Maybe the New York Times should just quit covering Israel/Palestine. They never get it right.
Take this weekend’s edition: Deborah Solomon, the Times’ magazine writer who publishes the “Questions For” column, interviews Desmond Tutu, and Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd writes her second article on Middle East politics from Saudi Arabia.
Tutu is a South African Archbishop who struggled against apartheid in his country and is now fighting apartheid in Israel and Palestine. Tutu sounds off on many issues, but he thinks the Israel/Palestine issue is the most important problem in the world today. He has repeatedly condemned Israeli apartheid and stated that in some ways the apartheid system is worse for Palestinians.
Does Solomon ask him any questions about his views on Palestine? Of course not. Instead, aside from covering some developments in South Africa, she asks about the Tibetan struggle. The condensed interview comes off as totally ignorant about Tutu—but I would guess it’s less about ignorance and more about what’s acceptable for the Times to publish.
Then there’s Maureen Dowd.
In her previous article from Saudi Arabia, she refers to Israel’s “democracy” but condemns Saudi Arabian “gender apartheid.” In this new article, Dowd brings up Israel’s refusal to stop the building of illegal settlements, and asks Prince Saud whether Israeli intransigence on Obama’s earlier settlement demands reflects the fact that “America has less influence over Israel than it used to.” No mention at all of the Israel lobby.
Dowd applauds as “a sign of progress” that the Saudi Arabian Prince referred to the issue of the illegal colonization of the West Bank as simply a “border dispute.” That’s progress?
Dowd goes on:
Despite repeated attacks by Arab states and Arab and Iranian-backed militant groups, and a call for Israel’s destruction by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prince Saud suggested that Israel might be overreacting about security because of “World War II” and that this prevented a peace deal.
“There are no troops arrayed on the border of Israel waiting for the moment to say, ‘Attack Israel,’ ” the prince said. “Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace. But they didn’t accept that. So it makes one wonder, what does Israel want?”
If anyone deserves to be paranoid, of course, it’s Israel. But Israel can’t be paranoid because paranoia is the mistaken perception that people are out to get you.
So, in Dowd’s world, Israel is justified in being an overly aggressive warmaker because Arab states and Iran are out to get them. There’s no occupation, ethnic cleansing, Nakba, Gaza massacres, illegal land grabs, killing of civilians, etc—just those mean Arabs and Persians! Make sense?
