company:the times

  • A Star Player Accused, and a Flawed Rape Investigation

    The case has unfolded as colleges and universities across the country are facing rising criticism over how they deal with sexual assault, as well as questions about whether athletes sometimes receive preferential treatment. The Times’s examination — based on police and university records, as well as interviews with people close to the case, including lawyers and sexual assault experts — found that, in the Winston case, Florida State did little to determine what had happened.

  • Ousted Libyan PM says preparing return “very soon”

    Former Libyan prime minister #Ali_Zeidan on Tuesday warned that Islamist groups were sabotaging attempts to rebuild his country in order that it become a haven for extremists, in an interview with Britain’s newspaper The Times. Zeidan, who fled to Germany after losing a parliamentary confidence vote earlier this month, said that he was preparing to return “maybe very soon” to help restore order and repel the threat of extremism, two-and-a-half years after the killing of veteran ruler Muammar Gaddafi. read more

    #Libya #Top_News

  • “The Upshot” is the New York Times’ replacement for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight - Quartz

    “The Upshot.” That’s the name the #New_York_Times is giving to its new #data-driven venture, focused on politics, policy and economic analysis and designed to fill the void left by Nate Silver, the one-man traffic machine whose statistical approach to political reporting was a massive success.

    David Leonhardt, the Times’ former Washington bureau chief, who is in charge of The Upshot, told Quartz that the new venture will have a dedicated staff of 15, including three full-time graphic journalists, and is on track for a launch this spring. “The idea behind the name is, we are trying to help readers get to the essence of issues and understand them in a contextual and conversational way,” Leonhardt says. “Obviously, we will be using data a lot to do that, not because data is some secret code, but because it’s a particularly effective way, when used in moderate doses, of explaining reality to people.”

    #sites_de_presse #data_journalism

  • #US: Peace deal will recognize Israel as “Jewish state”

    The US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro asserted that the #Israeli-Palestinian_peace_deal currently being negotiated by US Secretary of State of John Kerry will include recognition of Israel as “the nation state of the Jewish people”, The Times of Israel reported on Friday. read more


  • Martin Schulz provoque un tollé en #Israël

    Le président du Parlement européen qui s’exprimait devant la Knesset a affirmé qu’un Palestinien ne recevait que 17 litres d’#eau par jour, contre 70 litres pour un Israélien. Les députés du “Foyer juif”, le parti du ministre de l’Economie, ont quitté l’hémicycle.

    Et ce bien que le président ait assuré à son auditoire que « l’UE se tiendra TOUJOURS du côté d’Israël »,7340,L-4487551,00.html

    (Selon le dernier lien l’utilisation du mot « #siège » pour parler de #Gaza est également en cause.)

  • Intel celebre 40 ans d’occupation d’une terre palestinienne :

    Let a billion chips bloom : Intel Israel celebrates 40 years | The Times of Israel

    Currently, Intel Israel is by far the country’s biggest tech employer, with over 9,800 workers at dozens of locations around the country, mostly at its R&D facilities in Haifa and Jerusalem, and at its chip fabrication plants in Kiryat Gat. Over the past 40 years, Intel Israel has exported $35 billion of goods on behalf of the country, “at least a few percent of the total number of exports over that period,” said Eden.

    Pour mémoire :

    Boycott Israel Campaign

    Al-Awda (Palestine Right to Return Coalition) have pointed out that the Intel plant at"Qiryat Gat" is built on land Israel confiscated from the Palestinian villages of Iraq al Manshiya. Iraq al Manshiya was a village of 2000 people living in 300 houses with two mosques and one school. The original Palestinian inhabitants were terrorised out of the village and then the whole village was razed to the ground to prepare the way for the new israeli settlement of Qiryat Gat. Today the remaining population from Iraq al Manshiya is still not allowed to return.[4][5][6]. Legal action against Intel for building on looted land is being considered

  • ’A New York Times reporter in Israel is invariably called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew’


    Clyde Haberman recounts the time a member of Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations – “A president of something or other,” as he puts it – got up and said: “Every morning when I read you, I get sick to my stomach."

    “Your health is everything,” the veteran New York Times journalist responded. “You should stop reading."

    It is a rare moment of ire in Haberman’s otherwise bemused reflections, over lunch in Manhattan, on his 37 years at the Times and on the four years he spent in the early 1990’s as the paper’s correspondent in Jerusalem. “As if I’m not a human being,” he snarls. “As if I don’t have feelings, so you can call me a no-good, self-hating anti-Semite (several expletives deleted) straight to my face.”

    Haberman, 68, has just parted ways with the Times, much to the regret of legions of fans of the smart New York City columns that he’s written for the past 18 years. Before that he reported for the Times on several major and historic national and international news stories, from Japan to Jerusalem, from the fall of Saddam to the fall of communism, and was also the Times’ bureau chief in Tokyo and Rome.

    But his stint in Israel during the tumultuous days of the Oslo Accords was undoubtedly special for the Orthodox-born-and-raised Haberman, in more ways than one.

    “Throughout my career,” he says, “I’ve had my fair share of “you’re an idiot” letters, but many more letters of praise as well. Israel is the only assignment I ever had in which in four years I never once got a letter that said “nice job.” If I would have gotten one, I would have had it embossed and put it on a wall, like a business does with the first dollar bill it makes.”

    This, he says, is the lot of most New York Times’ reporters in Israel, as well as other prominent American journalists who have agreed to an Israel posting. I ask whether sending a Jewish reporter is hence a good or bad idea. “All other things being equal,” he replies, “it is probably better to send a non-Jew rather than a Jew – just as I would probably prefer to send a non-Indian to India. It’s better to avoid that extra component.”

  • New York Times redesign points to future of online publishing - Jan. 8, 2014

    redesign du site du NYT : les articles écrits par des boîtes de communication et de #publicité sont désormais dans les mêmes flux que les articles des journalistes : le mur est tombé

    Most notably, the redesign introduces fast-growing “native advertising” to The Times is calling these ads Paid Posts. They resemble articles written by reporters — thus they are “native” — but they are actually written by sponsors. Dell is the first purchaser of Paid Posts, and on Wednesday, there were several such posts on the Web site.

    (à noter que c’est aussi ce que fait Quartz)

    #presse #journalisme

  • ABC, NYT Repeatedly Lied About CIA Operative Robert #Levinson

    #ABC et le #New-York-Times ont menti sciemment sur le statut professionnel de Levinson.

    The Times’ report today discloses this timeline; ABC News’ report does not—but a source at the network confirmed to Gawker that ABC reporters discovered the CIA connection in 2007 as well. At the request of the government and Levinson’s family, however, both outlets repeatedly stated, without any caveats, that Levinson was on a “business trip” when he was captured. A review of their coverage indicates that ABC News did so at least 7 times, and the Times at least 3 times.

    • Pressé par ses scientifiques, le pouvoir israélien transige face à Bruxelles - La

      La formulation doit encore être finalisée et entérinée en haut lieu de part et d’autre. Mais le principe est acquis. Selon Mmes Ashton et Livni, l’accord « respectera entièrement les exigences légales et financières de l’UE, tout en respectant les sensibilités d’Israël et en préservant ses positions de principe ». Bref, les deux camps sont d’accord de rester en désaccord sur leurs credo respectifs, sans que cela les empêche pour autant de mettre leur coopération en œuvre sur le terrain.

      L’accord d’association serait donc complété par un appendice de l’UE stipulant qu’elle maintient ses directives différenciant Israël des territoires occupés (Cisjordanie, Jérusalem-Est, plateau syrien du Golan) et privant les colonies de financement européen. Mais Israël y ajoutera son propre appendice, spécifiant qu’il reste opposé à ces directives tant du point de vue juridique que politique ; dans la pratique, il se résignera au fait que l’UE n’investira pas son argent dans les colonies.

      Dans le cadre du compromis, l’UE accepterait que des institutions qui siègent à l’intérieur d’Israël mais ont des branches dans les colonies participent à Horizon 2020. A condition, toutefois, que les fonds européens qui leur seront alloués ne soient pas transférés à ces branches. Un mécanisme de contrôle israélo-européen y veillera.

