Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ readers who objected to calling Abbas ‘defiant’ have a point, public editor rules

News
on 58 Comments
Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the NYT

Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the NYT

The other day James North and I did a post pointing out how the New York Times’ own commenters had torpedo’d a New York Times story that laid blame for the latest impasse in negotiations at the feet of a stiffnecked Mahmoud Abbas (sorry for that metaphor!).

Well Times public editor Margaret Sullivan has registered the same groundswell, in email’d complaints. And while quoting foreign editor Joseph Kahn at length with the usual evenhanded policy statement, Sullivan sides with the readers! Here’s an excerpt of her consideration; judgment is in the last paragraph:

David L. Mandel of Sacramento was one of many readers who wrote to object to an article in Wednesday’s Times on the breakdown in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Like many others, he found the headline misleading and the article itself lacking in context.

He wrote, in part:

‘As a veteran copy editor, I know that even the best headline writers sometimes miss the point of a story. But such sloppiness can’t be blamed for Tuesday’s report, “Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter.” Only four paragraphs down do we read that the Palestinian president’s step followed Israel’s reneging on an unambiguous promise to release a fourth batch of long-serving prisoners.’

Susan Webb of New Haven registered her similar reaction, writing: “The lead states that Palestinian leaders’ actions are ‘leaving the troubled Middle East talks brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry on the verge of breakdown.’ The clear implication is that the ‘verge of breakdown’ is caused by the Palestinians’ unilateral actions.” Later in the article, she notes, the Palestinian move is described as a reaction to Israel’s “failure to release a fourth batch of long-serving Palestinian prisoners by last Saturday and the time for additional diplomatic maneuvering had run out.”…

My take: The readers have a point. The combination of headline and initial paragraphs failed to appropriately convey the full scope of the situation. I agree with Mr. Kahn, however, that this does not reflect any larger effort by The Times to lay the impasse at the Palestinians’ feet.

Sullivan continues to impress with her tone, her detachment. (And yes Sullivan had Mandel for downfield blocking.) Now when is she going after a Times reporter’s shameful treatment of Jimmy Carter?

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

58 Responses

  1. Krauss on April 5, 2014, 11:04 am

    Sullivan is one of the best public editors I have ever read. She isn’t afraid to take on unpopular opinions. I disagreed with her on the terminology of “illegal immigrants” – some wanted the Times’ to drop the phrase in favor of “undocumented workers”, but she made a pretty good case, one that I ultimately disagreed with, about keeping it. I was still impressed at her courage considering the political inclinations of her base.

    This may seem obvious, that public editors should have courage but most of those I have seen have shied away from real topics of controversy and many have retreated into a technical discussion of procedural nonsense which doesn’t lead anymore(precisely the point).

    On I/P she isn’t really going against the readership base, rather she is going against her fellow employees. More or less everyone who writes about the Middle East at the Times is a committed Zionist. Rudoren, Bronner, Kershner, Stolberg and so on.
    It shows in the reporting.

    • seafoid on April 5, 2014, 11:53 am

      Rudoren, bronner, kirshner etc may all be committed zionists but the readers are not. As Hasbara reduces in relevance it won’t matter what the Zionists stenograph. I read Terry Teachout’s biography of Mencken a while ago. Mencken was untouchable in the 20s and 30s. He understood how the American public thought. But he got old. And by the 50s he was lost. The public had moved on as younger people took over.
      Zionism is very vulnerable to Hound dog syndrome. The NYT still believes in how much is that doggy in the window.

      • Krauss on April 5, 2014, 12:16 pm

        As Hasbara reduces in relevance it won’t matter what the Zionists stenograph.

        I guess that is the optimistic way of looking at it. I’m more in the middle. I think the Zionist stenographers have less influence today than they ever had, but they still matter.

        Remember, most people in America are not as obsessed about this conflict as you, I and the rest of us are at this site. Most people just take whatever they read in the major newspapers at face value.

        And I don’t blame them, because if you’re working three jobs and trying to raise two kids on a stagnated wage with debt up to your throat, you don’t have time to do this kind of research, especially if you’re neither Jewish or Palestinian and it’s about a conflict far away which has little relevance to your personal life.

        So I still think they matter, but I also think most people overestimate how many people you actually need to bring about change. A minority of people, a committed core, is usually enough to change the roots of the culture if you are smart, energetic and passionate enough about what you are doing. And we’re in this transient moment right now, and I think that it’ll probably end up being an event on a long time horizon rather than a short burst of change. But it is happening.

