NY Times Biased Story: Heads of Arab States Prod Israel to Embrace Peace Offer - New York Times

The Saudi's unwillingness to revisit the issue in its "Peace Plan" of Palestinian "right of return" to Israel -- which would destroy Israel -- illustrates the lack of bravery or good intent of the Saudis in resubmitting their peace plan to the world. Heads of Arab States Prod Israel to Embrace Peace Offer - New York Times

This article is also an example of artfully biased news coverage by the Times -- because the bias is in some sense subtle, and as much formed by omission rather than commission, so that you have to be familiar the issues to see the bias. this article has the Arabs fuming in righteous indignation, making accusations of Israel's lack of good will in not embracing this "generous offer" of Israeli self-destruction, with no possibility extended of modifications (as previously announced by the Saudis, who said this was a "take it or leave it" deal -- but not mentioned in this article). No mention is made in the article about the core Israeli concerns with this position -- or for that matter that a nation does not go to the negotiating table where they are told "take it or leave it", and if you "leave it" you are responsible for any war that may result. It is interesting that theis article, in articulating an Israeli response, makes no mention that the proposal shuts out any possibility of talk regarding core issues to the Israelis, like:

-- right of return of Palestinians to Israel (even though they'd already be getting their own nation under the proposal, Palestine -- forget about Jordan),

--the issue of a like number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who no one hears about because Israel and the West showed responsibility and compassion in absorbing them, while the Palestinian refugees were not shown a similar courtesy by their Arab brothers,

-- land swaps of the type Jordan has engaged in with Israel (which has tons of international precedent) or which President Bush has previously anticipated as official US policy,

-- or any hint of compromise on Jerusalem.

This article's use of totally disingenuous soundbites, with no effective Israeli counter response, is another tool to make the reader think that the Israelis are being unreasonable, in the face of a concerted Arab effort to extend the hand of peace. For instance, take the following quote from the article,

"The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said, in addressing the meeting on Thursday, 'I reiterate the sincerity of the Palestinian will in extending the hand of peace to the Israeli people.' ”

OH, REALLY? Then why did the Palestinian people vote for the rejectionist Hamas over Abbas' Fatah, or why do public opinion polls in the Palestinian territories almost universally support a fight to the death with Israel? In the West we put more value on the truth of the spoken word (one reaosn that we tend to believe most of what we read -- and hence the danger of articles like this one). We have seen time and time again that in Arab cultures, "lying with a straight face" is totally acceptable behavior (a political psychologist would describe the Arab mentality in this regard as an acceptance of "parallel truths").

To write an article like this with as little countervailing opinion from the Israelis -- or anyone remotely balanced, for that matter -- illustrates the bad intent of the NY Times in reporting the news, and all right-minded individuals should express this view to the Times editors.

More in tis blog, later today, on what the Saudis are doing, as their foreign policy becomes more activist in a way that cleaves away from US foreign policy. Oil is spiking because of the lamentable Iranian British prisoner situation, but I wouldn't be selling oil to cover yet....