If the subject of Emily Jacir’s exhibition was any different, this NYT review would be all glowing with praise for an award-winner at the Guggenheim. However, here, the writer manages to disingenuously insert that Wael Zuaiter might actually have been responsible for the Munich attacks: “In the wall text that introduces the exhibition, however, there is a curious qualification. It says that Mr. Zuaiter was never “conclusively” linked to the Olympics murders. This introduces the shadow of a doubt. Is there a chance that he was somehow involved? Ms. Jacir’s exhibition can thus be viewed as a brief for the defense, but this is problematic. How can we know if the artist is manipulating her material, leaving out anything that might be suspicious or incriminating?” Would any other review for an installation art exhibit be full of such tripe? Is it her job to defend Zuaiter from the accusation? Why don’t you just admit that you’re a Zionut shmuch? And this is not the first time that the NYT has tried to do over Emily with its disingenuous so-called objective reporting on the Palestinian cause.

Tarboush Tip: Ted Swedenburg

Related posts:

1. Arab Times = High Times
2. Marcel Khalife In New York Tomorrow-Free Concert
3. Yesterday I died 360 times
4. Arabic New York
5. Clinton to Iran: Stop Interfering in Palestine, that’s Our Job!