Why are we angry at the New York Times?
Sunday's Haaretz has a piece by Akiva Eldar, titled "Israel has a secret plan to thwart the division of Jerusalem." It begins in this direct manner:
The government and settler organizations are working
to surround the Old City of Jerusalem with nine national parks,
pathways and sites, drastically altering the status quo in the city.
The article several times refers to these settler groups, and what one critic calls their "extreme right-wing ideology."
The same story is in the Guardian from Sunday:
Israel is quietly
extending its control over East Jerusalem in alliance with rightwing
Jewish settler groups, by developing parks and tourist sites that would
bring a "drastic change of the status quo in the city", according to
two Israeli groups.
Well, Sunday's New York Times has the same story, but in a much-milder form: Parks Fortify Israel's Claim to Jerusalem. The headline is, of course, grotesque. And the piece puts off the idea that settler groups have played a part in the planning till the 21st paragraph.
While it is true that the article (which is written by two reporters who are married to Israelis), contains sharp and prominent criticism of the plans, generally the piece devolves into on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand consideration of the two sides in the matter, as if an enlightened American publication should be giving such a platform to religious expansionist groups. Consider these absurd paragraphs, high in the story:
[East Jerusalem's] annexation by Israel was never recognized abroad.
At the same time, there is a battle for historical legitimacy. As
part of the effort, archaeologists are finding indisputable evidence of
ancient Jewish life here. Yet Palestinian officials and institutions
tend to dismiss the finds as part of an effort to build a Zionist
history here.
In other words, while the Israeli narrative that
guides the government plan focuses largely — although not exclusively —
on Jewish history and links to the land, the Palestinian narrative
heightens tensions, pushing the Israelis into a greater confrontational
stance.
A historical Israeli narrative, laundered of its rightwing expansionist religious ideology. A confrontational Palestinian narrative. That's why we're angry at the New York Times.
