;.cHaberman, Arab exclusion from 'Jewish quarters'
;.l1,6,60,66,1,0,10,75,192,2,15,20,25,127,10,0,
;.l2,15,75,192,2,20,25,127,15,0,
;.l3,20,75,192,2,25,127,20,0,
;.l4,25,75,192,2,127,25,0,
;.l5,30,75,192,2,127,30,0,
;.l6,12,90,192,2,18,24,127,12,1,
;.l7,17,124,192,2,34,127,17,2,
TO:    David bar-Ilan, Eye on Media, Jlem Post
FROM:  Steve Amdur, Kibbutz Haon, Jordan Valley, 15170 Israel.
       Telephone:  972-6-757572; FAX:  972-6-757554
DATE:  12/02/93
RE:    Media Bias 
REF:   New York Times Weekly Review 11/28/93, p4 (Haberman)
CC:    D. Bedein, Israel Resource, Bet Agron 
------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            
"Under his stewardship, Mr. Olmert announced, both Jews and Arabswill be allowed to live in any part of the city (a statement that,while seemingly high-minded, was disingenuous in that the Israelicourts have greatly limited Arab rights in Jewish quarters)." [myadded emphasis]

COMMENT:  As far as I know, the judicial system has only upheldexclusion of Arabs from the "Jewish Quarter" of the Old City(where 'quarter' is used in the sense of 'section', not in thesense of '1/4'), on the ground that the Muslim quarter of the OldCity is far larger (especially augemented by the largely MuslimChristian Quarter) than the Jewish Quarter.

Apart from that, I would not call this a biased article.

Haberman goes on to note that "the Jordanians after 1949 barredIsraelis from Jewish holy sites like the Western Wall and leveledsynagogues in the Jewish Quarter."

The thrust of the article is that the question of Israelisovereignty over Jerusalem ought to be opened up for debate, nottaken for granted.  

Of course, the crucial move in an argument is the set-up of theterms of debate.