      La crainte de M. Netanyahou était qu’en signant l’accord sans aucune mise au point, le gouvernement israélien endosse la différenciation territoriale établie par l’UE et admette ainsi que la ligne d’avant 1967 est la frontière légale d’Israël. Il n’était donc pas question pour M. Netanyahou de se joindre à Horizon 2020 si l’UE ne modifiait pas ses directives. Or, l’UE les a maintenues.

      Pour le monde académique d’Israël, c’est l’avenir de la science israélienne qui était en jeu. Aussi, les appels se sont-ils multipliés dans les médias et auprès du gouvernement, pour que celui-ci avale la couleuvre.

  • After Changes, How Green Is The Times ? -

    Beyond quantity, the amount of deep, enterprising coverage of climate change in The Times appears to have dropped, too. In that six-month period this year, there were only three front-page stories in which climate change was the main focus, compared with nine the year before. All three were written by the excellent science reporter Justin Gillis, and two of three were pegged to a specific global warming milestone (the other had to do with President Obama’s policy on the environment). With fewer reporters and no coordinating editor, what was missing was the number and variety of fresh angles from the previous year — such as a September article on what is being revealed beneath that Arctic ice melting at a record pace.

  • A Five-Decade Defense of Food Aid - Timeline -

    Since the beginning of the modern food stamp program in 1964, The Times editorial board has weighed in on major changes and debates and has highlighted its effectiveness in times of need.

    #Etats-Unis #guerre_contre_les_pauvres #bons_alimentaires

  • Asia Times Online :: Why France is playing ’stupid’ on Iran
    Nov 12, ’13 / By Pepe Escobar

    Meet Bandar Fabius
    As far as French behavior is concerned, it is conditioned as much by the formidable Israeli lobby in Paris as hard cash from Gulf petro-monarchies.

    It certainly helped that, according to The Times of Israel, French parliament member Meyer Habib - also a holder of an Israeli passport, a former official Likud spokesperson in France, and a close pal of Bibi’s - called French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to tell him Israel would attack Iranian nuclear installations if the current deal on the table was clinched. [3]

    Call it the AIPAC effect. Habib is the vice-president of the Conseil Representatif des Institutions juives de France, or CRIF - the French equivalent to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The ghostwriter of President Hollande’s speeches also happens to be a member of CRIF.

    Fabius, grandiloquent and as slippery as runny Roquefort, invoked - what else - “security concerns of Israel” to derail Geneva. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javed Zarif were always extremely worried about being sabotaged by their own internal opposition, the hard line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. So their number one directive was that no details of the deal should be leaked during the negotiations.

    That’s exactly what Fabius did. Even before Kerry landed in Geneva, Fabius was telling a French radio station that Paris would not accept a jeu des dupes (“fools’ game”).

    The role of Fabius was pricelessly summed up by the proverbial unnamed Western diplomat telling Reuters, “The Americans, the EU and the Iranians have been working intensively for months on this proposal, and this is nothing more than an attempt by Fabius to insert himself into relevance late in the negotiations.” [4]

    Terabytes of spin have been asserting that Washington and Paris are playing good cop-bad cop on the Iranian dossier. Not exactly; it’s more like the Gallic rooster once again showing off.

    Hollande was gung-ho on bombing Damascus when Obama backed off at the 11th minute from the Pentagon’s “limited” attack; Hollande was left staring at a stale bottle of Moet. On both Syria and Lebanon, Paris is unabashedly playing a mix of neocolonial hugs and kisses while sharing the bed with Israel and the House of Saud.

    But why, once again, shoot itself in the foot? Paris has lost a lot of money - not to mention French jobs, via automaker Peugeot - because of the Iran sanctions dementia.

    Ah, but there is always the seduction of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, and the Gulf petro-monarchies. In a nutshell; Bandar Fabius was nothing but playing paperboy for the House of Saud. The prize: huge military contracts - aircraft, warships, missile systems - and possible construction of nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia, a deal similar to the one energy giant French Areva clinched last year with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    The ghost of Montaigne must be squirming; France does not do irony anymore. Iran has no right to have its own nuclear plants, but France builds them and operates them for its Wahhabi clients.