        And that’s why its so exciting right now, you can feel the change as it happens. It’s no longer a wish or a theoretical possibility; it is real.

      • piotr on April 5, 2014, 1:00 pm

        10 years ago homophobia was one of reliable “elixirs of power” for GOP, now it is “friendship with Israel, industrial strength version”. Give it 10 year (or less).

      • bintbiba on April 5, 2014, 1:02 pm

        And you young ones are the the ‘smart,energetic and passionate enough about what you are doing’ !!
        You are so impressive, that one can’t allow oneself to lose hope.

      • Sycamores on April 5, 2014, 1:25 pm

        @Krauss

        A minority of people, a committed core, is usually enough to change the roots of the culture if you are smart, energetic and passionate enough about what you are doing.

        the Suffragettes and the Civill Rights movements had less than 1% of the US population as it committed core, which validates your statement.

        understanding what was the critical mass or the tipping point of the above movements that “change the roots of the culture” would help in part to show the route of the final outcome for peace in Palestine and Israel.

      • Daniel Rich on April 5, 2014, 9:59 pm

        @ Krauss,

        Q: I’m more in the middle. I think the Zionist stenographers have less influence today than they ever had, but they still matter.

        R: I concur. A battle isn’t over until the last shot has been fired and the last soldier surrendered. To treat zionism as if it’s on its deathbed now, would be a costly mistake. In this case I opt for ‘death by a thousand cuts.’

        Fortunately, most zionists aren’t great jugglers.

      • seafoid on April 6, 2014, 3:33 am

        The key to enduring political relevance is reinvention. The Dems got over losing the jim crow south. The GOP accepted Medicare. They will accept gay marriage. There go my people. I must follow them since I am their leader.
        Zionism can’t reinvent itself. It is a jewish entitlement vehicle, nothing more. It does what it says on the tin. It’s never going to be morning in Israel.

      • oneof5 on April 6, 2014, 5:14 am

        @Krauss sez:

        “So I still think they matter, but I also think most people overestimate how many people you actually need to bring about change. A minority of people, a committed core, is usually enough to change the roots of the culture if you are smart, energetic and passionate enough about what you are doing.”

        Yup …

        “”It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” – Samuel Adams

      • Ira Glunts on April 6, 2014, 9:44 am

        The New York Times publishes “make up” article?

        This article could be an apology from Joseph Kahn for the article that this post criticizes.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/world/middleeast/mideast-talks.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140406&nlid=10286544&tntemail0=y

      • lysias on April 8, 2014, 5:47 pm

        Some of the best reporting Mencken did was of the 1948 party political conventions.

  2. pabelmont on April 5, 2014, 11:23 am

    The problem here was that the official “party line” in our one-party “democracy” is that Israel can do no wrong and the corollary is that it’s always OK to blame Palestinians for things that “go wrong” (as the peace process is said to have done — once more, and counting in the 100s). So a NYT reporter who often talks to the usual DoS folks is likely to pick up the usual vibes (blame Abbas). This is a problem rather like racism and other unconscious knee-jerk ways of talking (and thinking). Apparently this time, the knee-jerking was on the part of a headline writer (who has been writing similar headlines for years and knows the “drill”).

    This was how the failure of the Clinton Camp David peace-process-event was unfairly blamed on the Palestinians.

    Knee-jerk jerks. Meanwhile, “the danger of peace has receded” sez Likud pol., not troubling with the crocodile tears.

    • Eva Smagacz on April 7, 2014, 5:00 am

      Pabelmont,

      “the danger of peace has receded” is such a perfect quote, encapsulating the zeitgeist in Israel just now, that I went for a hunt for a reference, and can’t find anything but a secondary source. I emailed Adam Keller, and hope he will give me specifics.

  3. LeaNder on April 5, 2014, 12:57 pm

    I would assume this is a football terminology:

    (And yes Sullivan had Mandel for downfield blocking.)

    This nitwit would appreciate help, even more if I am absolutely misguided in my assumption. Ok, seems I am not wrong

    Is it possible to explain this without going into to lengthy explanations of the complete football rules?

    • tree on April 5, 2014, 1:52 pm

      “Downfield blocking” in simple terms would be someone on your team who is ahead of you on the field (“downfield”, or closer to the goal) and is providing blocking of opposition players that helps clear the way for your scoring run.

      I hope that’s non-esoteric enough for you.

