No surprise: the Washington Post Op-Ed page grants a platform to Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador, to justify continuing occupation, and bashing all but a few select Palestinians.
Rarely have the lines in the Middle East’s sands been drawn so distinctly. Arrayed on one side is the peace-seeking camp that opposes militant extremism and favors direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. On the other are the organizations, many of them surrogates for Iran, that work to undermine moderate governments and violently impede any effort for peace.
My tipster writes: "Oren’s saying one side is arrayed against terror and for peace. That doesn’t cut it. There’s got to be active opposition to occupation and subjugation as well. It’s a Manichean arrangement where he draws the line. There are other ways of looking at it. Of course, you’re not apt to see those views in the Washington Post or NYT, particularly coming from a Palestinian. The NYT and W. Post are gatekeepers on this (unlike the LA TIMES where it’s much more of a level playing field). You know, I’m sitting here saying to myself they (the op-ed pages) are part of the apartheid system on this issue (there’s simply not equality of access and there’s not fair play from the op-ed editors). Kind of amazed at myself naming it as such but it’s true. And it’s awful and not helping the situation. Anybody paying an iota of attention since the Gaza flotilla has clearly seen the imbalance in the NYT (if a shutout of Palestinians, so far as I recall, even qualifies as imbalance). It’s a form of discrimination and I think needs to be named as such."
