One of the pleasures of reading the New York Times is learning to recognize different writers’ structural biases. I don’t really know Jim Rutenberg or Mike McIntire, but I’ve been reading Ethan Bronner’s work for years now. His work is tendentiously pro-Zionist; he’s the commensurate ‘hugger and wrestler’ with Israel. Somewhat pitifully, I think he might find the characterization complimentary.
For me, the recent article about the tax-deductibility of Jewish settlement and terror funding became an exercise in rooting out the Bronner. His deft (not really) elisions and subtle positive markers weave Zionist hasbara into a piece that ought to be constitutionally resistant to it. It’s really remarkable. Now, I could be wrong. It could be McIntire who’s incorporated the hasbara into the article, but I don’t think so.
Here’s one embarrassingly indelicate example of what I’m talking about from the first sentence: “Twice a year, American evangelicals show up at a winery in this Jewish settlement in the hills of ancient Samaria…”
The New York Times is telling me that the Jewish connection to the West Bank is ancient – this is Samaria. But wait, in the next paragraph the words “West Bank” are used to describe the same territory. That must mean that the two sides are engaged in an equal dispute whose contours are being negotiated. And the ancient Jewish claim to Samaria clearly precedes whatever other claim may exist – it’s ancient, after all. Thus, “Judea and Samaria” are recontextualized.
It’s also significant that the West Bank is referred to as Samaria in the first sentence of the six page article. I’d be interested to know how much impact the primacy effect has on the uninitiated reader’s perceptions of the conflict.
On a related – equally important – note, I was stricken by the image of beautiful pastel-clad settler children at the top of the article. I like kids and pastels, so how bad can the settlements actually be? What would the effect have been if that picture was replaced with one of a gun-toting and tzitzit-laden Jewish man?
Anyway, back to the language.
The average reader of the Times is American. So when that reader sees that, “In some ways, American tax law is more lenient than Israel’s,” in a story about the pernicious abuse of the tax regime, he or she is being subtly directed to think of Israel as superior. America’s tax regime is regressive here. Israel “ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.” It’s not important that none of the ‘charities’ involved claimed to be engaged exclusively in building Jewish-only housing on occupied territory. Or that the entire settlement project is endorsed by Israeli society and every government since 1967. What matters here is that Israel’s tax regime is not only as good as, but better than, America’s. Israel is just like us, see… and smarter, too – with good intentions.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
The piece is important in a lot of ways that don’t need too much rehearsal. Despite its subversive Bronneritis, it isn’t broadly sympathetic to Zionists. And the article won prominent placement – page A1 and the top left of the online site. Furthermore, the straightforward linkage between Jack Abramoff and the settler-colonialists can’t be very positive for their wars on perception and cognition. There is a really important revelation, however, but it’s buried on page five. Consider the following passage:
“As recently as four years ago, Mr. Ha’Ivri was involved in running The Way of the Torah, a Kahanist newsletter designated as a terrorist organization in the United States. He has had several run-ins with the authorities in Israel over the last two decades, including an arrest for celebrating the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in a television interview and a six-month jail term in connection with the desecration of a mosque… Treasury officials said a group’s presence on the terror list does not necessarily extend to its former leaders, and indeed Mr. Ha’Ivri is not on it.”
Beautiful. We now know that terrorists aren’t terrorists, presumably after they’ve shredded their terrorist identification cards in the presence of a notary and second witness.
More seriously, this is the doctrine of Jewish exceptionalism unfolding in clearer ways than usual for us to gawk at. David Ben Gurion was a terrorist, and Tzipi Livni is a terrorist (whose parents, incidentally, were romantic-type terrorists), but their terror organizations are state-sanctioned and their terror implements the state’s implements. David Ha’Ivri, by contrast, belonged to an organization called The Way of the Torah – a Kahanist terror cell identified as such by the United States Treasury Department. But because Mr. Ha’Ivri is a Jewish terrorist who represents moneyed Democratic and Republican party interests he goes unmolested. That’s how he gets to cozy up to Michael Steele (to be fair, that’s not a notable distinction).
I did some googleing and came up with a good Jonathan Swift quote for the occasion: “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”
Ha’Ivri, it seems, is a hornet.
Bronner likely presented the reality of the content more accurately than you, informatively.
More political correctness by the holier than thou.
“Bronner likely presented the reality of the content more accurately than you, informatively.”
“Likely”, Richard? If you actually read tyhe article, you might know. But thanks for clearly telling us you haven’t.
“More political correctness by the holier than thou.”
I bet if I ran a film-strip by your mouth we could see it on the wall. But are you 8mm or 16mm? I’ve heard of “projectile vomiting” but this projection vomiting must be the next step.
“More political correctness by the holier than thou.”
That’s his new catchphrase. He used it earlier today–expect to see it on a regular basis from now on, until he thinks of a new one.
It must be on his new T-shirt. The one that says “F**k Palestine” is in the wash.
>> More political correctness by the holier than thou.
Another crack in the veneer.
The Wittymeter infallibly declares that Moor’s interpretation is right on the mark!
I do love the Wittymeter. You don’t have to read the article to know whether it’s right or wrong. Just consult the Wittymeter and choose the opposite point of view.
Thanks very much for this posting. When I saw Bronner’s name as one of the three authors, I couldn’t help wondering what part he played in it.
Ahmed, this is a great post. Usually when I see something with either Kershner or Bronner’s name on it, I cringe and don’t bother reading it.
Richard, you really couldn’t be more of a prick if you tried.
oh yeah?
I never know whether to think that Richard thinks we are all as stupid as him, or stupider. Which is it?
And his language skills are failing him rapidly.