      In other words, Mandel, as a reader and veteran copy editor, made the point first, clearing the way for Sullivan to make a similar point as the NYT public editor.

      • LeaNder on April 5, 2014, 6:10 pm

        thanks, tree. Yes, that is exactly the way I wanted it. Without delving too deeply into American football. ;)

        Now it is perfectly clear.

  4. Woody Tanaka on April 5, 2014, 1:58 pm

    “I agree with Mr. Kahn, however, that this does not reflect any larger effort by The Times to lay the impasse at the Palestinians’ feet.”

    LMAO. Yeah, the fact that it just so happened to coincide with the “pro-Israel regardless of merit” history of the NYT is merely coincidence.

    • on April 5, 2014, 3:59 pm

      Exactly Woody.

      How can one praise Ms. Sullivan after such a dishonest statement such as “I agree with Mr. Kahn, however, that this does not reflect any larger effort by The Times to lay the impasse at the Palestinians’ feet.”?

  5. peterfeld on April 5, 2014, 2:01 pm

    Please also check out Ali Abunimah’s story about how today’s NY Times Kerry story rewrites James Baker’s 1990 testimony, where he scathingly gave out the White House phone number and told Israel “When you are serious about peace, call us,” to include the Palestinians:

    There was an echo, in Mr. Kerry’s tone, of a frustrated outburst in 1990 by James A. Baker III, secretary of state under President George Bush, who read out the number for the White House switchboard at a congressional hearing and told the Israelis and Palestinians, “When you’re serious about peace, call us.”

    The Baker video and the Times’s own reporting at the time by Thomas Friedman make clear he meant only Israel. This seriously needs a correction by the Times.

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/ny-times-rewrites-peace-process-history-make-it-more-balanced

  6. traintosiberia on April 5, 2014, 2:43 pm

    Americans are taking notice. This is a milestone achieved

  7. dbroncos on April 5, 2014, 2:55 pm

    The NYT reputation is money in the bank. People all over the country see their devotion to the Times as a symbol of their sophistication, intelligence and good taste. However, the NYT long standing devotion to Zionism is now starting to damage that reputation. If the comments sections of the Times’ I/P articles are any indication, the “newspaper of record” is at risk of becoming known for promoting shameless propaganda.

    Brand and culture mean everything to the Times and if customers start to believe that carrying a NYT under their arm doesn’t in some way enhance their respectability the Times will suffer. If the bean counters and PR people at the Times aren’t worried they should be.

    • just on April 5, 2014, 3:13 pm

      I think that what you write is very true, dbroncos.

      I also think that it all proves that the internet and access to places like MW have made an enormous and positive difference. The exposure to sham ‘journalism’ and bias is very widespread now– internationally and nationally.

    • lysias on April 8, 2014, 5:54 pm

      If the NYT’s reputation could survive all the pro-Stalin mendacious reporting by Walter Duranty, I doubt if I/P dishonesty is going to sink the NYT.

      If the NYT changes its line on I/P, will it continue to get all those advertising dollars from the NYC department stores and from the lines of clothing?

  8. on April 5, 2014, 3:45 pm

    Today April 5th in the NYT Gordon and Landler write “Mr. Kerry is not about to give up on the process. But like Mr. Baker, he is dealing with two parties that are paralyzed by intransigence and fall back on provocations: Israel announcing new Jewish settlements and refusing to release Palestinian prisoners; the Palestinians, in response, applying to join international organizations and issuing a list of new demands.” Finally they got the sequence or eventin the right order and gave up on the usual obfuscation. Sullivan may have had an effect.

    • Shingo on April 5, 2014, 8:10 pm

      Israel announcing new Jewish settlements and refusing to release Palestinian prisoners; the Palestinians, in response, applying to join international organizations and issuing a list of new demands.

      This comparison is mind boggling, and it defies all reason. The fact that the illegal and illegitimate activities of Israel are equated with the legal, legitimate and seemingly noble acts of the Palestinians. So exercising legal rights is subversive and malevolent.

      Even worse is the hypocrisy from the Hasbara brigade who are forever waving their finger at Palestinians and lecturing them about the virtues of state and institution building. Yet joining treaties and international bodies is suddenly beyond the pale.

      I can already predict what Jeffrey Goldberg’s take on this. As with BDS, the liberal Zionist crowd, he will claim he is all for Palestinian self determination blah blah but how memories of Munich still haunt him.

