That doesn’t seem to be the message. Instead, it’s that the NYT (along with the rest of mainstream/establishment media) self-censures criticism of Israel, by using more neutral terms.
Suppose I say “if you’re ok with X then you should be ok with Y, because X and Y are equivalent” and “if you’re not ok with X then you should not be ok with Y because X and Y are equivalent”. Do I mean I’m ok with X or not?
Now let’s play the game : does the poster mean both should be legitimate, or both condemned ?
That doesn’t seem to be the message. Instead, it’s that the NYT (along with the rest of mainstream/establishment media) self-censures criticism of Israel, by using more neutral terms.
Hopefully the latter.
Suppose I say “if you’re ok with X then you should be ok with Y, because X and Y are equivalent” and “if you’re not ok with X then you should not be ok with Y because X and Y are equivalent”. Do I mean I’m ok with X or not?