The arguments by Keller, Goldberg, Avishai, etc. in defense of retaining Ethan Bronner at his post in spite of the conspicuous conflict of interest, show how hard it is for us to judge Israel by the standard we apply to other countries.The sympathy/kinship/affinity runs too deep. Imagine a Times reporter on the Zapatista rebellion of the 1990s whose son enlisted in the Mexican army that fought to crush the rebellion. Would Keller write a personal defense of the decision to keep that reporter as his leading source of information on Mexico?
Closer to home. Say the Times reporter in Helmand province is married to an Afghan woman (from one of the families of the Northern Alliance). Their son enlists in a special-ops unit operating in Helmand and the Times asks itself: "How compromising is this? The marriage was already awkward, but it also gave our reporter access to sources denied to other Americans. Yet the son will now be going on controversial missions which the father is assigned to cover." Is there really much question what conclusion would be reached?
The defense of Ethan Bronner’s personal probity and freedom from bias finally proves too much. If these arguments suffice to overturn the usual standard of conflict-of-interest, it should be possible for Bronner himself to enlist in the IDF and continue as the leading Times correspondent on Israel’s politics and its treatment of Palestine.
