NY Times in full anti-Bibi fury as he heads to D.C.

The New York Times, in its May 19 edition, runs a lengthy article previewing President Obama's Middle East policy speech and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's arrival in Washington for discussions with the president and an address to a joint session of Congress.  The article, by Helene Cooper and Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau of the Times, gets the top spot on the front page ("Focus on Obama as tensions soar across Mideast -- A speech on the region -- No Breakthrough Seen with Netanyahu set to see President")

While Obama crafted his speech to focus primarily on current upheavals and revolutions in the Arab world, the Times has its own agenda, which is to bash Netanyahu for his unwillingness to make concessions demanded by the Palestinians.  It's entirely Netanyahu's fault that there will be no breakthrough in the stalled peace process, as the headline avers.

Thus, the article depicts Netanyahu as arriving in Washington with a "familiar package" of peace proposals intended primarily to shift the onus "from Israel to the Palestinians."  In other words, it's a sly, crafty Bibi maneuver with nothing in the offing "to sigmal that the United States expected Israel to make concessions."

As far as Cooper and Bronner are concerned, the test of Obama's diplomatic strategy will be "how far Mr. Obama is willing to push Israel on peace with the Palestinians."

Given this perspective -- or bias -- Netanyahu's willingness to accept a Palestinian state as long as Israel can maintain a military presence along the Jordan River and sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement blocs is worthless.  Why?  Because Bibi's proposals are just "three major stumbling blocks for the Palestinians."

There is nothing in this lengthy anti-Bibi article about Mahmoud Abbas's firm stance against any compromises or concessions by the Palestinian side.  Nor is there any depiction of Abbas's decision to form a "unity" regime with Hamas as a lethal blow to the peace process.  Just the opposite.  It's Bibi who's faulted for conditioning Israeli concessions on Palestinian governance without Hamas. "Mr. Netanyahu knows that the Palestinians will find this condition unacceptable, particularly since  Fatah, the  main Palestinian movement, just signed a unity pact with Hamas.  But since the United States labels Hamas as terrorists, Mr. Netanyahu is betting that he will appear to be more forthcoming than ever."  Again, Bibi as a sly, crafty maneuver, unwilling to appease the Palestinians. 

Continuing to question Bibi's good fath -- but never Abbas's -- Cooper and Bronner again shift into their familiar mode of giving a pass to Abbas, while questioning Netanyahu's motives -- "Whether Mr. Netanyahu's offer is a genuine attempt to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, or to make it appear that the Palestinians are the ones blocking progress, is not yet clear.  The Palestinians want Jerusalem as their capital and do not want Israeli soldiers along the Jordan."  And, according to the Times, whatever the Palestinians want, the Palestinians are entirely to get.

And thus the unsurprising verdict against Netanyahu:  "Diplomatic momentum has been with the Palestinians for several years, with their leadership and requests viewed as reasonable and Mr. Netanyahu as unyielding."  Abbas the "reasonable" statesman and Bibi the "unyielding" hawk.  A view carefully and consistently nurtured by NY Times coverage of the Mideast conflict

The Times, in its "news" columns, long ago abandoned the claim that it provides "all the news that's fit to print."  These days, it's more like "all the propaganda that fits our agenda."
The New York Times, in its May 19 edition, runs a lengthy article previewing President Obama's Middle East policy speech and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's arrival in Washington for discussions with the president and an address to a joint session of Congress.  The article, by Helene Cooper and Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau of the Times, gets the top spot on the front page ("Focus on Obama as tensions soar across Mideast -- A speech on the region -- No Breakthrough Seen with Netanyahu set to see President")

While Obama crafted his speech to focus primarily on current upheavals and revolutions in the Arab world, the Times has its own agenda, which is to bash Netanyahu for his unwillingness to make concessions demanded by the Palestinians.  It's entirely Netanyahu's fault that there will be no breakthrough in the stalled peace process, as the headline avers.

Thus, the article depicts Netanyahu as arriving in Washington with a "familiar package" of peace proposals intended primarily to shift the onus "from Israel to the Palestinians."  In other words, it's a sly, crafty Bibi maneuver with nothing in the offing "to sigmal that the United States expected Israel to make concessions."

As far as Cooper and Bronner are concerned, the test of Obama's diplomatic strategy will be "how far Mr. Obama is willing to push Israel on peace with the Palestinians."

Given this perspective -- or bias -- Netanyahu's willingness to accept a Palestinian state as long as Israel can maintain a military presence along the Jordan River and sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement blocs is worthless.  Why?  Because Bibi's proposals are just "three major stumbling blocks for the Palestinians."

There is nothing in this lengthy anti-Bibi article about Mahmoud Abbas's firm stance against any compromises or concessions by the Palestinian side.  Nor is there any depiction of Abbas's decision to form a "unity" regime with Hamas as a lethal blow to the peace process.  Just the opposite.  It's Bibi who's faulted for conditioning Israeli concessions on Palestinian governance without Hamas. "Mr. Netanyahu knows that the Palestinians will find this condition unacceptable, particularly since  Fatah, the  main Palestinian movement, just signed a unity pact with Hamas.  But since the United States labels Hamas as terrorists, Mr. Netanyahu is betting that he will appear to be more forthcoming than ever."  Again, Bibi as a sly, crafty maneuver, unwilling to appease the Palestinians. 

Continuing to question Bibi's good fath -- but never Abbas's -- Cooper and Bronner again shift into their familiar mode of giving a pass to Abbas, while questioning Netanyahu's motives -- "Whether Mr. Netanyahu's offer is a genuine attempt to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, or to make it appear that the Palestinians are the ones blocking progress, is not yet clear.  The Palestinians want Jerusalem as their capital and do not want Israeli soldiers along the Jordan."  And, according to the Times, whatever the Palestinians want, the Palestinians are entirely to get.

And thus the unsurprising verdict against Netanyahu:  "Diplomatic momentum has been with the Palestinians for several years, with their leadership and requests viewed as reasonable and Mr. Netanyahu as unyielding."  Abbas the "reasonable" statesman and Bibi the "unyielding" hawk.  A view carefully and consistently nurtured by NY Times coverage of the Mideast conflict

The Times, in its "news" columns, long ago abandoned the claim that it provides "all the news that's fit to print."  These days, it's more like "all the propaganda that fits our agenda."

RECENT VIDEOS