On his American lecture tour, Times correspondent Ethan Bronner will be talking about the "opposing narratives" of Israel/Palestine. This is surely a reference to the Israeli narrative vs. the Palestinian one. Racial/ethnic opposition, ala the OJ trial. Well, for those who can’t make the lecture, here’s a different kind of opposing narrative:
Last week The New York Times (Bronner reporting) sandbagged the Goldstone report on the specific question of whether Israel had meant to destroy Gaza’s only flour mill a year ago:
The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen.
The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime.
Comes now England’s Guardian, one week later, challenging Israel’s response, with a story saying that there is proof that Israel targeted the al-Badr flour mill.
The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January. Photographs of the front half of the bomb have been obtained by the Guardian.
This evidence directly contradicts the finding of the Israeli report, which challenged allegations that the building was deliberately targeted and specifically stated there was no evidence of an air strike. Goldstone, however, used the account of the air strike as a sign that Israel’s attack on the mill was not mere collateral damage, but precisely targeted and a possible war crime.
Which narrative makes more sense to you? Do you think the Times will follow up? Somehow I doubt it. Thanks to Henry Norr.
