Soccer Dad

Uneven steven and other ny times follies

To me the dressing down John Pantsil was given by the Ghana Football Association was a shameful capitulation to the Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel. I figured that some open-minded liberal enterprise would similarly find this offensive and perhaps even comment on it. Something like the NY Times or Washington Post bastions of liberal thought and scourges of the intolerant. Well the NY Times didn't disappoint, a few days ago it carried and Op-Ed about the Ghana soccer team 11 men carrying a continent. The author concludes

Perhaps Freddy Adu will lead the United States to victory in South Africa four years from now. But he will never have the experience of playing on the Ghanaian national team on the continent of his birth. Nor, I suspect, will he have an experience like I did that day in Lusaka. He will not sit with members of his team and feel a sense of national and continental hopefulness moving through a crowd, a city and an entire populace. It was my own brief encounter with the particular beauty and exhilaration of African soccer that turned me into that very strange creature: an American soccer fan.

Oh wait a second the point of the essay was to praise the way African soccer players appreciate their own continent. And yet the GFA refused to stand up for its countryman and team and capitulated to the whims of Arabia.

For some reason Freddy Adu's not having the chance to share in African pride is more of a concern than his country's lack of pride demonstrated by that capitulation. And this comes from an author Sean Wilsey who is credited as the editor of "The Thinking Fan's Guide to the World Cup." Apparently the scope of his thinking is somewhat limited.

But why hasn't the Times in an editorial or op-ed objected to the Arab world's antisemitic protests of John Pantsil's innocent and gracious gesture?

Barry Rubin noticed something in a recent book review by Steven Erlanger the NY Times's man in Jerusalem. Rubin writes in The New York Times Israel Correspondent Shows His Hostility

The most important aspect of the review is Erlanger's complaint that Levitt, "does not discuss (and never even seems to entertain) the premise that Palestinians have a right to resist a 40-year Israeli occupation and partial annexation of their land." He says that Hamas is popular because of the existence of Jewish settlements, the separation barrier, restrictions on Palestinian movements and "The failure by Israelis to support those in Fatah committed to nonviolence, like President Mahmoud Abbas..."
Clearly, Erlanger views the conflict from a radical Palestinian standpoint, probably without consciously understanding why his statement demonstrates this fact. Hamas itself and its main supporters do not hold their views because of anger at Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip--now greatly diminished, though Erlanger appears unaware of this--but due to a desire of wiping Israel off the map. Apparently, though, Erlanger views anti-Israel extremism--the factor that is maintaining all the issues he mentions--as merely a reaction to Israeli policies. Yet, to cite only two examples, both Hamas and Fatah rejected both peace with a Palestinian state in 2000 and Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, because they saw such developments as undermining their drive to keep the conflict going until they can attain total victory.

Well then that explains quite a bit. If Hamas's rejection of Israel and promotion of terror is understandable, so too is the Arab hostility to Israel. If violent actions may be excused, so to may the hateful feelings that motivate those actions. The Times didn't complain about the malicious anti-Israel reaction to Pantsil's show of gratitude because they're justified!

(Here's another nice takedown of Erlanger by Rubin.)

Although it seemed that Erlanger made one reasonable criticism of Levitt, he spends some time discrediting Levitt rather than criticizing his arguments. (Since I haven't read the book I can't speak to that one criticism because I can't be sure that Erlanger didn't misconstrue Levitt's argument.)

Levitt researched and wrote this book while working at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Yale University Press is publishing it in cooperation with that organization. The institute has expert scholars, but is considered friendly to Israel. Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgments and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies - an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees. (When I asked, a spokesman for the center told me that it receives some Israeli government financing.)

I don't assume that Erlanger is on any payroll other than that of the NY Times. Yet it seems that he's often fronting for Hamas. Really associations don't matter if the work is honest. But Erlanger isn't honest; perhaps that's why he seeks to discredit Levitt instead of criticizing him.

Technorati tags: New York Times, Media Bias, Israel.