  9. David Doppler on April 5, 2014, 3:49 pm

    We all suffer from bias, and much of it is insidiously below the surface of our own awareness. A public editor is in a great place to expose such insidious bias, but it does help to have downfield blocking, and a developing school of opinion that has been emerging over time as people’s attention has been attracted to seemingly fringe characters sparring with and drawing hateful, abusive, overreactive responses from people in power. Abbas asking for justice for the oppressed at the international organizations and being characterized as being unreasonably defiant, and no partner for peace by the occupying force backed up by the world’s only hyper-power, is a perfect foil this bias which, at its core, is a simple prejudice that all Palestinians are both inferior and possessed of murderous intent toward the Israeli Jews. Abbas should ask for justice in the international organizations, and the US should stop providing downfield blocking for the oppressor regime. “Let justice come down like water, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

  10. James Canning on April 5, 2014, 4:09 pm

    Abbas was in fact “defiant”, and bravo to him for being so.

  11. Kathleen on April 5, 2014, 5:51 pm

    “I agree with Mr. Kahn, however, that this does not reflect any larger effort by The Times to lay the impasse at the Palestinians’ feet.” Oh really. So why does the New York Bloody Times have such a history of allowing inaccurate headlines and articles to lay the blame of failed negotiations at Palestinians feet? This is not some new strategy. They (NYBTimes) just being called out more often/

  12. Shuki on April 5, 2014, 9:13 pm

    I think a recent Op-ed in Yedioth Ahronoth is likewise noteworthy in that it does an excellent job explaining the Jewish pro-Palestinian voices that have apparently been muted in the NYT:

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4506549,00.html

    • James North on April 5, 2014, 10:06 pm

      Shuki: I looked at the article in Yedioth Ahronoth that you linked to, which condescendingly dismisses Jews who oppose Israel as “moral narcissists.” As I read the article’s description of this mental ailment, I couldn’t help but think of certain historical figures who must have suffered from it, like: the Prophet Isaiah, the Prophet Ezra, the Prophet Jeremiah (he had a terrible case of “moral narcissism”), and others.

      • lysias on April 8, 2014, 5:58 pm

        And Jesus. And Spinoza. And Karl Marx.

    • Shingo on April 5, 2014, 10:09 pm

      I think a recent Op-ed in Yedioth Ahronoth is likewise noteworthy in that it does an excellent job explaining the Jewish pro-Palestinian voices that have apparently been muted in the NYT:

      No, it’s another example of a right wing hack trying to defend the indefensible by trying to cast nefarious motives to those who refuse to turn a blind eye, or turn off the moral compass with regards to Israel.

      There is no explanation here other than a desperate and juvenile attempt at psychological analysis to malign those who don’t have the good sense to put tribalism ahead of principal for the sake of Israel.

      • annie on April 6, 2014, 3:33 pm

        i find it particularly amusing sucki is making an obvious insinuation, by posting this article that is nothing more than an extended ad hominem, that nyt doesn’t post Jewish pro-Palestinian voices because, as the article says:

        It is not worthwhile to engage with them because their hostility is immune to honest debate.

        and she’s doing it here! meaning it’s not worthwhile for her to post here. by this same ‘logic’, doesn’t it make sense to give ms sucki a taste of her own medicine?

  13. wondering jew on April 5, 2014, 9:43 pm

    Shuki- The way it looks to me is that Israel has two (long range) alternatives: withdrawal from the West Bank and annexation of the West Bank (including giving full citizenship to all residents of the West Bank). It is valid to consider both these long range alternatives as bad alternatives and therefore maintaining the status quo is the best of the 3 alternatives. But eventually 20, 40 or 60 years out, one of the two alternatives will be chosen. Do you agree or disagree? (And if you agree, then the voices cited in the article in Yedioth are merely adding to the dynamic forcing an earlier rather than a later choice of one of these alternatives. The psychology of those voices is interesting, but in the long range, labeling these people as moral narcissists is merely a distraction to the fact that one of the two choices will eventually have to be chosen.)

    • libra on April 6, 2014, 10:41 am

      yonah fredman: It is valid to consider both these long range alternatives as bad alternatives…

      Translation: What we really want is the land without the people but sadly…

      • James Canning on April 6, 2014, 1:53 pm

        But is withdrawing from the WB really such a “bad” alternative?

      • puppies on April 6, 2014, 2:51 pm

        @Canning – Well, if you’ll pardon my French, duh! It ruins the Zionist program. As stated repeatedly, a land without the people, all the land.