    The West doing Israel’s bidding makes sense; after all Israel may also be interpreted as a Western aircraft carrier in the heart of the Arab Middle East. As for France doing the Wahhabis’ bidding, just follow the money - from Veolia building and operating water desalination plants in Saudi Arabia to all those Rafale fighter jets to be unloaded.

    Qatar, that slavery paradise presented by FIFA with a World Cup, has already invested over US$15 billion - and counting - in France, from shares in Veolia and energy behemoth Total to construction firm Vinci, media giant Lagardere, and full control of Paris Saint Germain, home of the new King of Paris, football icon Zlatan “Ibracadabra” Ibrahimovic. Not to mention that Qatar has bought virtually every significant square inch between Madeleine and Opera in Paris.

    Hollande is a joke. This week he’s on the cover of the Courrier International weekly (headline: “The Art of the Fall”), with pan-European media judging him “incoherent”, “paralyzed” and “incompetent” (and these are the merciful epithets). On the weekend edition of the establishment Le Figaro daily, he was being destroyed because of France’s (latest) credit rating downgrade by Standard & Poor’s.

    King Sarko The First - aka former president Nicolas Sarkozy - must be beaming; Hollande is now the most unpopular president in French history. Paris remains great - but mostly for hordes of fleeting tourists from emerging markets, not for hordes of unemployed Parisians.

    So it’s Bandar Fabius to the rescue! Gulf petro-monarchy cash is the salvation. In thesis, this show of “independence” should translate into billions of euros in contracts and investments. It also helps that “incompetent” Hollande is on an official visit to Israel in the next few days.

    That pivot to Persia
    Forget about finding details of the real reasons for this “show of independence” in French mainstream media, apart from Le Monde Diplomatique’s Alain Gresh in his blog. [5]

    Explanations are absolutely pathetic. France is “alone against all”; it has shown “responsibility”; it has “reaffirmed its independence”. And of course all the blame lies on Kerry, who allegedly “came up with a text that nobody ever saw before”. Every shill has scrambled to cast Israeli-firster Fabius as savior. And yet the Elysee Palace has stressed that Fabius was just following Hollande’s orders - which, in thesis, meant renegotiating the “weak points” of the deal. Call it, essentially, “incompetent” Hollande showing Obama he’s got balls.

    ‘Israel will attack Iran if you sign the deal, French MP told Fabius’
    Paris legislator Meyer Habib, a friend of Netanyahu, called his FM in Geneva to warn of likely response should accord be signed, Israeli TV reports
    By Times of Israel staff November 10, 2013, 8:53 pm


  • South Africa FM : Struggle of Palestinians is ’our struggle’ | Maan News Agency

    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — South Africa’s foreign minister strongly criticized the Israeli occupation of Palestine and compared the situation in the occupied territories to apartheid in South Africa on Friday.

    “The struggle of the people of Palestine is our struggle,” South Africa’s The Times quoted her as saying.

    “The last time I saw a map of Palestine, I couldn’t go to sleep. It is just dots, smaller than those of the homelands, and that broke my heart,” she added, referring to apartheid-era Bantustans on which black residents of South Africa were forced to live as part of a system of racial separation engineered by the formerly ruling white minority.

    “Ministers of South Africa do not visit Israel currently,” she added. “We have agreed to slow down and curtail senior leadership contact with that regime until things begin to look better.”

    “Our Palestinian friends have never asked us to disengage with Israel. They had asked us in formal meetings to not engage with the regime,” Nkoana-Mashabane was quoted as saying.

    Taking Apartheid Apart par Uri Avnery


    Comment se fait-il qu’Uri Avnery en sache si peu sur Israël, ou sur l’apartheid ?

    dimanche 3 novembre 2013 - Jonathan Cook - The Palestine Chronicle

    (...) Il y a beaucoup à critiquer dans son papier faiblement étayé, où il se base sur une conversation récente avec un « expert » dont il ne divulgue pas le nom. Avnery, comme beaucoup avant lui, commet l’erreur de croire que, en mettant en avant les différences entre Israël et l’Afrique du Sud de l’apartheid, il apporte la preuve qu’Israël n’est pas un État d’apartheid. Mais ce n’est là que l’ultime argument d’un homme de paille. Personne ne prétend qu’Israël est identique à l’Afrique du Sud. Vous n’avez quand même pas besoin d’un expert pour vous en rendre compte.

