To the editor:
Reading the article "Netanyahu Says U.S. Should Move its Embassy" makes me wonder about the commitment of The New York Times to its slogan "all the news that's fit to print."
Every embassy in the world is located in the host country's capital, with the sole exception of the embassies to the world's only Jewish state. Is it really news that the prime minister of that state says that discriminatory situation, which also conflicts with official American policy as declared in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, should end?
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also said something that wasn't newsworthy, that it was "completely clear that the Temple that the Romans destroyed in Jerusalem was a Jewish temple."
However, the reaction of the Palestinian Authority was newsworthy. The PA's Jerusalem Affairs minister, Adnan al-Husseini, demanded an apology from the Secretary-General for not denying that undeniable truth, claiming he “violated all legal, diplomatic and humanitarian customs" and "overstepped his role as secretary general."
The PA reaction goes to the heart of the reason an Arab-Israeli peace remains impossible. That not only makes it "news that's fit to print," but makes it news that needs to be printed.
Or does The New York Times consider Palestinian feigned outrage whenever someone utters an obvious truth to be so common as to fit into the "dog bites man" category?
Sincerely,
Alan Stein