By that, I mean, the NYT does a wonderful job presenting both sides of this issue. Nobody does it better.
Nearly anybody does it better. The NYT's liberal bias was obvious to anybody who knew anything about Israel, anybody who had other sources of information.
All we heard about, well past 2002, was how Arafat was a moderate, a peace partner, who had nothing to do with the terrorists, well almost nothing, and how Oslo was a wonderful idea. If Peace Now held a rally with 5,000 people, it was front page news. If the Likud held a rally with 100,000 people, it got one paragraph on page A17.
They never printed ANYTHING that Arafat said in Arabic. They never mentioned that Arafat claimed the Jews had no history in Palestine, that the Temple never existed. They never mentioned that the PA teaches the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a history text, or that PA schools taught little boys that martyrdom was their highest aspiration. Never.
The never printed the obvious, that the Palestinians decided to launch a terror war in 2000. Just moderate Palestinians, terrorists who had nothing at all to do with the moderates (in reality, all members of the same organization) and bad Likud Israelis fostering the "cycle of violence".
Anybody could report it better. Many did. |