    Quand on dit qu’Israël est un État d’apartheid, on se réfère au crime d’apartheid tel que défini par le droit international. Selon le Statut de Rome de 2002 de la Cour pénale internationale, l’apartheid comprend les actes inhumains « commis dans le cadre d’un régime institutionnalisé d’oppression systématique et de domination par un groupe racial sur un autre ou plusieurs autres groupes raciaux et commis avec l’intention de maintenir ce régime. »

    Aussi, de savoir de quelle couleur sont les victimes de l’apartheid, la part de population qu’elles représentent, si l’économie dépend de leur travail productif, que les premiers sionistes étaient socialistes, où que les Palestiniens ont un Nelson Mandela, et cætera, tout cela n’a absolument aucun intérêt pour déterminer si Israël est un État d’apartheid.

    La distinction essentielle pour Avnery se situe entre « Israël proprement dit » et les territoires occupés. Dans les territoires, Avnery admet qu’il existe certains parallèles avec l’Afrique du Sud de l’apartheid. Mais à l’intérieur d’Israël, il pense que la comparaison est outrancièrement injuste. Laissons de côté la question, qui n’est pas sans importance, qu’Israël refuse de reconnaître ses frontières telles qu’internationalement définies ; ou que l’une de ses principales stratégies est une politique de diviser pour régner, dans un style colonial, qui compte sur l’instauration de différences concernant les droits des Palestiniens sous sa domination, comme d’un moyen pour mieux les opprimer.

    Les motifs qui poussent Avnery à mettre l’accent sur une distinction territoriale doivent être clairs. Il croit que l’occupation est un crime, et qu’elle doit cesser. Mais il croit aussi qu’Israël, en tant qu’État juif, doit subsister après la fin de cette occupation. En réalité, pour lui, les deux questions sont inextricablement liées. Selon lui, pour qu’à long terme Israël puisse survivre en tant qu’État juif, il lui faut se séparer des territoires occupés.

    Cela concorde avec une idéologie sioniste libérale assez classique : la ségrégation est considérée comme offrant une protection contre les menaces démographiques posées par les non juifs pour la future réussite de l’État juif, et elle est arrivée à son apothéose avec la construction du mur en Cisjordanie et le désengagement de Gaza. Avnery se place simplement parmi les partisans les plus humains de cette logique.(...)

    #apartheid #israel

  • New York Times Planning [withholding] #NSA Papers

    Snowden reportedly avoided the Times due to its suppressing the ATT-NSA interception program.

    Ellsberg has said even now all of the Pentagon Papers was not released (...). What he does not say is what he was threatened with for full disclosure, what arrangements were negotiated with the USG by him and the Times for their protection against prosecution, and what has become of the full collection of the truncated, branded and lucratively marketed Pentagon Papers.

    Moreover, it has become commonplace for reporting on national security affairs to articulate withholding of material, a cant now recognizable indicator of arrangements to benefit outlets at the cost of full public access. From the Church Committee hearings and All the President’s Men through four decades of the rise of prestigous national security journalism, there has been increasing claims by reporters to play the withholding game, as if responsibility to keepers of government secrecy justifies irresponsibility to public democracy.

    #secret #presse #leaks #whistleblower #contrôle

  • The Times Is Working on Ways to Make Numbers-Based Stories Clearer for Readers

    Concernant les chiffres, le New York Times décide de ne plus en parler isolément sans les mettre en perspective,

    Toward that end, I just finished speaking with David Leonhardt, someone who is well positioned to do something about this. Not only is he the Washington bureau chief, but he also is a Pulitzer Prize-winning economics writer. (...)

    He agrees that there is a problem, and told me that The Times is already working on a solution. A small group of editors is “thinking through a whole set of issues about how we present numbers,” he told me. The results, he said, will probably be determined within a couple of months. They might take the form of new entries to the stylebook, announcements within newsroom departments or e-mails laying out new guidelines to the whole news staff.

