There have been many critical examinations of New York Times articles on this website, and I’ve had my share of such posts to the point where it has gotten tiresome. But there is literally an endless supply of material. A particularly irksome error appears in today’s paper, in an article by Isabel Kershner on the shocking (!) finding of the Turkel Commission that Israel acted legally in killing nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara. While the Times article is worthy of more in-depth analysis, there is one whopper that stands out above all others:
Israel imposed its maritime blockade on Gaza in January 2009 during its military offensive against Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza. The commission justified the blockade on security grounds, citing a need ‘to prevent weapons, terrorists and money from entering the Gaza Strip, and the need to prevent the departure of terrorists.’
Note how the first sentence is presented as objective fact, that the blockade was imposed in January 2009 during Israel’s attack, thereby supporting the Commission’s claim in the second sentence that the purposes of the blockade were solely military. Anyone paying minimal attention to the Gaza siege knows full well that Israel had been punishing the entire civilian population by severely curtailing the availability of basic goods since at least 2006, including by land or sea. Prior to 2009, there had been several attempts to bring in such civilian goods by sea, with mixed success; some ships were allowed to pass and others were stopped, or even rammed by the Israeli Navy, like the Dignity in late December, 2008.. Where did Kershner get her starting date for the naval blockade? From the Turkel Commission Report itself, which stated in par. 5 of its Summary:
After the Hamas terrorist organization seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the Government adopted various measures. On January 3, 2009, during Operation ‘Cast Lead,’ Israel imposed a naval blockade on the coastline of the Gaza Strip. . . the Government of Israel imposed the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip for military-security reasons, which mainly concerned the need to prevent weapons, terrorists, and money from entering the Gaza Strip, and the need to prevent the departure of terrorists and additional threats from the Gaza Strip by sea. The naval blockade was not imposed in order to restrict the transfer of humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip or to disrupt the commercial relations of the Gaza Strip. . . .
The naval blockade was imposed on January 3, 2009? What was it called before that date? What transformed an existing “blockade” of land and sea into some other type of “naval blockade” or vice versa? How could Kershner buy the nonsense that the naval blockade was implemented as late as January, 2009, with the goal of keeping weapons out of Gaza? This is not a trivial mistake, but a truly profound one. Israel’s long-standing policy of deliberately restricting a civilian population’s access to food, water, medicines, fuel, books and toys is generally viewed by all but the most cold-hearted as sadistic and cruel, not to mention illegal. There is a vast difference in public perception between keeping out arms and keeping out such basic necessities. In the wake of the Mavi Marmara murders, there was a thoroughly dishonest but reasonably successful campaign to re-cast the blockade as one that was designed to keep out military supplies only. It’s no surprise that the Turkel Commission continued in this effort, but how could Kershner forget what had been a continuing news story for three years before Cast Lead? Of course, if Kershner’s amnesia could have been cured had she glanced at the Ha’aretz article on the Turkel Commission, which accurately records: “The Turkel Commission also determined that Israel's three-and-a-half year blockade of the Gaza Strip does not break international law.”
This is the way lies become history. This is why so many believe that there were thousands of rockets launched from Lebanon against Israel in 1982 and again in 2000-2006, prompting the two “wars”; that Arafat initiated the Second Intifada of terrorism to win with violence what he failed to win through negotiations; that Israel’s siege of Gaza was to keep out weapons. Every time these factoids are repeated in the newspaper of record and similar MSM outlets, they become more ingrained in the collective memory. Even if Kershner did not deliberately lie, she was inexcusably lazy and careless in simply repeating a critical misrepresentation by the Turkel Commission, rather than accurately reporting an undisputed fact.
Here is Ethan Bronner’s report from la-la land about the Palestinian Papers.
link to nytimes.com
“While neither Jerusalem nor the refugee issue was agreed on, the two sides seemed to be coming to terms on the approach.”
“A spokesman for Mr. Olmert, Yaacov Galanti, said the gaps between the two sides were not great.”
“Mr. Netanyahu has said that he wanted to start the negotiations over, not pick them up where they had left off because they offered too many concessions to the Palestinians.”
Bernard Avishai said, “The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.”
Yanks don’t have sh*t for brains on the subject of Palestine by chance.
There is a very efficient media disinformation system prodded by a very efficient lobby and the NYT is part of that system.
However, the great lobby friendly American newspapers are in serious decline and the new internet world is far less amenable to Israel’s lies.
link to nybooks.com
DAVID SAMEL- “Even if Kershner did not deliberately lie….”
