Miller's prime sources was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who returned to Iraq after the U.S. invasion and held a number of governmental positions culminating in acting oil minister and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.James C. Moore (May 27, 2004), "Not fit to print: How Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraq war lobby used New York Times reporter Judith Miller to make the case for invasion" , SalonNYTimes editorial (May 21, 2004), "Friends Like This" , The New York Times In 2005, negotiating a private severance package with Sulzberger, Miller retired after criticisms that her reporting of the lead-up to the Iraq War was factually inaccurate and overly favorable to the position of the Bush administration, for which The New York Times later apologized. Israeli–Palestinian conflict A 2003 study in the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that The New York Times reporting was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians. A 2002 study published in the journal Journalism examined Middle East coverage of the Second Intifada over a one-month period in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. The study authors said that the Times was "the most slanted in a pro-Israeli direction" with a bias "reflected...in its use of headlines, photographs, graphics, sourcing practices, and lead paragraphs." For its coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, some (such as Ed Koch) have claimed that the paper is pro-Palestinian, while others (such as As'ad AbuKhalil) have claimed that it is pro-Israel. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, alleges The New York Times sometimes criticizes Israeli policies but is not even-handed and is generally pro-Israel. In 2009, the Simon Wiesenthal Center criticized the newspaper for printing cartoons regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were described as "hideously anti-Semitic". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a proposal to write an article for the paper on grounds of lack of objectivity. A piece in which Thomas Friedman commented that praise given to Netanyahu during a speech at the U.S. Congress was "paid for by the Israel lobby" elicited an apology and clarification from its author. The 1619 Project The 1619 Project, a long-form journalism project re-evaluating slavery and its legacy in the United States led by investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, has received criticism from some historians. In December 2019, twelve historians wrote to The New York Times Magazine,