    Ceci après une série de critiques,

    And while he noted that the recent pressure for change is “coming from the left,” specifically the economist-writer Dean Baker and – which now has more than 18,000 signatures on a petition — this is not a partisan issue.

    Réaction de Dean Baker,

    Numbers in Context : Big Congrats to the New York Times and Margaret Sullivan

    Anyhow, we will see exactly how the NYT ends up dealing with the issue, but they deserve a great deal of credit for recognizing the problem and trying to address it. Margaret Sullivan, the paper’s public editor, deserves special credit for taking this one on and pressing it with the paper’s edtors. Also Bob Naiman, at Just Foreign Policy, played an important role in initiating a petition at Move-On on this issue, which eventually got almost 19,000 signatures. That’s pretty impressive for the ultimate wonk petition.

  • When the New York Times went to bat for the one-state solution -

    Haaretz, By Sara Hirschhorn | Oct. 15, 2013

    Loath or lust after his ideas, University of Pennsylvania political scientist Ian Lustick created a tempest in a teapot — pardon the idiom, I’m new to Britain — with a recent polemical New York Times op-ed entitled “The Two State Illusion.” In it he heaped opprobrium and a last mound on dirt on the grave of the two-state paradigm and called for consideration of, if not resignation to, the reality of the one-state solution.

    Subsequently, academicians and practitioners across the political spectrum have debated the piece. (The responses include provocative essays by leftist cultural icon Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz, right-leaning Middle East Studies scholar Martin Kramer in Commentary, Arab-American advocate Hussein Ibish and academic Saliba Sarsar of the American Task Force on Palestine in The Daily Beast, left-leaning Jewish intellectual Bernard Avishai in the New Yorker as well as letters to the editor of the Times by Kenneth Jacobson of the Anti-Defamation League and Alan Elsner of JStreet, among others.)

    Seemingly the only “Washington consensus” they can concur with is how wrong Lustick is. Yet while the merits of his argument certainly require further examination, the larger questions about the agenda of the publishers and the audience for this discussion have been largely overlooked — why has Western journalism seemingly been so intent on a campaign to “mainstream” the one-state discourse, and who is really listening?

    Reading Lustick’s editorial myself, I was deeply impressed by his description of the current state of affairs in Israel/Palestine: grim realities, blissful ignorances, misguided optimisms, ingrained inequalities, dangerous fantasies and violent cataclysms. (Full disclosure: I am indebted to his scholarship and assistance in my own research on the Israeli settler movement.) Few have written with such piercing yet empathetic clarity of the dilemmas and delusions of both nations under siege and how (as he wrote in a rebuttal in The Daily Beast) “the illusion” of ultimately achieving two states for two peoples has helped to justify and normalize an interim state of “systematic coercion” and “permanent oppression.”

    Lustick’s is a searing cry to mobilize action that will wrest the “peace process industry” from its collective apathy and acquiescence with the two-state solution. (It should be noted that his vigorous attacks on this “industry” come more from the standpoint of an insider, bearing in mind his role in Middle East policy planning in the State Department and consulting to subsequent administrations, than the putative outsider position he takes.) He seems to be seeking “redemption” for the (retrospective) wisdom ignored by himself and others in the 1980s.

    Yet, while illustrating the vastly different conclusions that political scientists and historians reach, often working with the same raw material of conflict, I consider his conclusions somewhat too “parsimonious” (as the disciplinary lingo would have it); I see the correlation but not the causation in his case study. While undoubtedly the passage of time has failed the two-state solution, this is as much a problem of praxis by politicians as with the theory of nationalist ideology.

    I have yet to see a better solution — complicated by the thin descriptions of workable alternatives in a climate where the only salient scenarios are usually “one nation pushes the other nation into the sea.” Lustick himself is too facile in his willingness to be “untethered” from “Statist Zionism” and “narrow Israeli nationalism,” even if the means to do so will necessarily unleash violence.

