THE NEW YORK TIMES: REVERTING BACK TO FORM

Last week I blogged about a New York Times editorial which, unlike its strongly slanted coverage of the Israel-hamas conflict, provided an honest assessment of how the conflict came to be and who was doing what.

Here is its last paragraph:

Can we possibly hope that, after many years of being far more critical of Israel than of the people who are committed, in writing, to vaporize the country and kill every Jew there (and elsewhere as well), a page has been turned?  Or is this a momentary ideological lapse, to be followed by the Times\’ usual anti-Israel bias?

And here is the answer to that question – in the form of the first two paragraphs of today\’s article on the conflict – in rust – with my comments in blue.

AsIsrael\’sincursion into Gazaenters its third week and Palestiniancivilian deaths mount, reaction in the United States has been muted,with polls through last weekend showing most Americans stillsupportive – in part, analysts say, because of the failures of theArab Spring to spread democracy in the Middle East. Whichanalysts said that? How about considering the possibility thatAmericans still support Israel simply because we still believe Israelis on the right side of this conflict? But in a situation long familiar, Israel is losing the publicrelations war outside the United States. Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that there is one Jewish state, versus almost 60 Islamic states, and much of the rest of the world reliant on them for oil?  Just asking….

OnWednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to authorizea commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes in Gaza. (The UnitedStates was the sole “no” vote.) Uh,you somehow forgot to mention that virtually every European countryabstained, and that the remaining UNHRC membership is loaded with countries – such asCuba, Russia, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. – which haveabsolutely no business judging anyone else\’s human rights.  TheUnited Nations\’ top human rights official raised what she calledthe “strong possibility” that Israel and Hamashave committed war crimes with indiscriminate attacks on civilians,and the drumbeat from world leaders and demonstrators pointed to thelopsided number of Palestinian casualties – more than 650, most ofthem civilians – versus 35 on the Israeli side, 32 of themsoldiers. For the umpteenth time, that “lopsided” number is due to the factthat hamas – a terrorist organization – not only does not protectits citizens (virtually no bomb shelters or warning systems) but hasa rich history of placing its launch sites at or near civilianfacilities which, if hit, would cause the most civilian casualties -like the two schools the UN itself found with missiles hidden in them(and who knows how many more yet to be found).  Israel builds an Iron Dome defense system to protect its citizens.  hamas uses its own women and children as human shields, while spending money which could have built protection for them, or infrastructure that might improve their lives, to construct an elaborate system of underground tunnels for transporting missiles and terrorists into Israel.

Remember, that\’s just the first two paragraphs.  There\’s more – a lot more.

Last week\’s editorial could have been a turning point for the Times – a chance to honestly talk about what Israel deals with on a daily basis with a terrorist organization on its border.  But, apparently, it wasn\’t. 

I wish I were surprised.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *