In Seeking Statehood, Palestinians Stir Concern

[King_David]

By ETHAN BRONNER

Published: September 10, 2011



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single Page


Reprints
Share






.



RAMALLAH, West Bank — Less than two weeks before Palestinians plan to defy the Obama administration by requesting membership and statehood recognition at the United Nations, there is a growing fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is entering an explosive new phase.


A Palestinian decision to shift its statehood quest toward international legal and political pressure on Israel, combined with Israeli fear and truculence at a time of regional upheaval, has many predicting disaster, especially after the storming of Israel’s Cairo embassy and the expulsion of its ambassador from Turkey.

“Israel is already facing hostility from Egypt, Turkey and Gaza,” a senior Western diplomat said. “It will react to a Palestinian statehood bid with punitive measures in the West Bank. Congress will probably cut off aid to the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority could collapse. We’re watching a potential train wreck.”

In response, Palestinians say that their lives have long been a train wreck — an Israeli-induced one of settlement and occupation — and that it is time for a radical shift in approach. They say their United Nations effort, along with accession to international legal forums, will be followed by renewed negotiations with clearer guidelines. The Israelis say the move will kill the chance of future talks.

In fact, no one knows where it could lead. The details of the United Nations membership bid are still being worked out — on Monday, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is due in Cairo to present his plan to the Arab League — and some of what is happening is brinkmanship. But on the ground there are ominous hints. The Israeli Army is holding dress rehearsals for Palestinian riots. Radical settlers vandalized mosques and an Israeli military base last week.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/world/middleeast/11palestinians.html

[azurnoir]

1. Has Bronners son finished his tour of duty in IDF yet? n/t

[King_David]

2. Not sure,

But my girlfriend's nephew wraps up his IDF tour of duty next month after Rosh Hashanah .

[oberliner]

3. It's clear from your comment that you gave this article a very careful read

Not only do you disregard the content, but you comment on not the author himself but his son.

I'm sure that is very instructive to understanding the points raised.

[azurnoir]

4. I did read the article and the question was purely rhetorical

sorry to disappoint

[oberliner]

5. What was the rhetorical point you were making?

Thanks in advance.

[azurnoir]

6. That Bronner has deeply personal concerns in regards to Israel

and that should be taken into account when reading him on that subject

[King_David]

7. Ha ,like Richard Falk ? nt

[azurnoir]

8. no quite unlike Falk I'd say flip side of the coin perhaps?

however I can not imagine why you'd make such a comment well except.........see I'm giving you yet another opportunity to do the same lol

[King_David]

9. Pass nt

[oberliner]

10. If he can't be objective he should be fired

The NY Times doesn't generally keep on reporters who are unable to keep the personal concerns out of their articles.

[azurnoir]

11. his ability to be objective has been questioned his does not cross a line to

extremism like say Caroline Glick but he is most definitely Pro-Israel and it shows in his work IMO

[oberliner]

12. By whom?

That's a pretty serious charge.

What was the response from the NY Times?

[azurnoir]

13. Clark Hoyt one of NYT's editors

"Since the initial report of his son’s enlistment, I have heard from roughly 400 readers, many of them convinced that Bronner could not continue in his current assignment," wrote Hoyt, who also noted Bronner's reporting to be "solid and fair."


Other senior journalists, such as famed former Jerusalem bureau chief, David Shipler, told Hoyt they see no problem with Bronner remaining at the post especially in light of the often nuanced and complex relationships necessary for performing the job.


However, Hoyt wrote, "I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong. But this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the IDF."


Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller thinks otherwise. In response to Hoyt's column, he wrote on Bronner's personal ties in the region: "I suspect they supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack. I suspect they make him even more tuned-in to the sensitivities of readers on both sides, and more careful to go the extra mile in the interest of fairness. I do know he has reported scrupulously and insightfully on Israelis and Palestinians for many years."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3845788,00.html

however IMO NYT showed it's bias in 2006 Lebanon conflict when it printed the names of every Israeli victim but would only mention rough numbers of Lebanese so Bill Kellor's conclusion is no surprise

[oberliner]

14. In your citation, Clark Hoyt is saying the exact opoosite

He calls his reporting "solid and fair" in the first paragraph you cited.

[azurnoir]

15. He also states Bronner should be given another assignment elsewhere n/t