"New York Times" Wages War on Palestine
by Stephen Lendman
March 12, 2012
Like
all US major media scoundrels, longstanding New York Times policy
features one-sided pro-Israeli reports, commentaries, and opinions.
Its coverage of Israel's latest Gaza aggression is one of many examples. More on that below.
On
June 1, 2010, in response to Israeli commandos massacring Freedom
Flotilla humanitarian aid activists the previous day, a Times editorial
headlined, "Israel and the Blockade," saying:
"The
supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian
intentions (in mind). The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a
statement before Monday's deadly confrontation: A violent response from
Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement,
drawing attention to the blockade."
In
other words, the editorial outrageously suggested activists wanted
violence, provoked it, and welcomed it when it came. In fact, they
wished only to deliver vital humanitarian aid peacefully. Knowing
Israel's likely response, they risked their lives heroically doing it.
The Times portrayed them as agitators.
In 2010, a Jonas Xavier Caballero
University of Pittsburgh honors thesis titled, "The Impact of Media
Bias on Coverage of Catastrophic Events: Case Study from the New York
Times' Coverage of the Palestine/Israel Conflict," focused on Times
reporting on Israel's Cast Lead Gaza war.
Three
weeks of premeditated incursions and terror bombings caused mass deaths
and vast destruction. Not according to the Times, however.
Its
coverage "manifest(ed) media bias toward Israel...." Caballero
"examined (it) within a context of media manipulation,
misrepresentation, framing, slant, and linguistic determinism."
Extreme
"distorti(ion of) the facts....present(ed) a picture that portrays
Israel" as victim, not aggressor. Caballero examined 91 Times articles
and editorials from December 27, 2008 (when conflict began) to January
18, 2009, plus another week for corrections and more coverage.
He concluded that Times pro-Israeli reports increased throughout the conflict. It was "deplorable," he said, adding:
Its
"practice of distorting its coverage to present Israel in a favorable
light represents an abuse of freedom of the press in the United States."
"The
Times’ history of media bias, agenda setting, and group
(mis)representation seeks to support the Israeli narrative by omitting
facts on the ground while demonizing the Palestinians."
"The
marker of terrorism, which is habitually attached to Palestinians in
news coverage, to the 'exclusion of its Israeli counterpart,' shows how
'normal/deviant dichotomies are constructed by and subsequently embedded
within the news.' This is particularly true with regard to the Times’
coverage of the conflict."
Cast
Lead was Israel's worst atrocity since the June 1967 Six Day War.
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Gaza terror bombings is the worst one since
Cast Lead. But not according to Times coverage. Once again, Israel is
victim, not villain.
On February 17, 2012, a Jerusalem Post article headlined, "Judaism at the New York Times," saying:
This
week, Jodi Rudoren took over as Times Jerusalem bureau chief. Like
others before her, she's Jewish. They include Ethan Bronner (replaced
after reports exposed his conflict of interest), Steven Erlanger, James
Bennet, and Deborah Sontag beginning in August 1998.
"Why
does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head
their central office in the Jewish state," asked the Post?
It
doesn't fill other foreign correspondent positions with ethnic
nationals. Why Israel? The Post suggested it's because Times Ochs and
Sulzberger controlling families were Jewish. In 1992, Arthur Ochs
Sulzberger, Jr. succeeded his father as publisher and board chairman.
"In
choosing Jewish journalists to lead in Jerusalem, the Times" subscribes
to its founding families' beliefs." Yet, claims the Post, doing so
"affirms not just the belief that Jews are not different, but that they
cannot be different."
Chew
on that for meaning. The Post later said Jews were sent "to report in a
most un-Jewish way," when, in fact, their bias is blatantly one-sided.
Moreover,
whether or not Jews fill Jerusalem bureau chief roles or elsewhere
reporting on Israel, they'd better better do it favorably, no matter how
egregious its crimes. Otherwise they'll be replaced and likely fired.
Times Biased Coverage of Three Days of Israeli Terror Bombing
On March 9, Times writers Fares Akram and Isabel Kershner headlined, "Israeli Airstrikes Kill Militants in Gaza," saying:
Israeli
air strikes killed Zuhir al-Qaisi, Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)
secretary-general. PRC member Mahmoud Hanani was also killed. Both men
died when two IDF missiles struck their car.
Neither
threatened Israel now or earlier. The Times, however, regurgitated the
official lie about Israel "thwart(ing) a terrorist strike that the
militants were planning against Israelis from across the border in
Egypt."
