the PA’s goal, where is Abbas’ condemnation of these malicious words?

Surely the Times would expect such condemnation from Israel's Prime Minister if the Chief Rabbinate professed such radical beliefs. Per usual though, the Times fails to hold the Palestinians accountable for their extremism, treating it as the acceptable status quo.

In the words of the Vatican Press Office, Tamimi’s intervention was "a direct negation of what a dialogue should be."

[For a better coverage of the event, see the Jerusalem Post's article]

Israel Still the Bane of Egypt's Existence, Writes Slackman

2009-05-12T11:12:00.007-04:00

"Egypt Prepares for Center Stage When Obama Addresses Arabs"; By Michael Slackman; A8

The Egyptian position regarding Gaza is ambivalent. On the one hand, Egypt expresses concern about Gazans; on the other, it has refused to incorporate Gaza into Egypt, evidencing limits to its sense of brotherhood. Michael Slackman accords this ambivalence, a key aspect of the Egyptian attitude, no space in “Egypt Prepares…”

While he begins the article discussing the paucity of human rights in authoritarian Egypt, Slackman dedicates its middle to Egyptian frustrations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “[Egyptians'] first priority.” Here, an irony appears; whereas the initial topic – human rights – evidenced the discord between the government and the populace, there is accord on attitudes toward Israel - a stunning congruence meriting explanation, though none is forthcoming. (The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Egyptian society is not a deserving topic.)

One wonders why a settlement freeze, the dismantling of checkpoints, and the opening of Israel-Gaza crossings is an Egyptian priority. Perhaps the excessive attention on Israel is one factor that inhibits a genuine struggle for human rights.

Regarding geopolitics, the evolving Euro-American-Arab position makes an appearance:

“Egypt maintains that to tame Iran — with which it is in open conflict — the issue of a Palestinian state must first be resolved,” writes Slackman.

Doubts about the efficacy of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty are also given their due. “Egypt has struggled to convince its people...that its commitment to the treaty is the best way to…preserve Egypt’s own national security,” the reporter writes. Of course, he does not present a counterargument, one that would suggest the truth of the converse – that the treaty is the key to Egypt’s “national security.” A quote from an American official may have brought forth this point.

“Egypt has already made clear that it cannot begin to give until it gets,” writes Slackman. He then goes on to explain that “giving” would be renouncing “the right of return,” without noting that “the right of return” would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

At the end of the article, Slackman returns to human rights and democracy. This is the issue that Americans should be most concerned about since human rights and democracy is a part of our governing tradition and strengthening both is in our interest. The inter-Muslim struggle, wherein countries compete to be more hard-line than thou is not a game the US should concern itself with, yet this is what occupies Slackman’s attention.

Even the return to democracy, however, is marred by a quote from a spokesman of the Muslim Brotherhood criticizing the US for not “supporting democracy.” Identifying the Brotherhood with democracy would be laughable if Slackman appeared to be in on the joke.

Pope and Jordanian King's Adviser Agree: Jews Should Convert

2009-05-10T12:45:00.004-04:00

"In Jordan, Pope Declares 'Ideological Manipulation'"; By Rachel Donadi; 12

Jordanian King Abdullah II's religious adviser and cousin, Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, uses the Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Amman to swipe at the Jewish people, indicating that one point of accord between Muslims and Christians may still be a disdainful view of Jews.

Ghazi commended the Pope for rehabilitating the Tridentine Mass, which "includes a Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews."

Although this statement is despicable, it does put the Pope on the hot seat, where he should remain, for readmitting this Mass. As long as the Tridentine Mass remains viable, statements lauding "the inseparable bond between the church and the Jewish people," uttered by the Pope yesterday, will be hollow.

Development in the City of Jerusalem On the Front Page

2009-05-10T12:12:00.008-04:00

"Parks Fortify Israel's Claim To Jerusalem"; By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner; 1,10

In an article meant to stimulate "public [and]...international scrutiny" of the state of Israel's plans to build a series of archaeological parks in and around the Old City in Jerusalem, several positive items about the plans slip through.

The reader cannot read the article without coming away with the following conclusions:

The purpose of the parks is increase tourism to Jerusalem, which will financially benefit Jews and Arabs alike who live in the city.
By highlighting ancient Jewish existence in the area, Israel will "strengthen the status of Jerusalem as its capital."
The archaeological work, which has rendered "indisputable evidence of ancient Jewish life" in and around Jerusalem, is "unassailable."

In addition, Bronner and Kershner make mention that under Jordanian rule from 1949 to 1967, Jerusalem was in much worse condition and Jews and Christians and their respective holy sites did not receive equal treatment under the law. This point is made by those who are skeptical about dividing Jerusalem.

Another promising indicator of honest reporting is how B&K handle Palestinian officials' denial that a Jewish Temple existed atop the Western Wall. "There is no scholarly dispute about whether the temple stood" there, they write - a conclusion that must discomfit these officials.

Of course, the intent of the article - to embarrass Israel - is still manifest. For example, on the front page, where the article begins, B&K highlight "the threatened destruction of unauthorized Palestinian housing in the redevelopment areas," an issue that has been reported on in the last several weeks.

On page 10, however, the reader learns that "new housing" for those same Palestinians is an integral part of the municipality's $100 million plan, mitigating the apparent tragedy from page 1.

Despite their worst intentions, then, B&K render a report that does more to substantiate Israeli actions than to vilify them.

The Ceaseless Call for Engagement with Radical Islam

2009-05-09T19:32:00.005-04:00

"Islamophobia," BR23, by David Sanger
Book review of Engaging the Muslim World by Juan Cole

The title of the review, "Islamophobia," should give you an idea of how apologist academic Juan Cole views most staunch opposition to radical Islam. And using Bush's callous application of the neologism "Islamofascism," Cole makes the case for Engaging the Muslim World.

While reviewer David Sanger does give Cole entirely too much credit, he does call out the University of Michigan historian on one glaring flaw that should leave readers skeptical of Cole's work:

[Cole] compares the 9/11 hijackers to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who read white supremacist works before bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. To Cole, the two men “bear a number of striking similarities to members of such radical Egyptian groups as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Grouping of the Blind Sheikh.” They all railed against “Jewish control of the U.S. government” and attacked tall buildings that were symbols of power. They all belonged to “fringe, if significant, movements.”
Did they? George W. Bush may have overinflated the power of Islamofascism, but certainly the radical Muslim movement, in all its incarnations, has a membership that is bigger and better financed than the American fringe groups, and with a presence in more countries than those home-grown extremists who threaten domestic terrorism.
There is a reason that we have tens of thousands of American troops on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan: to stop radical groups from taking over either state, which would create a sanctuary for planning attacks around the world, and — in the case of Pakistan — to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Those are problems of a vastly different scale than apprehending the next Timothy McVeigh. And they explain why a new president who came into office as the anti-Bush, ready to use diplomacy first, is extending American military action in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A logically sound scholar would not overreach with such a preposterous analogy, as Cole does. He seems unwilling to comprehend that a real struggle exists between Islamists and the United States that cannot simply be resolved through clever U.S. diplomacy and concessions.

While it may be an overreach to label Islamists as "Islamofascists," it does not obscure the the totalitarian nature of these radical groups that wish to eliminate U.S. influence in the region (See Terror and Liberalism, by Paul Berman). Under such conditions, the success of engagement does not bode well.

Pope The Purveyor of Peace? Please...

2009-05-09T17:56:00.002-04:00

"Pope Says He Has 'Deep Respect' for Muslims," A9, by Rachel Donadio

In the third article in a week on the Pope's visit to the Middle East. the Times reports Pope Benedict's comically audacious "desire for the Roman Catholic Church to play a major role in fostering peace in the Middle East."

One would think that there already exist enough cooks in the kitchen of Mideast peacemaking diplomacy. Advice: ignore the Pope's empty rhetoric for more realistic measures.

The Non-Story (Slow News Day?)

2009-05-09T17:35:00.006-04:00

"Lebanon: 5 Are Accused of Spying,"A6 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

Lebanese authorities arrested five people in southern Lebanon on accusations of spying for Israel. And where's the story?

Per usual, the Times is prepared to print nearly anything related to Israel and the greater conflict, particularly when it portrays the country in a less than flattering light.

Of greater import: "Why Jane Fonda is Banned in Beirut: Anti-semitism leads to startling censorship in Lebanon."

Article on Pope's Visit Omits Durban II, Cause of Christian Decline

2009-05-08T12:17:00.005-04:00

"Pope, Hope in Hand, Is Heading to Mideast"
A4, Friday 5/08/09
By Rachel Donadio

“Benedict is expected to make a speech calling attention to a pressing concern of the Catholic Church: the rapidly declining number of Christians in the Middle East. Although Christians have remained about 2 percent of Israel’s population since its founding, their presence in places like Bethlehem has decreased radically in past decades.”

