This is still very much just a вЂњboth sidesвЂќ piece designed to appease fence sitters and the woefully and willfully uninformed, and further plaster over the extremely rough and gritty truth ahead of BidenвЂ™s now delayed trip to Israel.Д¬NN, for all of its faults, did it right. I wish I could share your optimism, James. By contrast, the Washington Post editorial board has, so far, not said a word. At least the New York Times finally spoke out, even in this choppy and self-contradictory way.

would provoke opposition within the and in Israel society in general.вЂќ A genuine investigation would almost certainly bring down IsraelвЂ™s fragile coalition government, a fact the Times nowhere mentions.Д«ut let us be thankful with this small step forward. one of the reasons was the belief that such an investigation. The Times calls for an investigation, but cautions, mildly, that вЂњIsraelвЂ™s political right does not look kindly on investigating troops.вЂќ In fact, all the editorial board had to do was look at the respected Israeli daily Haaretz, which reported more decisively weeks ago that вЂњ. Instead the Times diverts our attention by pointlessly explaining that journalists all over the world are killed вЂњon dangerous assignments,вЂќ including recently in Ukraine. The editorial said that вЂњscores of other journalists lose their lives without public noticeвЂќ - and you think you are about to read about some of the 50 Palestinian journalists killed since 2000, a fact noted by this siteвЂ™s Yumna Patel the same day that Abu Akleh was killed. The pro-Israel ed board faction hit back. The Times editorial faction that has some integrity is citing the CNN investigation because their own reporters on the spot have been sitting around doing nothing. After reviewing video footage, witnessesвЂ™ accounts and audio analysis of the gunshots, CNN reported that the evidence suggested that вЂAbu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces.вЂ™ So they somehow slyly slipped in this surprising paragraph:Д¬NN and other news organizations have begun their own investigations. The editorial boardвЂ™s more honest members recognize this. In fact, reporting over the past month (although not in the Times) makes clear that the only genuine questions are: Did the Israeli soldier who killed Shireen Abu Akleh target her on purpose? If so, who ordered it? And who in the Israeli chain of command is continuing the coverup? Israel knew that the Times and other mainstream outlets would both-sides the story, leaving readers confused. The existence of this вЂњplanвЂќ is disputed, and whatвЂ™s wrong with a вЂњnationalist rallyвЂќ anyway?Д«ut the pro-Israel factionвЂ™s greatest triumph was that it successfully imposed its headline: вЂњWho Killed Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh?вЂќ Within minutes of the killing, Israel had followed its time-honored manipulative practice of muddying the story, in this case by suggesting without evidence that вЂњPalestinian gunmenвЂќ had killed her. The paper tried to partly exonerate Israeli police behavior by claiming that the occupiers wanted to вЂњprevent the funeral from turning into a nationalist rally,вЂќ and that the pallbearers had violated a вЂњpreviously approved planвЂќ by trying to carry the coffin on foot. Abu AklehвЂ™s funeral procession in East Jerusalem.вЂќ The Times usually disguises such Israeli assaults with expressions like вЂњclashes erupted between.вЂќД«ut the editorial boardвЂ™s more strongly pro-Israeli faction also got their say here. This is a step forward for a newspaper that remains silent about, for instance, Amnesty InternationalвЂ™s finding in February that IsraelвЂ™s oppression of Palestinians amounts to вЂњapartheid.вЂќ WhatвЂ™s more, the editorial praises Abu Akleh, calling her вЂњbraveвЂќ and вЂњindependent,вЂќ and adding, accurately, that вЂњshe served as a model of courageous, honest reporting for many aspiring journalists, including many women.вЂќДЄlso, the editorial noted disapprovingly that вЂњIsraeli police officers attacked some of the hundreds of mourners at Ms. That, and the long delay, suggest that the paperвЂ™s editorial board disagreed over what to say, and probably over whether to say anything.ДЇirst the good news the Times finally spoke up about the killing of a colleague - in its lead editorial on a Sunday, the most widely circulated edition of the week. The editorial itself is curious and disjointed. Nearly a month has passed since she was shot in the head while reporting from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. TodayвЂ™s New York Times editorial on the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh should have appeared weeks ago.

The nytimes