Of course, I have written before about the lousy reporting and role of Taghreed El-Khodary in service of the Zionist agenda of the New York Times especially during the Israeli assualt on Gaza when she allowed herself to be used to provide token native legitimization for the NYT's endorsement of Zionist war crimes. Look at this comment by El-Khodary. Imagine if she was making the same point about Fath: imagine if she was giving an opinion on how to get rid of the Fath movement. She would be fired the next day. But this tells you something about the foreign policy coverage in US media: certain biases are condemned and other biases are required. "You’ve spoken a lot in the past about working from the ground up, and thinking about the people separately from Hamas. Do you think that that is still possible, and what can be done?
Yes, I think one option is to strengthen the private sector. You have Hamas, and it’s a fact on the ground. The international community says that if we end the siege, Hamas will benefit. But with the siege they also benefit, because they are in complete control of all aspects of society, and the more time, the more support they will attract—especially from among the poor. So why not strengthen the private sector?" And can the thought process of Ms. Khodary be anymore unsophisticated? Private sector? As a solution to her problems with Hamas (or Khamas, as Shimon Peres calls it). (thanks Nir)