David Remnick doesn't seem entirely sure how to address the horrifying news from Gaza. He has a long piece about Obama, including an intelligent reverie on the spiritual question of homeland, that sweeps the slaughter under the rug. Blames the end of the truce on Hamas and says the civilian deaths were "inevitable." Oh my.
dream of the Palestinians. In the West Bank, he will be dealing with a
leadership that, while imperfect, supports the overdue justice of a
two-state resolution. The same is true in Israel, at least with those
politicians to the left of Benjamin Netanyahu. But in Gaza Obama will
be dealing, directly or not, with political actors who, with Iranian
support, seek ceaseless battle with Israel, and may even hope to
destabilize Egypt.
Remnick's "ceaseless battle" underscores the view that during the Iraq debacle he appointed his "id" to report on the Middle East, in Jeffrey Goldberg, who said on "Meet the Press" the other day that this war is all about Hamas's ceaseless fanaticism. Well at least Remnick mentions statelessness, and accepts the Nakba.
Add this to the total silence of the blogs from George Packer and Hendrik Hertzberg and one may say of The New Yorker's stance: No show. Paralysis. I wonder whether Gaza won't be looked back upon as being the New York newspaper strike of 1963, which created The New York Review of Books and elevated the New Yorker. This time 'round the establishment media are on self-imposed opinion strike. They know that it is unsafe to side with Marty Peretz but they are afraid of Andrew Sullivan and Ezra Klein and Glenn Greenwald as Arab-lovers. And so the blogosphere romps.
