In a stunning reversal, with no admission of error, the New York Times has withdrawn its claims that after the Gaza withdrawal the Bush administration will demand further imminent concessions from Israel, and is now reporting the opposite.
CAMERA has obtained the following correction from the <I>New York Times</I>:
Correction (12/12/03): An article last Friday about President Bush's meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan misstated the effect that an unofficial peace plan drafted by Israelis and Palestinians, known as the Geneva plan, would have on Israeli settlements. Under that plan, Israel would give up most of the settlements in the West Bank, not keep them. But since the 400,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem are concentrated in a few settlements and neighborhoods that Israel would keep under the plan, about 300,000 settlers would remain where they live.</P>
CAMERA has obtained the following correction from the New York Times:
Correction (12/3/2003): An article last Wednesday about the decision by the Bush administration to cancel $289.5 million in American-backed loan guarantees for Israel referred incorrectly to West Bank construction activities that prompted it. Although federal law requires revoking loan guarantees to penalize certain construction deemed contrary to American policy, the United States does not define the activities as illegal.
The New York Times has trouble reporting the facts straight about Middle East documents, repeatedly distorting their terms and shifting responsibility — and fault — to Israel. Recent misinformation about the road map by correspondent Steven Weisman is fuel for critics who see the paper increasingly marshaling its news pages to advance an editorial agenda.
Despite dramatic public exposure of the New York Times' questionable policies in handling repeated deceptions by one of its reporters, the newspaper has again misled its readers, this time about the terms of the "Road Map." Instead of reporting the actual terms of the peace plan drawn up by the "Quartet" (United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia), the Times has injected its own language.