Why The Ethan Bronner Case Matters
The story this far is that the New York Times is seriously on the defensive because the son of its Israel correspondent, Ethan Bronner, joined the Israeli army.
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
But here's the real story. Suddenly the New York Times feels the need to deal with its critics who argue that an intense attachment to Israel obscures objective judgement on the Middle East.
This is new. Until very recently the assumption was that the Israeli position was, by definition, the neutral, disinterested position.
Read any Tom Friedman column on the Middle East. The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it's good for Israel, it's good for America. It's right.
Friedman is classic. On any issue -- Thai economics, Chinese reform, or Macedonian separatism -- he will invariably find a friend, who happens to be an Israeli, to comment on it.
Until now, that was okay.














