-
Never miss what matters.
Subscribe to Malarkynews RSS Feed Categories
Twitter
- Costa Rica: A Woman in Charge? http://is.gd/7PUIW 2010-02-06
- Virginia GOP Mocks Epic Snow Storm As ‘12 Inches Of Global Warming’ http://is.gd/7PODH 2010-02-06
- No room for new vehicles http://is.gd/7POzm 2010-02-06
- House Likely to End Health Insurers' Antitrust Exemption http://is.gd/7PCPo 2010-02-06
- Saturday hate mail-apalooza http://is.gd/7PwZj 2010-02-06
- More updates...

Isabel Kershner misleads on Israel’s ‘far-reaching proposal’
New York Times reporter Isabel Kershner writes a news analysis of why "peace talks" between Israel and the Palestinians are at a virtual standstill, despite the "upbeat atmosphere" in Washington following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama's recent meeting.
When she attempts to contextualize the "peace talks," Kershner throws in this misleading history:
The notion that Mahmoud Abbas rejected a generous offer in 2008 is a commonly heard media trope: Last year, Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post called the proposal a "a generous outline for Palestinian statehood," and the Post's editorial board described it as a "far-reaching peace offer."
But the proposal was only "generous" or "far-reaching" from the official Israeli perspective. The Olmert plan would have had Israel annex illegal settlement blocs as well as reject the Palestinian "right of return," a position firmly grounded in international law. The “far-reaching” proposal actually would have required Palestinians to give away rights guaranteed to them, and would create a series of Palestinian islands surrounded by Israeli settlements.
Kershner also omits important context about Olmert's term as Prime Minister that would make it understandable as to why Palestinians did not act immediately on the proposal. This July 2009 Mondoweiss post quotes Ori Nir from Americans for Peace Now on settlement activity during Olmert's term:
Kershner's reading of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is really nothing new. Looking back at the failed Camp David talks in 2000, the U.S. press repeatedly referred to the Israeli offer in similarly glowing terms, even though that proposal, too, would have made impossible a contiguous Palestinian state and had no basis in international law.
This post originally appeared at the national media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's blog.
Article from Mondoweiss read more here