I didn't much agree with Lustick's piece in the Times but if Sara Hirschhorn typifies the negotiating mindset I can see he had a point about nothing ever getting done. The convolutions in her piece leave me cross-eyed. "It is not clear, however, whether this agenda is a veritable chicken-and-egg between publishers and politicians to promote one-state alternatives of late, as evidenced by Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon’s own contribution to The Times a few weeks ago. Further, it remains to be seen whether journalists can (and should?) control the message in the months and years to come, in a hyper-competitive media landscape where the op-ed has become the new global public square." WTF is her point? The entire piece is a series of fun house mirrors featuring Sara at the helm. The only point I get out of it is she thinks Lustick started a worthwhile discussion. I can't tell whether all the tortured verbiage is a result of feeling guilty for disagreeing with a former mentor or guilty for just believing at all, but the "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" nature left this write numb. And given a right wing Israeli like Moshe Aren has published numerous one-state pieces in Haaretz, I can't see that Lustick started anything other than a trend of America's primary newspaper publishing his op-ed. By the headline I thought Ms. Hirschhorn would explore that issue. She doesn't. It's as if in all her anxiety to seem righteous she forgot to focus on what she really wants to say. Or maybe it's the editor's fault. Either way I hope in future pieces she gives more discipline to laying out what precisely she's interested in sharing. Looking at her background and scholarship, I would bet that she has lots to offer but it didn't get offered here.
- 2:24 AM
from the article: When the New York Times went to bat for the one-state solution