The New York Times coverage of the Palestinian bid for UN membership reveals the blurring between its news and editorial pages. Palestinian responsibility for the stagnation of peace negotiations and the need for concessions is not news that's fit to print.
Palestinians may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, who have consistently fumbled opportunities to end the conflict with Israel and create a state of Palestine?
Once again, the Los Angeles Times gives a platform to Saree Makdisi, the UCLA comparative literature professor who regularly argues for a "binational state," meaning the dismantlement of the Jewish state.
President Carter misrepresents the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 and the "road map" to make the fallacious argument that President Obama's speech represents a continuation of longstanding American policy regarding Israeli withdrawals.
Palestinian leaders have said they will gain statehood via UDI (a Unilateral Declaration of Independence) rather than through negotiations with Israel. This would violate their agreements with Israel as well as US assurances to Israel, and would be likely to provoke violence. It would also be unlikely to actually achieve statehood.
Presspectiva Editor Yishai Goldflam criticized Ha'aretz columnist Yossi Sarid for reflexively blaming Israel even when the facts directly contradict him. Ha'aretz published Goldflam's letter to the editor on the same subject, translated below.
The Palestinian leadership insists it will not resume face-to-face negotiations until Israel complies with its preconditions, while their diplomats — with the help of some partisan writing in the New York Times news pages — cast Israel as responsible for the impasse.
The Financial Times' David Gardner, led the way in presenting biased, incendiary coverage of the newly-launched Israeli-Palestinian talks. Name-calling, smears and propaganda trumped facts, context and objectivity.
Why does the Associated Press insist that Israel's call for immediate and unconditional direct negotiations reflects a "hard line," when it was the Palestinian side that consistantly refused to talk until their demands were met? And how did AP describe Israel when it was the side insisting on preconditions?
As a result of CAMERA's formal complaint to the BBC, the British media giant removed from its Web site major distortions about the US position on Israeli settlements.