Hugh Sansom

Dennis Ross' curious maps problem

Dennis Ross’s [“Don’t Play With Maps,” 9 January 2007, The New York Times] concern over President Carter’s use of maps in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is curious. The first of the maps on page 148 does indeed resemble an Israeli map — one presented at Eilat in May 2000. The Palestinians rejected it categorically then. Perhaps it was also presented in July 2000 at Camp David. That Israel should have presented it at all shows audacity — and little Israeli interest in peace. That it might have been presented again boggles the mind. 

New York Times joins slander campaign against Carter book

The New York Times has now joined the slander campaign against President Jimmy Carter following the release of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. (The paper gets the title wrong — there’s a colon.) Just how ignorant does the Times think its readers are? All of the “critics” cited — Kenneth Stein, Alan Dershowitz, David Makovsky and the Wiesenthal Center — are unqualified apologists for Israel and its occupation. The paper claims that Stein’s “criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book”. What chorus can the Times have in mind if the only critics it can find just happen to be pro-Israel anti-Arabists? 

New York Times coverage of Arafat's death

The New York Times’s coverage of the death of Arafat, particularly with its November 12th Op-Ed essays, exemplifies what is so wrong with American perspectives of the Palestinian struggle for independence. What voices are missing? Palestinian ones. This is the recurring problem of American and European approaches to the Middle East. Arab voices are systematically undervalued, discounted, or actively suppressed — not just by their own autocrats but also by Westerners claiming to be acting “in Arabs’ best interests”, as if the Arabs were children needing a Western parent. 

Letter to NPR about its coverage of the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin

“Like most American media organizations (and some international ones with a reputation for caving to Israeli pressure), NPR is largely avoiding the term “assassination”. In an interview during the 7 am segment, Peter Kenyon slavishly uses the expression ‘targeted killing’, foisted upon journalists by Israeli government propagandists. Why? (And bystanders were also killed — does NPR claim they were also ‘targetedly [sic] killed’?).” Hugh Sansom, a regular writer to NPR, forwarded this letter to EI