The New York Times' current post-mortem on the US-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, demonstrate yet again the abandonment of journalistic objectivity in order to blame Israel. This overtly partisan article could more aptly have been entitled "How Israel Undermined the Peace Process." 
A terrorist group chooses a name that implicitly recognizes the Jews' connection to Jerusalem. Journalists consistently mistranslate the name, erasing the religious-historical link. 
By implying that Israelis are unreasonable or unjustified in viewing the self-confessed Palestinian murderer of a Holocaust survivor as a terrorist, The Times' Jodi Rudoren demonizes the Israeli people. 
Recent headlines and political statements have suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's request for recognition as a Jewish state is a new and unnecessary requirement by Israel. Why is Israel so insistent upon it? 
Now that Ha'aretz has commendably corrected the erroneous claim that Netanyahu was the first Israeli PM to demand Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, will Reuters and The New York Times follow suit? 
Why does The New York Times consider a story about the shooting of a reportedly violent man at an Israeli border crossing more important that the killing of Mexican citizens near the US border or Africans near the Spanish border? A recent Op-Ed by former Palestinian Authority minister Ali Jarbawi includes two factual errors: The claim that Netanyahu invented the idea that Israel should be recognized as the Jewish state, and the claim that this is a precondition to further negotiations. A Jan. 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times blames Israel for its supposed losses in the propaganda war against the Jewish state. A glance at other opinion pieces published that month makes clear that the newspaper itself deserves blame.