Whether discussing Palestinian demands or Israeli demands, Palestinian rejection of Israeli positions or Israeli rejection of Palestinian positions, the newspaper identifies the same party as the obstacle to successful peace talks — Israel. Compare ;how the newspaper reports the positions of each side. 
To help make sense of the debate about whether Palestinians should recognize the Jewish state, it is worth unpacking some of the talking points that have been used to defend Abbas’s refusal to do so. 
The Washington Post periodical misinforms readers that in 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were close to a peace deal. Never mind that Olmert and Abbas have said just the opposite. Once the paper published a corrective CAMERA letter to the editor, but not lately. 
Times correspondent Michael Gordon recast Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks to reflect the news outlet's preferred views, echoing Palestinian perspectives and largely ignoring the US leader's focus on "end of conflict." New York Times journalists know with certainty that Abbas wants to restart peace talks because they saw a Palestinian list of talking points suggesting he say as much. 
A Baltimore Sun Op-Ed, using Israel's "Pillar of Defense" operation against Hamas as news peg, blamed Israel for a host of Middle East ills. CAMERA's letter to the editor "Criticism of Israel ignores the facts" set the record straight. 
Time Magazine's Karl Vick doesn't bother to tell readers that Abbas chose not to negotiate with Israel, and describes 800 rockets targeting Israel in 10 months as attacks that happen "from time to time." 
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made headlines this week when he called on Israel to "just get to the damn [negotiating] table." The statement is peculiar, since Israel has pleaded with the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table while Palestinian leaders insist they won't do so unless Israel first satisfies their preconditions.