You say Israel, I say Hamas http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/you-say-israel-i-say-hamas/ Michael Slackman, writing from Cairo in The New York Times, reports that the Arab world rejects and resents the U.S. definition and application of the T-word. en-us aeden@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-02-26T;20:55:00-05:00 Comment by Mark S. Devenow attymsd@gmail.com The problem of anti-Israel bias goes beyond Slackman. The real problem rests with the fact that The New York Times, in what passes for its “coverage” of the conflict as well as in its commentary and predictable editorial rants, has abandoned all pretense of being anything other than a house organ for Arab terrorist partisans. Slackman being merely the latest dolt the paper has picked up to run its spin; the other side of this being that the “Gray Lady” is only playing to form with its selection of correspondents. ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE. This abandonment of all claim to objectivity where it comes to the Times coverage of Israel might be taken for a serious problem. But there exist two saving graces still associated with the Times as it has come to be known and used: 1) the fact that its entire editorial content is continuously available for free (meaning that it’s priced for exactly what it is worth); and 2) the fact that the Times is all but certainly headed for bankruptcy court - and, thereafter oblivion - in any case. All of which is not to say that the Times retains NO VALUE as a publication - surely William Kristol and Andrew Ross Sorkin are more than worth reading -, but merely to affirm the fact that the valuable “franchise” fixtures associated with the Times are, inevitably, perforce, and, most importantly, SOON going to be liberated from a publication which has become, on balance, a complete and total waste of its readers’ time. The problem of anti-Israel bias goes beyond Slackman. The real problem rests with the fact that The New York Times, in what passes for its “coverage” of the conflict as well as in its commentary and predictable editorial rants, has abandoned all pretense of being anything other than a house organ for Arab terrorist partisans. Slackman being merely the latest dolt the paper has picked up to run its spin; the other side of this being that the “Gray Lady” is only playing to form with its selection of correspondents. ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE.

This abandonment of all claim to objectivity where it comes to the Times coverage of Israel might be taken for a serious problem. But there exist two saving graces still associated with the Times as it has come to be known and used: 1) the fact that its entire editorial content is continuously available for free (meaning that it’s priced for exactly what it is worth); and 2) the fact that the Times is all but certainly headed for bankruptcy court - and, thereafter oblivion - in any case.

All of which is not to say that the Times retains NO VALUE as a publication - surely William Kristol and Andrew Ross Sorkin are more than worth reading -, but merely to affirm the fact that the valuable “franchise” fixtures associated with the Times are, inevitably, perforce, and, most importantly, SOON going to be liberated from a publication which has become, on balance, a complete and total waste of its readers’ time.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Richard rmplans1@gmail.com I hate to use the word but it so appropriately describes Mr.Slackman. Sir, you are truly a SHMUCK! I hate to use the word but it so appropriately describes Mr.Slackman.
Sir, you are truly a SHMUCK!

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Gary Katz garybkatz@comcast.net Of course, the Arab world probably doesn’t consider the Janjaweed militia in Darfur terrorists, even as they murder, rape and mutilate thousands.  Arabs define “terrorist” as someone who kills Arabs. So who really cares what they think? Of course, the Arab world probably doesn’t consider the Janjaweed militia in Darfur terrorists, even as they murder, rape and mutilate thousands.  Arabs define “terrorist” as someone who kills Arabs.
So who really cares what they think?

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00