I actually don’t think that Richard is writing for us. I think that Richard writes his beyond absurd comments for any “on the fence” people that don’t have a clue that might be visiting this blog. He’s trying to sway them not to believe everything else that everyone is saying. He knows that nobody buys his crap because it gets debunked over and over. When I first started leaving comments here and didn’t know what he was all about I actually took the time to respond to his comments and provide proof that what he was saying was factually incorrect. As soon as I did that, he would disappear from that particular post. At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just thought he was busy and not checking back, it soon became apparent that he does that ALL THE TIME, when he can’t refute he just disappears and pops up somewhere else asking/saying the same dumb things.
His arguments are ethereal drivel 95 percent of the time and he thinks he’s the op-editorial writer of whatever Phil posts.
Exactly, Seham. As far as I can see you hit it right on the head. You described his modus operandi> perfectly.
And if it extends to accusing Phil of Journalistic prostitution, dishonesty, or contending Phil is stupid, all’s fair in the war of ideas, huh, Richard. After all, Phil did eat when he went to Gaza, and who fed him his hummus? Hamas, that’s who! Case closed!
Case closed! Italics, well, not so much. Sorry.
Witty is proof of solipsism. He dwells in his own solitary brain and talks only to himself.
You nailed it on the head there Seham.
Which is why I’m glad that no matter how many times he posts the same debunked propaganda there are still people who continue to debunk him time and time again.
Its a Zionut tactic and unfortunately we have to respond to it.
take a look at the link on VR’s comment here: link to mondoweiss.net
‘course, surely it was not a a non jew who wrote the screenplay; just not smart enough.
‘And his language skills are failing him rapidly.’
Aahh..Someone finally agrees with me..Not too soon.
I’ve thought that but never said it. I thought it was a given!
Oh, he’ll show you, Seham!
Pastel colors on the hilltop are much better than men with Telfillin:
here’s the nytimes slide presentation:
link to nytimes.com
I again derived a great deal of insight from Bronner’s writing, and resent the hatchet job that you join in conducting of him.
He presents content that supports Israel periodical, AND content that is critical of Israel.
Even if you bear a different interpretation of the same set of facts, it would be more respectful to convey respect in the areas that you do respect his assessment.
For example, in February following the Gaza war (yes, it was a war), he reported of the determination and resourcefulness of Gazans to return to some degree of normalcy in their lives. Phil reported nearly identical conclusions when he arrived in Gaza a few months later.
But Phil framed Bronner’s points then as disrespectful of Gazans and as a stealth justification for Israeli blockade.
I didn’t experience his article in that condemnatory light at all. I derived for myself an increase in trust and respect of a resourceful people.
It’s all a matter of context, Witty. Sure, Bronner and Phil may have said something similar, but Phil isn’t a shameless, pandering pro-Israel shill.
The defense team at Nuremberg could have really used your helpful insight, Witty, when it came time to make the case for what was done in Warsaw.
“the ancient Jewish claim to Samaria …”
But Samaria is the land of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent Samaritans. Decent Jews are supposed to shun the whole lot.
My favourite femme fatale Caroline Glick is deeply incensed by this article, but she avoids naming Bronner, instead saying several times that it is by five, unnamed, writers.
Here we have the NYT give the most prominent possible placement to a long article about how American charities are fraudulently skirting the letter and spirit of U.S. tax laws, and shedding light on “charitable” support of extremists in the occupied territories. It strikes me this should be applauded.
I note that the online piece is accompanied by a number of photographs that starkly illustrate the difference in power and affluence between the settlers and the surrounding Palestinians, it includes a picture of a settler with skull cap and submachine gun, and it discusses the settler’s extra judicial use of those guns on unarmed settlers. Rather than quetching about Bonner and Hasbara (really kind of silly in context of this piece) one might more usefully contemplate how to do something about the problem described here.
Charitable tax deductions raise real issues. On the one hand we want to encourage people to be charitable. We rely on charitable giving to support many social causes here and abroad: museums, opera companies, after school counseling, etc., etc. By making contributions tax deductible we encourage people to vote with their money as to which charitable causes should be supported. [Alternatively, we could eliminate all charitable tax deductions and rely more on the government to decide which organizations are to receive funding] But the approach we have taken raises the possibility that we are indirectly supporting (through tax deductions) some causes that are socially harmful. Characters like Ha’Ivry, and the deceptive practices described in the article, do focus that issue pretty sharply.
In this case it might be more productive to write letters to the NYT, praising them on their coverage, and suggesting that all tax deductions to organizations in Israel and the West Bank be subjected to rigorous IRS audits, and demand that all such organizations should loose their tax deductible status if they are not transparent with where the money goes.
It’s possible to do multiple things at once–praise the NYT for writing about this years after they should have gotten to it and criticize them for the elements of bias that are still in the story and for taking so long to get to it. I don’t see why this shouldn’t be done–why should powerful institutions which do a less than adequate job have to be treated with kid gloves or praised like small children when they merely come close to doing what they should have been doing all along? This is the NYT, the supposed gold standard of American journalism, yet when I read their letters to the editor it’s clear that many of their readers are ignorant of some of the most basic facts of the conflict. And to some degree that can be blamed fairly on the NYT.
As for tax deductions, your suggestions on that aspect of it are fine with me.
My sentiments exactly, Donald. “What the f*ck took you so long?” ran through my mind while reading this, and also Nicholas Kristof’s piece last week on the Gaza siege. The NY Times has fallen badly on its ass so many times that it’s close to having zero credibility; I don’t know if this article is an attempt to salvage a dying readership or if it’s the beginning of the paper’s attempts to restore its image.
It’s not only the NY Times who has ignorant readers; most newspapers do.