The headline above, of an editorial a few days ago is balanced and neutral, but as soon as you know that it's in the New York Times you know that it's going to be a smear job. Because the subject is Jared speaking on behalf of Donald-in-law.
And so it turns out.
Kushner's project is "slick" (if it'd been an Obama proposal it might've been "visionary"). It's a "fantastical New York real estate promotion" (and?…so…?) which "touted" (Obama version: "highlighted") what is "supposed" to be an economic foundation. "Supposed"? Why not "proposed" to be, as it indeed is?
Kushner's project is "slick" (if it'd been an Obama proposal it might've been "visionary"). It's a "fantastical New York real estate promotion" (and?…so…?) which "touted" (Obama version: "highlighted") what is "supposed" to be an economic foundation. "Supposed"? Why not "proposed" to be, as it indeed is?
The project's tone is "patronising " the editorial board worthies assure us. (Obama version: "provisional")
These worthies wonder why Trump is proposing $50 billion in projects when it has cut aid funding to Gaza. They wonder disingenuously as they must surely know that that cut was to funding for the crooked and corrupt UNWRA which supports Hamas in its war crimes, using human shields, often children, who fire rockets at Israelis citizens, dig terrorist tunnels… in short who use the funds for terrorism. This had to stop.
Economic development could indeed lead to political solutions and even a two state solution. If only the Palestinians would take part and if only they would acknowledge the existence of Israel. But they haven't done so in seventy years. And have alr day rejected this latest proposal. Way to go Palestinian leadership.
They love death more than life, as they say themselves. And they hate Israel more than they love a country of their own for their children to prosper in.
And shame on the New York Times for continuing to hammer the wrong side.
And shame on the New York Times for continuing to hammer the wrong side.
