News

Bowing to Israel lobby group, ‘NYT’ editors neuter reporters’ assertion that Israel is nixing two-state solution

I often speak of the pressure that the New York Times is under from rightwing supporters of Israel. What follows is further evidence of the editors’ responsiveness: They bend over backwards to reverse the meaning of an important article saying that Israel is destroying the two-state solution.

Try to imagine them being so responsive on say, gun advocates pushing their case that guns don’t cause violence in the U.S. or global warming deniers insisting that the crisis is man-made. 

A couple of weeks ago the New York Times published a good story by Jodi Rudoren and Mark Landler about Israel’s settlement plans for the E-1 corridor east of Jerusalem, which were a retaliation for the Palestine upgrade at the U.N., and the two reporters stated that the colony could prevent the creation of a “viable, contiguous Palestinian state” because it

would limit access to the the West Bank cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem to only narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem. If such a project were to go beyond blueprints, it could prevent the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.

Well, this is an article that keeps getting updated.

The Israel lobby group CAMERA is bragging that it has prompted two corrections by the New York Times. My boldface:

After CAMERA contacted The New York Times to discuss several erroneous claims about the effect of proposed construction by Israel in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, the newspaper issued the following corrections

Here are the corrections by the Times editors– about as long as the original article!

December 8, 2012

Because of an editing error, an article last Saturday about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem. While development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem to narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem, it would not completely separate those cities from Jerusalem.

December 16:

An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to the effect of planned Israeli development in the area known as E1 on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Such development would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem to only narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two.

Because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected to one another by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not, technically, make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

Thanks to Max Blumenthal and Joseph Dana.

26 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Surprisingly, the Dec 16th edit is to the best of my understanding completely accurate…

Istratine has only ever offered the disconnected prison-statelets solution. If the inmates learn to believe that their inhumane punishment is wayyyy better than they deserve and thank the gaolers heartily enough each and every day, then they will be promised one day to be allowed to pay for a slow, torturous connection between the prison cells.

The connection will never actually be built, of course.

Israel’s apparent assumption the border must change because Jews live on a certain parcel or area, is simply wrong.

Because of an editorial error, the NYT, which should be divided in two parts which cannot get together — the Israeli propaganda part and the honest reporting on Israel part — are now overlapping as if they were one. The NYT doesn’t know where one stops and the other starts.

Hey, stop getting it together, NYT! re-establish the separation before it becomes impossible for any NYT reporting on Israel to be accurate. Your loving readership will abandon you soon! Look at your paper in a mirror instead of in a CAMERA.

The words “occupied” and “occupation” and the term “ethnic cleansing” are very carefully not included in the Times’ articles about Israel/Palestine.

How would CAMERA report this story?

New Zealand government fund divests from Israeli firms over settlement construction: Elbit, Lev Leviev’s Africa Israel and its construction subsidiary Danya Cebus, and Shikun & Binui were excluded from the 23.5 billion dollar New Zealand Superannuation Fund:

In a statement, Anne-Maree O’Connor, the fund’s manager for responsible investment, said, “Findings by the United Nations that the separation barrier and settlement activities were illegal under international law were central to the fund’s decision to exclude the companies. The fund also factored in votes by New Zealand for U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding the cessation and dismantling of the separation barrier, and the cessation of Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-zealand-government-fund-divests-from-israeli-firms-over-settlement-construction-1.485197