J Street will make no headway without the New York Times. J Street can always count on the Nation and has found the New Yorker sadly awol*. The Times did great work yesterday: "Warnings not enough for Gaza families." And the Times has a pretty good story today:
said it had hit some civilian targets because they housed rockets, launchers or
militants. It offered limited evidence of its claim.â [emphasis mine]
Good Richard Silverstein, who passed this along, writes that the news coverage is outstripping the editorials, and that this is the achievement of one of the Times correspondents, Ethan Bronner. "I
think the word 'limited' was being charitable. He didnât
quite have the nerve to call them liars." Though maybe it's Isabel Kershner, who shares the byline with Gaza City's Taghreed El-Khodary?
Again: This is the time for one of you smart reporters to seize the Tom Friedman laurels. Show independence, and tell us what is in front of your nose. Then write a book and change American Jewish opinion.
*(memo to Rick Hertzberg, whom I last saw at a Nation function: Join us, Rick, join your old classmate Wallace Shawn, eschew your Charybdis Marty Peretz and your Scylla whose name shall go unspoken)
You're both misreading the nuance there, Phil: the nuance is that Israel endeavored to provide evidence but was temporarily unable to provide adequate evidence due to the fog of war, a condition eventually to be rectified retrospectively.
One might suppose that 'limited' is not from the story as submitted, but the invention of the Times' political-correctness copy editor, who functions somewhat like a Kosher food inspector to ensure that the 'news' stays 'on message.'
'Good Richard' [Silverstein] is an excellent shorthand, complementing 'Bad Richard' [Agent Witty] and 'Evil Richard' [Perle].
Rowan now seems to have two main sources of inspiration.
a) for the larger scenario concerning the Jews: Ed/Chris Moore
b) for his critique of Phil: Richard Witty.
… I think we should sponsor a class of reading comprehension based on the texts Phil offers for the two. Never let your ideology get in the way of understanding.
**************************************
I don't agree Jim. This is–as RS observes–clearly "off balance".
The Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, speaking from a hiding place in a recorded speech on Hamas television, said: âThe Israeli enemy in its aggression has written its next chapter in the world, which will have no place for them. They shelled everyone in Gaza. They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way.â
Israel said it had hit some civilian targets because they housed rockets, launchers or militants. It offered limited evidence of its claim.
Balance would mean to juxtapose the Mahmoud Zahar statement with one by the IDF. But it is questioned.
Wouldn't your political-correctness copy editor immediately recognize this? Even Richard would have instinctively use his expertise in balancing here.