    • puppies on April 6, 2014, 3:10 pm

      @Friedman – I don’t know what the site owner thinks in allowing strategic discussions between Zionists on this site, but I hope I’ll be allowed to say that it beats anything I’ve seen this month in sheer obscenity.

      • James Canning on April 6, 2014, 7:40 pm

        @Puppies – – A question for you: do you regard King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a Zionist?

    • talknic on April 7, 2014, 5:10 am

      yonah fredman “The way it looks to me is that Israel has two (long range) alternatives: withdrawal from the West Bank ..” =Legal alternative

      “..and annexation of the West Bank (including giving full citizenship to all residents of the West Bank)” = Illegal without a referendum of legitimate Palestinian citizens, including West Bank Palestinians in the diaspora in refugee camps, (sans Israelis).

      “It is valid to consider both these long range alternatives as bad alternatives “
      Adhering to the law is a bad alternative …. hilarious stuff

      • James Canning on April 7, 2014, 2:09 pm

        Getting out of WB is clearly a “bad alternative” in terms of domestic Israeli politics. Regrettably.

  14. Daniel Rich on April 5, 2014, 10:03 pm

    Isn’t there also something safe in quoting others?

  15. frankier on April 6, 2014, 12:47 am

    The issue is that Margaret Sullivan ruling will go unnoticed, whereas the article went out with the misleading headline. The writers will continue to write partisan headlines (if not articles all together) and nothing will happen to them. How many people will have a chance or even bother to read Sullivan’s ruling?

  16. bilal a on April 6, 2014, 10:09 am

    This is an internal revisionist historical struggle between European (and Jewish reform) universalism and ethno- nationalism , or as ],” Norman Podhoretz put it:

    Believing (on the basis, it should be emphasized, of an obviously scant acquaintance with the literature and history of Judaism) that the essence of Judaism is the struggle for universal justice and human brotherhood, these young intellectuals assert over and over again that anyone who fights for the Ideal is to that degree more Jewish than a man who merely observes the rituals or merely identifies himself with the Jewish community”

    Is Immigration really a Jewish value?
    http://www.vdare.com/print/34117

    • jon s on April 6, 2014, 10:50 am

      bilal a, the link you provided is to Kevin MacDonald, widely considered a White-supremacist and Anti-Semite.

      In answer to your question, immigration to Israel (“aliyah”) is a “mitzvah” (a good deed) in Jewish tradition.

      • puppies on April 6, 2014, 2:34 pm

        @johns – Nonsense. There is no tradition of illegal invasion. One thing is to immigrate into Palestine to immerse oneself into study as a law-abiding individual immigrant, as was occasionally done –very rarely. Another thing is invading as an armed outlaw band, invading, stealing, murdering, torturing, committing genocide, starting wars of aggression and generally becoming a cancer on the face of the earth. Mitzva forsooth.

      • puppies on April 6, 2014, 3:02 pm

        @johns – So what, does anyone object if you pick a correct statement on the AIPAC web site, a notorious war criminal, racial supremacist organization that orders around US Congress?

        Let’s see what is unsupported by fact in the following:
        “African immigrants are mistreated, rounded up [30], and deported [31]. Even African Jews have been subjected to a variety of indignities, including being given [32] long-acting Depo Provera birth control shots.”
        “Some American Jews are willing to say frankly that their interest is in Israel remaining a Jewish state, which would be compromised by African immigration”

      • bilal a on April 6, 2014, 11:01 pm

        so many antisemites these days:

        How Peter Beinart Defends the Repulsive Views of the Antisemitic Jew Max Blumethal, Ron Radosh

        DAVID HORNIK: ALI ABUNIMAH- AMERICA’S PURVEYOR OF ANTI-SEMITISM

        ‘NYT’ reporter treats boycott as immoral and anti-Semitic, reminiscent of Nazis,MW


        on and on

      • Sumud on April 6, 2014, 11:45 pm

        jon s ~ I just can’t take zionist complaints about racism seriously, when MacDonald’s white nationalism is near-identical to zionist jewish nationalism.

        In January 2010, MacDonald began acting as director of the newly founded political party American Third Position, which declares America a white Christian nation and advocates for limiting “non-white” immigration into the United States. A statement on their website reads, “If current demographic trends persist, European-Americans will become a minority in America in only a few decades time. The American Third Position will not allow this to happen. To safeguard our identity and culture, and to secure an American future for our people, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration.”

        Wikipedia: Kevin B. MacDonald / Affiliation

        It’s not that you’re against racism, just that he belongs to a different tribe than yours.

