Let's take a look at what these two major newspapers did not seem fit to print:
Dec. 24--Palestinian Authority TV ClaimsJesus was a Palestinian, Denies his Jewish Ancestry
Dec. 25--Abbas aims for "Judenrein" Palestinian state -- No room for a single Israeli.
Dec. 25--Hamas Ultimatum: Israel has Two Options -- Death or Leaving Palestinian Lands.
Dec. 28--Abbas Cracks Down on Main Political Rival, Mohammed Dahlan
Dec. 28--Hamas Reported Torturing, Killing Israel-bound Africans in Sinai
Dec. 29--Fatah Bans Abbas Rival from Party Meetings
Dec. 30--Journalist Who Aired Dissension in Abbas' Party Gets Five-Day Detention
Dec. 30--Poll: Solid Majorities of Palestinians Oppose Two-State Solution Along Clinton Parameters
So why did the Times and the Post engage in such conspicuous self-censorship? Because their editors and reporters are determined to paint Israel as the main obstacle to the peace process, while hiding the darker, anti-peace aspects of the Palestinian side -- both Hamas in Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party in the West Bank.
Above all, Abbas's rule has to be prettied up because the papers' news sections are heavily invested in painting him as a bona fide peace partner. So corruption, repression, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement, glorification of terrorist killers, denial of historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem and Hebron, and other problematic patterns of Abbas's rule must be carefully hidden from Post and Times readers.
What makes such silence -- such self-censorship -- even more egregious and blatantly obvious is that these are two newspapers that do not hesitate to expose repression under Putin in Russia, corruption under Karzai in Afghanistan, and Mubarak's autocracy in Egypt. Yet, Abbas's rule in the West Bank fits exactly the same patterns -- but fails to make the news pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Bottom line: the Palestinian side is treated with kid gloves; Israel with the gloves off.
