When NYT writers are permitted to editorialize

Neil MacFarquhar writes for the New York Times. He wrote this article. I noticed that New York Times articles are not permitted to editorialize except in article dealing with Israel and its interests. This sentence got my attention: "The council has a long history of focusing on Israel, while ignoring human rights abuses in other member states like China and Saudi Arabia." Now, let us put aside the content of the sentence, and let us not argue that the New York Times itself has been disregarding human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and Israel. But if there is an article by MacFarquhar about the US Congress on a resolution dealing with Israel, would he dare say: The Congress has a long history of praising Israel and ignoring its human rights violations." He would be fired. I saw him yesterday on C-Span talking about his new book (which has a fascination with Muslim views of dogs for some reason, and he seems amused that some fatwawas deal with minute and insignificant matters as if Orthodox Jews and many Christian sects don't have similar views and rulings), and he praised Oslo and said that it was good for the Palestinians because they were able to establish a casino. Kid you not.

PS I often write critically about Western reporters and their writings on the Middle East. In most cases, I hear back from those reporters (or their spouses) who politely explain their writings and take issues with what I write. Invariably, they ask me to not cite them or quote them or mention their private communications to me--they don't want to be seen "palling around" with Angry Arab--and I always of course respect their wishes. But I once wrote mentioning a factual mistake in an article by MacFarquhar, and he wrote me back...insults, literally.