While this issue was granted a paragraph, Donadio does not offer an explanation as to the “radical” decrease. This may have included the following:

In the Palestinian territories, notably in Bethlehem, Christians are victims of attacks, intimidation and extortion. Most have fled to Israel, which has the only growing Christian population in the Middle East.

While Donadio cited the Pope’s revoking Bishop Williamson’s excommunication, she should have also briefly cited another recent cause for concern among Israel and Jews: Durban II. Despite the knowledge that it would be a stage for incitement against Israel and would feature Ahmadinejad, the Pope sent his delegation, and offered blessings to the participants, never registering an iota of concern. As Ahmadinejad spoke of the evils of Zionism, and others walked out in protest, the Pope's delegation remained seated.

Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial, and the Vatican’s latest deafening silence in the face of the world’s most noted Holocaust denier, should have been given space in this article.

Hamas' Actions Contradict Its Words

2009-05-07T13:06:00.004-04:00

"Gaza Militants and Israel Exchange Fire"; World Briefing; By Isabel Kershner; A12

In yet another instance exposing Hamas' hypocrisy, the terrorist group fired mortar shells into Israel after declaring Monday that it was committed to ceasing fire.

The title asserts an equivalence rather than a sequentiality, wherein Hamas fired first.

The Pope Cannot Bring the Peace

2009-05-06T16:39:00.003-04:00

"Can the Pope Bring Peace?"; John L. Allen, Jr.; A29

The notion that Pope Benedict can “bring the peace” should be the start of a joke, not an op-ed.

And, indeed, Allen mocks himself, his faith, Judaism, and Islam with his explanation for why Benedict may succeed in this area.

The Pope's fanaticism - regarding condoms and HIV - is an advantage, Allen argues, since many Jews and Muslims are fanatical, too.

Aside from the premise, several other flaws mar the piece. First, it begins with a myth – that Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount “set off the second intifada.”

Second, in describing the current moment, Allen attributes the sense of despair pervading Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s supposed lack of “commitment to Palestinian statehood.”

Third, Allen is self-righteous and self-indulgent when he writes that “Arab Christians have promoted a pluralistic vision of society, standing between resurgent Islamic fundamentalism and ultranationalist strains in Judaism.”

But to conclude, in answer to the question that is the title of the piece: No.

Iran and Syria Mock American Engagement

2009-05-06T16:35:00.003-04:00

"Leaders of Iran and Syria Vow to Back 'Palestinian Resistance'"; AP; A9

In another embarrassing instance that Iran and Syria are not open to the new American administration’s policy of engagement, the two countries yesterday expressed support for Palestinian terrorism, which they call “resistance” and barely mentioned American overtures.

The most disheartening part of the article, however, discusses the Obama’s administration’s intention to put Israel on the block.

“There has been widespread speculation in the Middle East that the Obama administration would try to forge a bargain with Iran, in which Washington would press Israel for concessions in the peace effort with the Palestinians in exchange for Iran’s rolling back its nuclear program."

UN Bias Has a Familiar Ring

2009-05-06T16:32:00.001-04:00

"Israel Rebuked for Gaza Attacks"; World Briefing; AP; A17

Israel and the United Nations are talking at cross purposes because the UN ignores the root cause for Israeli fire upon UN buildings during the Gaza offensive, an action that was condemned in a report issued yesterday.

Hamas operatives used the buildings for cover during the battle against the IDF. Holding Israel responsible and calling for compensation without acknowledging Hamas’ illegal use of its facilities is a demonstration of what Israel deputy ambassador to the UN called UN bias.

Lewis Airs Jewish Response to Charges Against Aipac Analysts

2009-05-05T18:12:00.000-04:00

"At Annual Meeting, Pro-Israel Group Reasserts Clout"; By Neil A. Lewis; A19

Neil A. Lewis offers Aipac conference participants the space to respond to charges against Steven J Rosen and Keith Weissman. They viewed the accusations, which were dropped, as "an unfair, even toxic" way of questioning American Jews' loyalty to the US.

Lewis' remark that American politicians “offer praise for Aipac and support for Israel, both in generally unreserved language," however, is an overstatement.

In another instance, Lewis relies on euphemism. Jimmy Carter “has turned harshly critical of Israel since leaving office,” he writes. Many pro-Israel Jews consider Carter a defamer, not a critic.