    The looming (if not current) expiry for the viability of the “land for peace” rubric and the attractions of power-sharing arrangements notwithstanding, as a Zionist, I’m still not quite ready to be an early adopter in abandoning the state system. Yet, I unabashedly admit that I am what Lustick disparagingly calls the two-state “true believer.” If, as he later suggested, the disciples of the two-state rubric are a group of messianic, faith-based, deus-ex-machina-dependent, self-deluding zealots, in contrast with those converts to the timely, rational, human-agency-enlightened evangelists of the one-state solution, than I suppose I am one of the last doomed members of that fundamentalist cult.

    Yet, the fierce debate over Lustick’s high profile and pull-no-punches argument aside (which are unlikely to be resolved), the larger questions surrounding its agenda and audience remain. Lustick’s piece joins several others in The Times and other major Western media outlets from various perspectives that have sought to mainstream the one-state discourse in journalistic practice. Whether this has backfired or not in reinforcing two-state advocacy remains to be seen, yet there is no doubt that it has achieved a heightened profile and polemic surrounding this paradigm.

    It is not clear, however, whether this agenda is a veritable chicken-and-egg between publishers and politicians to promote one-state alternatives of late, as evidenced by Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon’s own contribution to The Times a few weeks ago. Further, it remains to be seen whether journalists can (and should?) control the message in the months and years to come, in a hyper-competitive media landscape where the op-ed has become the new global public square.

    Yet, the most important aspect of this agenda is the audience it may — or may not — be reaching. If recent items are representative of broader trends, the debate over Lustick’s piece has largely been confined to the English-language media for the politically aware (on both left and right, including the peace industry that he attacks), leaving out the apolitical indifferent and, most significantly, those actually in the region itself.

    From a brief review of the Hebrew press it seems Lustick’s op-ed barely raised an eyebrow, with a rare column in the center-right daily Maariv dismissing the professor as “no lover of Israel,” one “who doesn’t get the way things are here” (a familiar brush-off that many Americans interested in Israel are subject to), and concluding that “practical Zionism, both in its classic and pragmatic [forms] is still what most Israelis are clinging to,” even if the “broad and tired” problem of the two-state solution requires “hard questions.”

    Haaretz also translated Lustick’s piece into Hebrew, although it appears that some of the most inflammatory passages (the frolicking coalition of Orthodox Jews and Jihadis, Tel Aviv entrepreneurs and fellahin, Mizrahi Jews and their Arab brothers) was redacted for its apparently unprepared Israeli audience. There was scant coverage in the Arabic-language press as well, whether or not because the standard editorial line attacking Israel precluded more substantive discussion.

    For all of the fuss from afar on the one-state idea, from the point of view of the relevant parties they aren’t ready for it (yet). As Lisa Goldman wrote so poignantly of the misguided turn of the discussion about the very issues Lustick so acutely illuminated: “While the debate itself was interesting and sometimes provocative, it seemed to circumvent the real elephant in the room – which was the urgency of the situation on the ground.” Perhaps there is more in heaven and earth than dreamt of in Lustick’s philosophy.

    While I remain a true believer in the two-state solution and hope for its fulfillment, the time has come to at least explore other options for an open, constructive and visionary discussion of the one-state solution. An exploration of both policies, especially given current realities, is not and cannot be mutually exclusive. We must heed Lustick’s call, yet I hope for a conversation that more earnestly honors both Zionist and Palestinian national aspirations and is led by parties to the conflict — and its solution — themselves.

    Dr. Sara Yael Hirschhorn is the new University Research Lecturer and Sidney Brichto Fellow in Israel Studies at Oxford University. Her research, teaching and public engagement activities focus on the Israeli settler movement, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the relationship between the U.S./American Jewry and Israel. She is writing a forthcoming book about American Jews and the Israeli settler movement since 1967.

  • Le billet d’As‘ad Abukhalil de la semaine est presque a-politique : il témoigne de son passage à la lecture des versions électroniques des journaux, et conclut sur les livres électroniques :

    After months of this experience, I can report to you the result. I find that there are changes that occur from digital reading. I find myself reading The Times differently. Given the not-so-good edition of The Times’ application, I still go to the website and read it section by section. That has its advantages and disadvantages: It lets me finish the “International” section without delay and without having to scroll through sections, but it has left me less informed in the Arts and Entertainment section. My reading of The Times has become strategic and not accidental. I used to flip through the pages and would often read an article in a section that is not usually on my radar. But that happens less and less: as I go to the International and then National section, the ability to locate interesting and useful articles in other sections has diminished.

