As violence rises in the occupied West Bank, the New York Times struggles to frame the news.

Patrick Kingsley’s irresponsible reporting from Jerusalem signals how the New York Times will frame the rising violence in occupied Palestine.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently said that the two-state solution in Israel/Palestine is, if not already dead, “in hospice.” Now it’s time for news reporters at his paper and other mainstream U.S. media, to look squarely at how and why two states is no longer possible. Instead, the two-state solution is supposedly still the ideal — for the U.S. government, among others. The headline after the U.S. Secretary of State’s arrival in Israel yesterday was, predictably: “Blinken reaffirms need for two-state solution after talks with Netanyahu.”

“The New York Times” realized it had to report the year-end casualty statistics for Palestinians in the West Bank, the highest toll since 2005.
So it looked for a way to shift attention away from the major perpetrators — the Israeli military and Jewish settler/colonists — and put it on the Palestinians.

Israel’s steady lurch to the right is a predictable outcome for a country founded on Jewish supremacy and discrimination against Palestinians. 

This election could also be viewed as the outcome of longstanding antidemocratic forces, an inheritance from fascistic leaders like Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky, rabbis like Meir Kahane,  the unwillingness of sequential Israeli governments (left to right) to control a violent and rabid settler movement, and even the consequences of the Zionist movement itself which preached not only Jewish nationalism, but Jewish supremacy. 

The New York Times appears to be tired of cheerleading for Israel, witness two opinion pieces this weekend: a long report by Thomas Friedman in which the columnist admitted at the start that “the prospect for a two-state solution has all but vanished;” then, a full page offering by the entire Editorial Board headlined that says that Benjamin Netanyahu’s likely next coalition government “is a significant threat to the future of Israel.” Neither article mentions apartheid.

Tom Friedman deplores the Israel lobby for assisting Netanyahu in preventing any U.S. president from taking action on Palestinian disenfranchisement. “AIPAC and American Jewish organizations who have done Bibi’s bidding…at every turn used their power and influence to still the hand of any [U.S.] administration wanting to have a more serious and energetic and vigorous policy. And for that they will have to answer to history,” the New York Times columnist says. He said this effect is now working on the Biden administration.

Racist rightwinger Itamar Ben-Gvir gets the security portfolio in Netanyahu’s next government and promises to visit the Al-Aqsa mosque in a provocation to Palestinians reminiscent of Ariel Sharon’s deadly visit there in 2000. But this is not news for the New York Times, which blinds its readers to the frightening developments in Israel.

Once again the “New York Times” launders the dark forces gaining power in Israeli politics. Tensions in the occupied Palestinian West Bank are already at their highest level in years, and yet Israel’s security policy is now in the hands of a fascist who was considered so extreme that he wasn’t even allowed to serve as a foot soldier in the Israeli army when he was younger.

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman condemns the incoming Israeli government, with “outright racist, anti-Arab Jewish extremists” set to become cabinet ministers.