One last point, regarding the title: In truth, Aipac's clout never left it.

A Sympathetic Portrayal of Hamas Mars NYT's Pages

2009-05-05T17:45:00.001-04:00

"Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Has Grounded Its Rockets to Israel"; By Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner; A6

Evidently, Khaled Meshal has felt the pressure generated by the publicizing of Hamas’ charter, which is anti-Semitic, and, as a result, “urge[s] outsiders to ignore” it, a rather strange and unconvincing call.

Not unexpectedly, this article is largely sympathetic to Hamas; after all, Meshal granted these reporters entrance to his home office in Damascus.

For example, in paragraph nine, El-Khodary and Bronner write,

“Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking.”

Readers cannot be expected to believe that a ten year truce is reason to legetimize Hamas. To the extent that this position "approximate[s]" the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority, this similarity should reflect unfavorably on both of these organizations, rather than favorably on Hamas.

At the conclusion of the piece, Meshal, unaware, alludes to the cult of death Hamas inspires by comparing death to drinking water, which is a Jewish symbol of life.

Israel is Given A Fair Shake in Bronner Piece

2009-05-04T17:17:00.001-04:00

"Israel Faces Difficult Task in Shifting Policy Away From Palestinians and Toward Iran"; By Ethan Bronner; A4

The problem with this article has less to do with Ethan Bronner’s reporting than with the American administration's evolving position toward the Middle East. In fact, Bronner allows for ample rebuttal of the American posture from the the Israeli administration.

The apparent Euro-American-Arab consensus is that Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria should precede confronting Iran. In contrast, Israel believes “there will be much less risk of Iranian weapons being used against Israel from neighboring territory” if - first and foremost - Iran is kept from building a nuclear weapon.

Bronner prints a much needed clarification from an anonymous senior Israeli official regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu's view on the formation of a Palestinian state. In principle, he does not reject a Palestinian state, but he believes it should be created after a halt to Palestinian hate education, the establishment of free institutions, and economic development.

Furthermore, to his credit, Bronner quotes Avigdor Lieberman from a Jerusalem Post interview in which he highlights the destructive role of Iran in the region.

One flaw in Bronner's reporting, however, stands out. In discussing the Arab League peace plan, which calls for “a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel,” he fails to mention that such an action will destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

A Better Title Would Place Responsibility Appropriately

2009-05-03T14:05:00.002-04:00

"2 Killed as Israel Hits Egypt-Gaza Tunnels"; Reuters; 18

The title should read, "2 Killed as Israel Responds to Mortar Fire From Gaza Strip."

Weak Accusations Against Aipac Officials Are Dropped

2009-05-02T14:02:00.002-04:00

"U.S. Moves to End Secrets Case Against Israel Lobbyists"; By Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston; A11

The dropping of charges against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman helped the Justice Department avoid the embarrassment of what would most likely have been a decision of not guilty for violation of the Espionage Act.

Lewis and Johnston write,

“Advocates of civil liberties and of open government asserted that the defendants were being singled out for activities that were part of the accepted and routine way that American policy on Israel and the Middle East had been formulated for years, with people exchanging information.”

Indeed, the case appeared to be more of a concoction than a serious, substantial charge.

In an otherwise reasonable article, the introduction gives cause for complaint. Lewis and Johnston describe the accusations made against Rosen and Weissman as "tantalizing." Such a description demonstrably lacks sobriety and is not befitting of a serious news outlet.

A New Holocaust Museum Disappoints

2009-05-02T13:59:00.003-04:00

"In Berlin, Teaching Germany's Jewish History"; By Edward Rothstein; C1

A harsh critique of the new Judisches Museum Berlin has several notable statements that reveal the difficulty Germans have confronting their atrocious past.

"The museum tends to be sanguine about the knotty relationships between Jews and Germans...by making the German past seem more enlightened, and the Jewish past last particular, it has created an assimilated blandness in which antipodes unite in ersatz tolerance."

Perhaps the problem lies in what the museum curator describes as one of the museum's mission - to apply the lessons of the Holocaust "to societal problems of today and tomorrow" and to increase "tolerance toward minorities in a globalized world."

Too often, the people of Europe readily embrace the conclusions about the Holocaust rather than engage the horror in its own terms. If they did, the conclusions would not come so easily, quickly becoming bored dogmas instead of living truths and warnings.

