Jerome Slater, scholar and press critic, writes:
The New York Times lives in a kind of permanent Groundhog Day. Whenever
it appears to be actually learning something about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, say in its somewhat critical reporting on
the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, the next day Good morning, it’s a
brand new day. As in today's lead story, which says that an Israeli
settlement with Syria "would also give Arab states and moderate
Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel.” Hello? I
guess the world’s best newspaper plumb forgot that for a number of
years almost all the Arab states and moderate Palestinians have been
practically begging Israel to negotiate an overall settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and on terms that Israel has been simply crazy
to reject.
it appears to be actually learning something about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, say in its somewhat critical reporting on
the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, the next day Good morning, it’s a
brand new day. As in today's lead story, which says that an Israeli
settlement with Syria "would also give Arab states and moderate
Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel.” Hello? I
guess the world’s best newspaper plumb forgot that for a number of
years almost all the Arab states and moderate Palestinians have been
practically begging Israel to negotiate an overall settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and on terms that Israel has been simply crazy
to reject.
Stay tuned for tomorrow's story: Occupation, what occupation?
