Despite the fact that Israel had implemented a ten month freeze on settlement construction, Time chose to use the dispute
between the U.S. and Israel over building in a neighborhood in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of settlements in general. In
fact, the article never mention the settlement freeze that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had called "unprecedented."
Instead, here is Time's take:

         Having been rebuffed in its efforts to get the Israeli government to demonstrate good faith in peace negotiations
         with the Palestinians by freezing settlement activity on the territories conquered in the war of 1967 - a failure that
         has underscored Arab skepticism over talking peace with Netanyahu - the White House appears determined to use the
         Israeli gaffe as leverage to extract a major concession to spur the peace process.

The West Bank territories are in dispute and subject to negotiation. To simply describe them as "conquered in the war of
1967" leaves out important context. One could make a case that Israel had already demonstrated good faith by agreeing
to the creation of a Palestinian State, enacting the settlement freeze, and taking numerous steps to improve the
Palestinian economy. But these details are oddly missing from Time's coverage.

Under a picture of an armed Israeli soldier dragging off a Palestinian, Time features this article that claims domestic
political concerns are interfering with the peace process and actually risking U.S. national interest.

         ...with the annual conference of the influential America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) due to begin in
         Washington on Sunday, Netanyahu - who is expected to speak at the event, as is Clinton - appears to be hanging
         tough. AIPAC fired a warning shot earlier this week, blaming the Administration for the breakdown and urging it
         to "move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel."

         With a number of prominent Republicans excoriating the Administration over the spat and some Democrats
         increasingly uncomfortable in an election year when many will struggle to hold on to their congressional seats,
         Netanyahu may be betting that the pressure is greater on Obama to tamp down the tension.

         But the Obama Administration will be considering more than simply the narrow concerns of U.S. electoral politics...
         Indeed, there's a growing belief in Washington that U.S. national interests across the region are imperiled by a failure
         to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner minimally acceptable to the Arab world - a two-state solution
         based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

Again, Time states that Palestinian demands for a state along the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital is the minimum amount acceptable for peace and Israeli refusal to agree is what hurts the peace process and American interests.

In this article (under the same picture we have seen before of an Israeli soldier dragging off a Palestinian), we are told that a majority of Palestinians support the goal of "two states for two peoples." Yet there is no evidence that this is the case at all. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected recognition of Israel as a Jewish State and refuses to endorse
the “two states for two peoples” formula. So why would anyone think a majority of Palestinians think this way? A journalist
should not make such a claim with no evidence to back it up. Although you will not find it in the pages of Time, the failure
of the Palestinians to agree to two states for two peoples is a major obstacle to peace.  

Almost every day, grass roots organizations come to Washington DC so that
local activists can meet with their elected representatives and voice their
opinions on matters they care about. Yet only when it comes to an organization dedicated to the U.S.-Israel relationship does Time chose to talk about a
"plan to storm Congress." The members if AIPAC that come to the annual
lobbying day from around the country make appointments with their representatives by calling and e-mailing.

Yet Time makes it sound like AIPAC is engaging in some type of military operation. This kind of language feeds into
   the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews having undue influence over the U.S. government. Perhaps the headline
   "Pro-Israel Advocates Meet with Representatives" would not have been exciting enough.

Under a picture of a Jewish settler hoisting a flag with a "Don't
Tread on Me" snake is Time's article on how Israeli housing
for Jews in Jerusalem has ruined the chance for a peace deal between
Israel and the Palestinians. Once again, the failure in peace negotiations
is laid at Israel's feet with the confirmation from a prominent left-wing Israeli:

        Though those plans to extend Israel's grip on the city are slated to be finished by 2020, the policies, infrastructure
        and bureaucratic momentum are already in place to such an extent that if the Obama Administration fails to restrain
        the Israeli government now, there may never be another chance to share the city with a Palestinian state, according
        to prominent Jerusalem lawyer and peace activist Daniel Seidemann. "The window is closing fast," he says.
        "The Obama Administration hasn't blinked yet. If they do, they can pick another regional conflict to solve, because
        they are not going to solve this one."

Yet no context for Jerusalem is given beyond the fact that it was "captured in 1967."Time also tells its readers of the delicate
status quo in which "each religious group has control of and the exclusive right to pray at their respective holy sites."

Yet this is wrong. The holiest site in Judaism is the Temple Mount. Jews are not allowed to pray there for fear of offending
Muslim sensibilities. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority does not accept Jewish claims to any sites within the Old City of
Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. Does Time believe that Jews would have the same access to Holy Sites that Muslims
have now if the Palestinian Authority controlled the Old City?
Quotes of the Day
April 2, 2010
  Quotes of the Day

" I hope we can avoid it
(another military attack
against Gaza), but it is
one of the options we
have, and if we don't
have a choice, we will
use it in the near future

Again Time chooses an Israeli quotation that appears – without much context – to be an Israeli military threat.
   Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom is quoted as saying: A picture of an Israeli flag accompanies the quotation. 

April 9, 2010
  Quotes of the Day

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying

" I'm not concerned that
anyone will think that
Israel is a terrorist
regime. "

Oddly enough, the quotation taken out of context makes one wonder if he is concerned that people will refer to Israel as
   a terrorist state.

Time tells its readers that Netanyahu will in fact freeze Jewish construction in Jerusalem, but will do so quietly.
Why will he remain publicly defiant?

          The reason may be that Netanyahu has domestic concerns, including a coalition government that is largely to his right
          and a domestic population that is skittish about peace deals with Palestinians after several failed attempts in the past.

No credibility is given to legitimate Jewish rights to build in Jerusalem. Everything is attributed to domestic political concerns because the Israeli public is “skittish about peace deals." No, the Israeli public is "skittish" about the peace process that is
composed of Palestinian demands and Israeli concessions.

Under a picture of a Palestinian woman holding a sign saying
"No to Occupation" in front of Israeli soldiers, is an article explaining that
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is freezing settlement construction
in Jerusalem without publicly admitting it. The headline confuses since there already is a public freeze on “settlement” construction. Construction of Jewish housing in Jerusalem is different than construction of Jewish settlements.
Time makes a serious omission when it states:

          There have been weekly demonstrations at the site (Sheikh Jarrah) since the landowners, Nahalat Shimon
          International, began evicting the Palestinians who had been living in the area when it was captured by Israeli
          forces in the war of 1967.

But Time misses crucial details of the story. Jews lived in the area in question until it was conquered by the Jordanian Legion.
In 1956, the Jordanian government settled Arabs in houses that had previously belonged to Jewish residents. So Palestinians
had been living in the area illegally when it was returned to Israeli control. This is important context that Time omitted.