  • Does Nobel winner Higgs support Israel boycott? | The Times of Israel

    In 2004, the three physicists were awarded the prestigious Wolf Prize, an Israeli award granted by the Knesset and the Wolf Foundation. However, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported, Higgs declined to travel to Israel to accept the prize.

    According to Physicaplus, the online magazine of the Israel Physical Society, Higgs boycotted the ceremony because it was in Israel.

    “Prof. Higgs, received the Wolf Prize in 2004,” confirmed Liat Ben-David, director general of the Wolf Foundation. “At the beginning he was delighted, and said he would come, then due to all kinds of things that Israel did in the political arena, he said that he cannot agree with Israeli policy, and that he declines and would not come.”

    The Ynet news site reported that it was the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin that caused Higgs to decline.

    “Whether he joined the boycott after that, I don’t know,” she added, “but he hasn’t been to Israel since.”

  • Israel and Palestine : Thinking Outside the Two-State Box - Yousef Munayyer

    Ian Lustick had no problem putting the two-state solution in its final resting place this past week, in a lengthy Op-Ed in the Times. If this can open the door to new thinking on a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, the timing could not be better. Identifying the flaws and faults of a two-state solution has been done many times before. What we need now is new thinking on a policy level that grapples both with the failures of the two-state approach and the realities on the ground.

    What is the solution? Standing alone without context, that question is impossible to definitively answer. We must first understand the problem we are trying to solve. And when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the two-state solution, which has dominated mainstream discourse on policy toward this issue, is primarily a solution to a problem: Israel’s problem.

    Israel’s problem is one of identity and territory. It claims it is both Jewish and Democratic, and yet, under the control of the Israeli state today, between the river and the sea, there are an equal number of Jews and non-Jews. Those non-Jews, the Palestinians, are either treated as second-class citizens or have no citizenship rights at all.

    The reason for this problem is the implementation of Zionism. The ideology sought to establish a Jewish state, which envisioned and required a Jewish majority. It did so, problematically, in a geographic space where the majority of the native inhabitants were Palestinians Arabs. Every attempt to resolve this conflict between Zionist ideology and demographic reality for the past hundred years has included some form of gerrymandering—drawing oddly shaped, impractical, winding borders around often sparse Jewish populations to encompass them in a single geographic entity. The most recent version of the two-state solution is yet another iteration of these attempts, but with lines drawn a little differently to account for even more illegal Israeli colonists in the West Bank year after year.

    While the two-state solution might provide an answer to Israel’s identity crisis, it does little in terms of solving both the humanitarian and human-rights crisis facing Palestinians. In the best-case scenario, a Palestinian state would be demilitarized and have not a semblance of the sovereignty afforded to every other state in the international system. It would, more or less, be under glorified occupation. Palestinian refugees would not be permitted to return to their homes. The status of Jerusalem, having become so marred by Israeli settlement-building, would likely be indivisible and largely off limits to the Palestinian statelet.

    Cet éditorial extrêmement hétérodoxe arrive après l’op-ed étonnant (qu’il cite) du New York Times que j’avais signalé ici :

  • Guardian Story on Israel and N.S.A. Is Not ’Surprising’ Enough to Cover

    Many Times readers have been writing to me for several days about a story The Guardian broke last week, describing how the United States routinely shares with Israel intelligence information that the National Security Agency gathers on American citizens.


    After a weekend in which no mention was made in The Times of the article, I asked the managing editor, Dean Baquet, about it on Monday morning.

    He told me that The Times had chosen not to follow the story because its level of significance did not demand it.

  • Hollande ‘village idiot’ photo sparks censorship row after image is withdrawn | The Times

    President Hollande found himself at the centre of an embarrassing debate yesterday after Agence France-Presse (AFP), the French press agency, withdrew a photograph that left him looking like a village idiot.

    Critics accused the agency, which depends largely on the French state for its financial equilibrium, of self-censorship in an attempt to avoid ruffling Mr Hollande’s feathers.