UN Report Makes Much of Little

2009-05-01T13:14:00.004-04:00

"U.N. Seeks End to Razing of Homes in East Jerusalem"; By Isabel Kershner; A8

That east Jerusalem Arabs illegally built houses is not disputed. The report issued by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs states that “at least 28 percent of all Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem have been built in violation of Israeli zoning requirements.”

What, then, is the issue? The application process and the zoning requirements.

The process is a bureaucratic matter, and the requirements are connected to municipal governance. The purposeful decision of east Jerusalem Arabs not to vote in municipal elections is directly related to their discontent with the zoning requirements.

Two cases of housing demolition - one involving a Mr. Alayyan, the other, Amar Salameh al-Hdaidun - that were highlighted in the report and presented by Isabel Kershner appear to be within the realm of legality.

One failure in reporting stands out. Kershner mentions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's expressions of disapproval regarding demolitions issued in March. Ms. Clinton claims that demolitions violate the 2003 Road Map. IK does not provide the content of the Road Map that would support the claim.

Americans Should Follow Israel's Example, Says Schmemann

2009-05-01T11:24:00.003-04:00

"When Israel Confronted and Rejected Torture"; By Serge Schmemann; A22

Serge Schmemann renders an accurate account of Israel's relationship to torture and implicitly suggests that the United States follow Israel's example. Generally, NYT applies harsh criticism to the United States and Israel, the difference being that NYT is an American paper, not an Israeli one, so it is more appropriate in the former case than the latter.

The question that begs to be answered is, Does Israel maintain as high, higher, or lower a standard of conduct in matters of war than the United States? Negative coverage of Israel's incursion into Gaza in January outdid anything NYT produced on the Iraq War, so one would guess that the paper of record believes Israel does not have a high enough standard in combat.

Schmemann's op-ed suggests otherwise. The author's admiration for former Supreme Court Justice Barak is evident. Certain other statements reflect an understanding of Israel and its predicament:

"Nobody would question the reality of the threats faced by Israel."
"None of [Israel's] foes share its scruples about torture."
"Having covered the gruesome aftermath of several suicide bombings, I was not unsympathetic to 'ticking-bomb' arguments."

To see Israel, and its enemies, presented in this fashion is satisfying.

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

2009-04-29T13:00:00.006-04:00

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

2009-04-28T10:39:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-26T11:38:00.002-04:00

"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

2009-04-23T12:17:00.003-04:00

"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

2009-04-22T12:25:00.006-04:00

"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

2009-04-21T21:35:00.008-04:00

"U.S. to Skip U.N. Conference";Reuters; 8; Sunday, April 19
"Concerns Keep U.S. From Talks On Racism"; By Neil MacFarquhar; A7; Monday, April 20
"More Hatred from Mr. Ahmadinejad"; Editorial; A24
"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

2009-04-20T21:48:00.005-04:00

"New Looks At the Fields Of Death For Jews"; By Ethan Bronner; A6
"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

2009-04-20T14:42:00.007-04:00

"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

2009-04-19T13:05:00.003-04:00

"Letters: My 'Good Book'"; BK Review; 8
"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

2009-04-18T23:04:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-18T22:57:00.006-04:00

"Israel: Netanyahu Demands Recognition of Israel First"; World Briefing; A12; Friday, April 17
"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!

2009-04-17T23:02:00.001-04:00

"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

2009-04-16T21:40:00.002-04:00

"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

2009-04-13T12:26:00.008-04:00

"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

2009-04-13T11:47:00.005-04:00

"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

2009-04-13T11:27:00.005-04:00

"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

2009-04-08T17:42:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-08T17:23:00.003-04:00

"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

2009-04-06T20:49:00.013-04:00

"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

2009-04-06T19:14:00.007-04:00

"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

2009-04-06T18:58:00.010-04:00

"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

2009-04-05T19:13:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-05T19:12:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-04T19:17:00.008-04:00

"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

2009-04-03T15:29:00.006-04:00

"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...":

A police interrogation of Avigdor Lieberman
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

2009-04-02T13:14:00.004-04:00

"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

2009-04-01T15:37:00.000-04:00

"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.

Case Closed

2009-03-31T18:17:00.009-04:00

"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

2009-03-30T18:17:00.011-04:00

"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

2009-03-28T18:16:00.013-04:00

"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

2009-03-28T18:14:00.003-04:00

"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

2009-03-27T12:51:00.005-04:00

"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.