It
also falsely claimed both men were involved in previous attacks on
Israel. Unexplained was that its authorities released Hanani from
wrongful imprisonment last October as part of the Shalit prisoner swap
deal. Instead it said he recently traveled to Jordan, Egypt, and Gaza.
Doing so implied it was to plan new terror attacks.
The
Times also lied, saying "Israel's first airstrike....came soon after
Gaza militants fired two rockets into southern Israel." In fact, calm
prevailed until Israeli aircraft struck. Gazans responded defensively.
Under international law, it's their right, no matter how unmatched they
are against its powerful adversary.
Also
not explained was that all Israeli attacks are premeditated. Innocent
civilians are killed, including women and children. At times, they're
willfully targeted. Attacks often occur after calm periods. Israel needs
instability and violence to claim justification for its crimes of war
and against humanity.
Palestinians are victims, not aggressors. Resistance groups are heroic, not terrorists as calling them "militants" implies.
In
addition, The Times quoted Israel's military spuriously claiming it
"does not seek an escalation in the region," but stands ready to protect
its citizens "with strength and determination (against) terrorist"
activity.
In
fact, Israel repeatedly initiates violence, notably against Gaza, the
West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, and currently covertly on Syria as
part of Washington's regime change agenda.
On March 10, both writers headlined, "Violence Continues for Israel and Militants," saying:
More
deaths resulted. Israel responded to rocket attacks. Unexplained was
that Palestinians acted defensively in response to Israeli attacks.
By
implication, Israel's victimized by Palestinian instigated or planned
violence, when, in fact, precisely the reverse is true. But you'd never
know it from Times articles, commentaries and editorials.
A Final Comment
Like
Obama and complicit rogue US officials, Netanyahu's a scourge on
humanity, a war criminal, a killer unleashing terror bombings to incite
violence and instability. At a Sunday cabinet meeting, he said:
"We
have collected a high price from them and we are still collecting more.
We will continue to operate as long as it is necessary."
Maliciously he lied saying Israel's terror attacks disrupted planned Palestinian assaults on Israeli targets.
On March 10, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned the lawless killings, saying:
Israeli warplanes fired missiles into densely populated areas. Civilians died. Homes and other structures were damaged.
"PCHR reiterates condemnation of these crimes and expresses utmost concern over such escalation."
It
also warned about aggravating dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. The
entire population's affected. It called on "the international community
to immediately take an action to stop such crimes."
In
addition, it cited the obligation of Fourth Geneva's High Contracting
Parties to fulfill their obligations under its provisions.
Article 1 stipulates they "undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
Article
146 requires they prosecute persons responsible for grave Convention
breaches. Under Article 147 and Protocol I to the four Geneva
Conventions, they're war crimes. It's long past high time Israel was
held accountable.
Also on March 10, a Euro-Mediterranean Observatory for Human Rights (EMOHR)
press release called the "assassination of wanted people" a blatant
violation of international law. It described it as a murder outside the
law without trial.
It
said since 2000 alone, Israel assassinated dozens of Palestinian
activists lawlessly. At all times, Israel acted preemptively, adding:
"The
brutal murder of suspected individuals is a disgrace to a country that
claims to be civilized and democratic, even in the case of armed
confrontation."
On March 11, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy headlined, "Way to go, IDF!" saying:
"Here
we go again." More days of "cynical ritual....bloodletting." As always,
Israel's blame game points fingers the wrong way. Major media
scoundrels report supportively. Not Levy, saying:
"The
IDF and the Shin Bet security....started it....(T)hey carry out
targeted killings whenever they can, and not whenever it is necessary."
Levy
called necessity when done against "ticking time bombs en route to
carry out their attacks. In any event, such a vague standard no longer
applies."
In
2006, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak prohibited these killings as
"deterrent(s) or punishment." Killing is killing. Committing it is
lawless, except defensively in response to attacks.
No
one attacked or threatened Israel. Palestinians want calm, not
violence. They only respond defensively, despite falsified reports
saying otherwise. Levy called Israel's explanation "convoluted." It was
also spurious to claim justification for premeditated cold-blooded
murder.
So
far, at least 21 Palestinians died, including children. No Israelis,
but imagine if it was reversed. Levy suggested Cast Lead II and regional
war would follow. "But the killing of (21) Palestinians is allowed,
eliciting just a yawn."
That's
the way it is "in this insane asylum....Way to go, IDF!" It operates on
the principle of stopping killings by committing more of them.
Ehud
Barak calls the IDF killing machine "the most moral army in the world."
Murdering 18 Gazans and similar past incidents reveal its true face.
Morality's not in its vocabulary and never was!
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment