Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (189547)	10/5/2001 2:24:20 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

smartertimes.com Today's New York Times carries an editorial that runs under the headline "Diplomatic Balance in the Mideast." The editorial calls for "a balanced approach," an "evenhanded American effort" to mediate between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. This is just ridiculous. Would the Times call on Britain to adopt a "balanced," "evenhanded" approach between the United States and Osama Bin Laden? Israel is a country that shares America's values of freedom and democracy. It was a steady friend to America in the Cold War and the Gulf War. The PLO is a terrorist organization that runs the West Bank and Gaza as a corrupt dictatorship. It sided against America in the Cold War and the Gulf War. For America to approach the Israeli-Arab conflict in a "balanced," "evenhanded" manner would be a betrayal of America's friendship with Israel. It's bad enough that the Times editorializes to this effect. But the views spill over into the news coverage, as well. The Times' support for balance and evenhandedness, it seems extends to the Bush administration's diplomacy but not to the newspaper's own news operations. The Times carries a dispatch from Tel Aviv in today's paper that reports, "Now that the talks are under way, the predicament facing Mr. Sharon is that if he pronounces the cease-fire dead and blocks further talks he will risk the appearance of undermining Mr. Bush's war on terrorism." This is twisted. If the Israeli Prime Minister refuses to negotiate further with the terrorists, he "risks the appearance of undermining Mr. Bush's war on terrorism"? If Mr. Bush's war on terrorism consists of pressuring Israel's democratically elected government to negotiate further with the terrorists, then appearing to undermine it is not a "risk" but a benefit. This seems to Smartertimes.com like a predicament facing Mr. Bush, not one facing Mr. Sharon. The word "appearance" is particularly rich. Mr. Sharon is being told to worry about how he will appear to the Times, which has a twisted view of the situation. Another dispatch in today's Times runs under the headline, "U.S. Jews Split on Washington's Shift on Palestinian State." That article claims "a significant split has emerged among American Jewish organizations over the Bush administration's consideration of a diplomatic initiative that would include United States support for the creation of a Palestinian state." It's an incredibly one-sided dispatch. The Times quotes extensively from a letter from left-wing factions in the American Jewish community and from interviews with longtime extremist "peace" activists. But when it comes time to represent the views of the mainstream and center-right wing of the community, the Times relies only on an old "statement" and an old quote from "a news report." It is as if the Times reporter doesn't deign personally to speak with anyone who is not a member of the left wing. Those who oppose the timing of the announcement of the Bush administration's initiative, or those who oppose the initiative itself, aren't given a chance in the Times article to respond to the leftists' letter.