Israel

Why oh why oh why indeed?

Is this Glenn Reynolds post a plea for more coverage of Tibet or less of Palestine? GOOD QUESTION:  Why Do Palestinians Get Much More Attention than Tibetans? But, just perhaps, the Israel-Palestine question receives lots of coverage because it’s a question, at root, of competing rights, not because the media has an incurably anti-Israeli bias or is, in this instance at any rate, acting in an especially hypocritical fashion. The other answer, of course, is that readers, are much more interested in the Middle East than they are in China and Tibet and, consequently, this is just market forces at work. Shocking!

Hold the foreign page…

Matt Yglesias writes:              People often note that there appears to be a more vigorous debate over Israel’s approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the mainstream Israeli press than there is in the mainstream American press. This is, however, the kind of judgment that it’s hard for a casual American observer to make with much confidence. Writing in International Security, however, Jerome Slater takes a more systematic comparison of coverage of the conflict in The New York Times and in Haaretz and concludes that, indeed, Israelis debate this matter more freely. To which Megan responds: 1)  No one in Israel is worried about being called anti-semitic. 2)

Supper with Rupert

I’ve defended Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Wall Street Journal, but that’s not an endorsement of his political sensitivity. From the Campbell diaries: Thursday January 17th, 2002:Murdoch was coming in for dinner and… brought James and Lachlan [his sons]…Murdoch was at one point putting the traditional very right-wing view on Israel and the Middle East peace process and James said that he was ‘talking fucking nonsense’. Murdoch said he didn’t see what the Palestinians’ problem was and James said it was that they were kicked out of their fucking homes and had nowhere to fucking live. Murdoch was very pro-Israel, very pro-Reagan. He finally said to James that he didn’t