The New York Times reviewed Walt & Mearsheimer’s extended-play version of the anti-Israel paper they released last year. I like the subtle Times-style digs throughout, and there’s a laugh-out-loud line at the end that in eight words utterly refutes the W-M theory. I can’t nominate William Grimes for a Master of Juvenile Scorn position because damn, there’s nothing juvenile about his scorn.

Coolly, not to say coldly, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt mount a prosecutorial brief against Israel’s foreign and domestic policies, and against the state of Israel itself. They describe a virtual rogue state, empowered by American wealth and might, that blocks peace at every turn, threatens its cowering neighbors with impunity, crushes the national aspirations of the Palestinians and, whenever the opportunity arises, bites the hand that feeds it.

Working tirelessly in the background is the Israel lobby, playing Iago to America’s Othello, leading president after president down ever more dangerous paths. Without intense pressure from the Israel lobby, the authors argue, America would not have undertaken the war in Iraq.

[...] The authors state, on several occasions, their belief that Israel has a moral and legal right to exist, but the effect of their book is to leave it dangling by a moral and strategic thread. In essence they call for the United States to cut Israel loose, to return more or less to American policy before the 1967 war, when the United States tried to occupy a middle ground between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Strangely, the authors do not itemize the fabulous benefits delivered by this approach in the 1950s and ’60s.

And here’s my favorite: The devastating conclusion.

“It is time,” Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt write, “for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country.” But it’s not. And America won’t. That’s realism.

Well played, sir.

Read it all.

A couple of weeks ago, all of the major media outlets picked up the story that Israel was sending some Sudanese refugees back to Egypt, where they had fled the cruel treatment and substandard Egyptian hospitality. The world media was very quick to pass along this story, and there was plenty of Israel-bashing to be had. the New York Times, the WaPo, AP, Reuters, Time, the Philadelphia Inquirer—hundreds of media outlets from around the world ran with the story.

This week, Israel has declared that it will naturalize several hundred of the refugees. The story is not yet on the New York Times or WaPo websites at the time of this post (which is being written last night and scheduled for this morning). Funny, how good news from Israel take so much longer to find. Now why do you suppose that is?

The Israeli press covered it, of course. Ynet and Ha’aretz have the facts.

So far, I’ve found the BBC, the Christian Science Monitor, the Voice of America, the AFP, and of course, the AP (numerous outlets). I haven’t found the article on Reuters yet. But you can still find the Reuters article on the Cabinet deciding whether or not to cut off power to Gaza over the rocketing of Sderot, even though the Cabinet decided yesterday not to do so. (And no, no bias, but the headline does not match the copy on the Reuters site, either—the article clearly states in the first paragraph that the Cabinet decided against it, but Reuters anti-Israel bias will out.)

The narrative is the same in nearly all of them: Israel is a nation of refugees, therefore, Israel should accept Sudanese refugees. Once again, the story that is not emphasized is Egypt’s mistreatment of refugees, and its flouting of international law. This is buried near the end of the AP piece:

Israel began clamping down on the soaring numbers over the summer, announcing that all new infiltrators and some already in Israel would be returned to Egypt. Egypt said Israel sent back an unidentified number of Darfurians last month.

Egypt has denied any obligation to take back the border infiltrators.

This, however, made the lede:

The arrival of the Darfurians has touched off hot debate over whether the Jewish state, founded after the Nazi genocide, has a duty to take in people fleeing persecution. Fighting between pro-government militias and rebels in the western Sudanese region of Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million since 2003.

It’s a false analogy. Israel was founded as a Jewish state, where the world’s Jewish refugees could finally find a home, safe from persecution. The Sudanese refugees fled from Sudan to Egypt. They are now fleeing Egypt because Egypt treats them like dirt, not because they are threatened with genocide. They’re leaving Egypt because the world does not require Egypt to treat refugees humanely. (And don’t hold your breath waiting for op-eds calling on Egypt to do its duty. Won’t happen.)

Most of the articles, like this one in the CSM manage to make a negative out of a positive:

Israel’s decision was met with praise from groups that have come to the aid of the refugees. But most expressed concern that the decision was limited to those from Darfur, and that Israel was not examining all its applicants for refugee status individually.

The VOA presents a more balanced view:

But Ephraim Zuroff, an Israeli expert on the Holocaust, says that, while some of the refugees deserve asylum, most do not.

“We are talking about people who already escaped from genocide and have been living in Egypt, some for months and some for years,” said Zuroff. “These people are economic refugees. But we can’t simply open up the gates of Israel and allow unlimited flow of refugees into the country, just of people who want to better their lives.”

Yes. But that’s not the angle most newsroom editors want to use when discussing Israel and Sudanese refugees. It doesn’t fit the narrative.