Even as Israel says it won’t investigate killing of Palestinian-American journalists, US media ignore the story. But journalists are supposed to be like firefighters — if one of you is killed in action the rest of you show up in solidarity and you don’t shut up. Apparently, though, there’s an exception — when the Israeli army (almost certainly) kills your colleague.

In attacking the Harvard Crimson for endorsing BDS, Larry Summers and Alan Dershowitz deny a core reality: “If there is ever to be even a minimally just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the most important prerequisite, is the Israeli recognition that their historical narrative of the conflict is largely mythological and that they have incurred an overwhelming moral obligation… to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinian people.”

Today’s New York Times includes a collector’s item: an actual headline that reads “Israeli Police Attack Mourners”

Israel continues its time-honored strategy of manipulating the mainstream U.S. media — this time muddying the coverage of the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

Biased NY Times editors are sabotaging their own reporter — and hindering understanding of why Jerusalem’s Old City is a flash point.

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Patrick Kingsley used a fresh apartheid report, by U.N. special rapporteur Michael Lynk, to finally slip Amnesty International’s apartheid finding into the paper. Kingsley wrote that Lynk, a distinguished Canadian law professor appointed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, had “accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid in the occupied territories.” He quickly summarized Lynk’s finding, gave Israel’s foreign ministry and other critics a chance to respond — and then, right at the end, mentioned that Amnesty, among others, had produced a “similar” report.

“Regime change in Iran shouldn’t be a taboo” is an idea that gets traction in the Washington foreign policy establishment. Ukraine’s brave resistance to Russian invasion ought to dispel that idea forever. Even people who don’t like their rules won’t accept foreign control.

Observers are puzzled — and disturbed — at why the ‘Atlantic’ just published a long article that tries to rehabilitate the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

As global powers make progress toward a renewed Iran deal, the Israeli Prime Minister is objecting to it, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an Israel lobby organization, is calling a new agreement “a surrender pact,” and the New York Times, characteristically, has published a biased article that raises objections to the proposed deal without giving its supporters much space to defend it.

The New York Times sets the media agenda inside the United States. If the paper had published at least one single story, or run just one opinion piece, the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid would not be fading from view.