Backspin FrontPage
Backspin FrontPage
HonestReporting.com
Media Backspin
About Media Backspin Contact Media Backspin Media Backspin
  Media Backspin
Backspin FrontPage
 
 
 
Media Backspin RSS Feed   [ About RSS ]
 
Subscribe with Bloglines
 
Add to My AOL
 
Subscribe in Bloglines
 
Subscribe to MyMSN
 
 
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
 
Add to Google Reader or Homepage
 
ARCHIVES January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010
 
 
Media Backspin
« Pulling the Plug | Main | The Monitor's Dubious Source »

Thursday, March 30 2006

A NY Times Quiz

This NY Times staff-ed incoherently responds to the unilateral agenda Israeli voters approved of this week:

We're not happy with Mr. Olmert's proposal of a unilateral withdrawal. But at this point, we're heartened by anything that leads to an Israeli withdrawal from land that the Palestinians must control if the area is ever going to evolve into two peaceful, co-existing states….

While the ultimate solution to the conflict can be only a negotiated one, as opposed to a unilateral drawing of final borders by Israel, a negotiated deal is not going to happen until Hamas repudiates terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist. Hamas has yet to earn itself a seat at the negotiating table. But in the meantime, Israel can start to rid itself of its self-created problem in the West Bank.

So in the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner, what is the Times really advocating?

A) Israel should unilaterally leave the West Bank “to rid itself of its self-created problem.”

B) Israel should not unilaterally withdraw because “the ultimate solution to the conflict can only be a negotiated one.”

C) Israel should negotiate with Hamas anyway because “the ultimate solution to the conflict can only be a negotiated one.”

D) The Times just looks forward to seeing Israel to leave the West Bank; it doesn’t matter why or how.

 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b7869e200e5503442be8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A NY Times Quiz:



 

Comments

It seems quite clear what the NYT is saying. Only a negotiated agreement will result in real peace. However, the current Palestinian leadership is not qualified as a negotiating partner. Until the Palestinians choose leadership that is really interested in peace, there can be no "ultimate" solution.

That does not mean that Israel should not withdraw now from some land as an interim solution. This is not some "biased" NYT point of view, the vast majoirty of Israelis just voted to do just this. You guys should stick to reporting real anti-Israel bias.

In your critique of the NY Times editorial you do not comment on the most grievous aspect of the editorial, their ignorance of historical fact. The editor refers to Israel's "self-created" problem on the West Bank. A fact checker would have revealed that in response to Israel's request, in the aftermath of the 6 Day War, Israel requested negotiations with the Arab states stating that "everything" was on the negotiating table including Jerusalem. The Khartoum Declaration fo the Arab League was the infamous three nos, no negotiations, no peace, no Israel. As usual the NY Times pursues its own surrealistic view of the Middle East lambasting Israel for surviving and succeeding.

You did not comment on the most egregious error in the NY Times editorial. The Times refers to Israel's "self-created" problem on the West Bank ignoring fact and history. After the Six Day War, Israel turned to her Arab enemies and asked them to come to the negotiating table saying everything was open to negotiation even Jerusalem. The response of the Arabs was the infamous Khartoum Declaration of three nays: no negotiations, no peace, no Israel. This, the NY Times refuses to acknowledge: the history of Arab intragency. Instead, the NY Times editors continue with their myopic and distorted view of the Middle East blaming Israel for all problems. I can recall only one editorial on Israel that was somewhat positive; however, that one, too, had to take a gratuitous swat at Israel just to appear to be "balanced."

In your critique of the NY Times editorial you do not comment on the most grievous aspect of the editorial, their ignorance of historical fact. The editor refers to Israel's "self-created" problem on the West Bank. A fact checker would have revealed that in response to Israel's request, in the aftermath of the 6 Day War, Israel requested negotiations with the Arab states stating that "everything" was on the negotiating table including Jerusalem. The Khartoum Declaration fo the Arab League was the infamous three nos, no negotiations, no peace, no Israel. As usual the NY Times pursues its own surrealistic view of the Middle East lambasting Israel for surviving and succeeding.

In your critique of the NY Times editorial you do not comment on the most grievous aspect of the editorial, their ignorance of historical fact. The editor refers to Israel's "self-created" problem on the West Bank. A fact checker would have revealed that in response to Israel's request, in the aftermath of the 6 Day War, Israel requested negotiations with the Arab states stating that "everything" was on the negotiating table including Jerusalem. The Khartoum Declaration fo the Arab League was the infamous three nos, no negotiations, no peace, no Israel. As usual the NY Times pursues its own surrealistic view of the Middle East lambasting Israel for surviving and succeeding.

How about:
E) We want to disapprove of anything Israel does, but we're having a hard time finding anything to disapprove of here.

HR Links


HR Social Media


Featured Blogs


Featured Links

 
Media Backspin