      • wondering jew on April 7, 2014, 4:19 am

        Sumud- How can I take a pro Palestinian protest against Zionist racism seriously if that same protester cites racist websites? It works both ways.

      • Cliff on April 7, 2014, 7:00 am

        @Wondering Jew

        You – like the antisemite MacDonald – refer to Judaism as a kind of corporation.

        You do so literally, while he refers to Judaism as a ‘group evolutionary strategy’.

        Not very controversial on it’s face. And you Zionists indulge in this naval contemplation day in and day out.

        The point Sumud is making is that both you and the White Nationalists are the same in your racism/views on The Other.

        Seeing as how you approvingly commented on another Ziotroll’s citation of an article referring to ‘pro-Palestinian’ Jewish activists narcissism – you’re simply showing one face to us here at MW.

        You cowards are worse than the more vulgar segments of American and Israeli Jewish life, because you’re two-faced.

      • seanmcbride on April 7, 2014, 11:21 am

        yonah fredman,

        Sumud- How can I take a pro Palestinian protest against Zionist racism seriously if that same protester cites racist websites? It works both ways.

        On what grounds can Zionists like you and jon s object to the ethnic or religious nationalism of any non-Jewish group without looking absurd and eventually bringing down the wrath of much of the world on you?

        The truth is, there are no grounds — other than cult hocus-pocus that any other tribe is free to adopt and exploit.

        Zionists have abandoned any right to complain about ethnic nationalist movements in Europe, the United States and everywhere else in the world. In fact, Israel is providing a model for that kind of narrow and selfish tribal behavior. If Jews can do it, every other ethnic and religious group can say, so can we.

        Compared to Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Sheldon Adelson’s ethnic nationalism, Kevin MacDonald’s ethnic nationalism is rather mild — and more naturally and organically grounded in European and American history and culture than Zionism.

        Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. Don’t try to play the ethnic nationalist card in one setting and the liberal universalist card in another setting unless you really want to rile up the world against you.

  17. oldgeezer on April 6, 2014, 2:48 pm

    I know I said I wasn’t going to bother to post here again but I guess I’ll accept that I’m a liar in some part. I just couldn’t resist this one and I did rethink doing it. I read a variety of sites, not only here but even some camera run sites.

    I literally choked on a mouthful of tea when I read this

    Gullible journalists like the New York Times’ Jodi Rudoren are ready willing and able to oblige with sympathetic pieces.

    I can’t fathom it. I won’t comment on the article other than to say it’s devoid of reality or the comments other than to say they’re usual racist claptrap. It’s amusing (not really) to see the venom while they claim to be defenders of the opposite.

    There is no doubt that Rudoren is one sided in favour of Israel. She may not be racist enough to satisfy some right wing racist Israel supporters but she is one sided.

    I don’t see a happy end to this. Israel has truly become a racist state controlled by supremacists. Even if they did the decent thing and agreed to a just peace they’d be facing a civil war. Sure it’s their own fault but it’s not something I want to see. I can’t measure the feelings of their citizens in a collective sense but their political sphere is in control of racists who have full equality with the worst the world has known.

    • puppies on April 6, 2014, 3:04 pm

      @oldgeezer – “Israel has truly become a racist state controlled by supremacists.”
      Become? When was it not?

      • oldgeezer on April 6, 2014, 3:49 pm

        Whether it was racist or not I understand the horrors that could drive a people to want their own state at any cost given what occurred in WW II. That is not to say the leaders weren’t racist, or the concept wasn’t racist. All I am saying is that for the average Jewish person the motivation to sign on to such a concept is obvious. The motivation for the average non Jewish person to support same was obvious. And that’s not to say either of those two groups was right. In fact it was the wrong solution in my opinion but the times weren’t difficult or hard they were horrific. Good people made bad decisions.

        Now we need to find the right and decent way out of this and that doesn’t mean pandering to either side.

    • lysias on April 8, 2014, 6:02 pm

      When apartheid was ending, there was a lot of fear of a civil war in South Africa, with hard-line Afrikaners rebelling. It didn’t happen, because Mandela, who had learnt Afrikaans in prison, met the hard-line Afrikaner leaders and charmed them.

  18. American on April 6, 2014, 3:28 pm

    ‘ I agree with Mr. Kahn, however, that this does not reflect any larger effort by The Times to lay the impasse at the Palestinians’ feet.’

    rotflmao……sure it isn’t. …what bs.

Leave a Reply