I’m not sure if your phraseology is excessively charitable or appropriately judicious. It seems obvious to me that Kershner has seized the opportunity provided by the Turkel Commission as a source of reference to “objectively” score a propaganda point. Why? “This is the way lies become history.” Precisely! This is the same process which occurred with the US/Germany dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Propaganda has evolved into endlessly regurgitated “fact,” as this NATO assault is lauded as a humanitarian intervention. Why go to the bother? As Orwell said, he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future. Control of the historical narrative justifies both past and future actions. The main stream media earns its profits in no small measure by acting as the willing agents of the system of elite propaganda.
You should ask the New York Times to make a correction on Kershner’s 2009 date. We should ask for corrections–or at least write to the editor or the public editor–every time we see a mistake.
They will publish corrections, and I’ve gotten them to do so (though not on the I/P issue).
But with stenographers such as Isabel Kershner and Ethan ‘My Son Serves in the IDF’ Bronner who function as advocacy journalists for Israel, you’d be playing an endless whack-a-mole game. These publicists are congenitally incapable of being objective about a country they identify with and habitually aid in burnishing its image.
Better, probably, to just keep pounding away at the Times’ threadbare credibility. It suffered great embarrassment from Judith Miller’s acting as a conduit for neocon fantasies about Saddam’s WMDs. The paper’s I/P reporting is more of the same — spinning neocon myths as fact — and should be relentlessly exposed as such.
Dov Weissglass’ quote about putting Gaza on a diet dates from 3 weeks after Hamas won the elections, which is begin 2006. Implementation was through gradual incrementation as pretexts arose.
Just a quick reminder that when the Turkel Commission was set up in June 2010 Netanyahu specifically told us what the outcome of the “inquiry” would be:
Netanyahu: Gaza flotilla probe will show the world Israel acted lawfully
Of course dear Ms Kershowitz [sic] doesn’t state that, instead using the weasel words “But critics argued that the findings were a foregone conclusion.”
No, critics didn’t argue, Netanyahu told us, and you, and you’re too gutless to report it to your readers.
For anyone interested in actually reading the Turkel Com. report:
link to turkel-committee.gov.il
Does the report come pre-packaged with anti-nausea pills?
Danaa – I think Jon is right. The report should be read. However, I did just a cursory review, and the level of bias is indeed staggering, which obviously was no surprise. To answer your question, you have to supply your own, and I recommend both a prophylactic anti-nausea dose beforehand and no solid food for six hours before and after reading, just in case the meds are not enough.
I am counting on you doing a blow-by-low-blow analysis – I know you have a strong stomach (you can even trek through sordid Isabel mushlands!). Alas, I am a bit on the squeemish side, but muchos gracias for the prescription. Will follow to the letter (if I must…).
Oh, forget it.
Kershner could have just searched her own paper’s archives to find the correct information. This is from a June 28, 2006 article by Steve Erlanfer and Ian Fisher.
“The economy has broken down under an embargo of western aid since Hamas took power in January. They contend they remain under a siege, even after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza last year, with their borders often closed and encircled by Israeli warplanes and ships.”
and here’s a NYT opinion piece headline:
“Israel’s scandalous siege of Gaza – Opinion – International Herald Tribune
Patrick Seale
Published: Friday, October 27, 2006″
Here’s an “overview” of Gaza that was updated on December 17, 2010:
“Gaza has remained largely isolated from the international community since it came under the control of the Palestinaian political faction Hamas, which has refused to accept the conditions set by the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers, including renouncing violence, recognizing Israel’s right to exist and accepting previous signed agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 2006, Hamas swept parliamentary elections in Gaza. Israel and Egypt imposed a strict economic embargo on the area, allowing in only basic supplies.”
This is from “Rethinking the Blockade,” from June 1, 2010:
“Israel drew strong international criticism for a raid on a flotilla trying to breach the blockade of Gaza. On Tuesday, Egypt reopened its border with Gaza to allow aid to flow through, while another ship had reportedly been sent to the region. Pressure intensified on Israel to end the blockade, which it and Egypt imposed after the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007.”
There are pages and pages more.
Here are a few more from the NYTimes.
An Ethan Bronner article from July 14, 2010:
“Israel drew strong international criticism for a raid on a flotilla trying to breach the blockade of Gaza. On Tuesday, Egypt reopened its border with Gaza to allow aid to flow through, while another ship had reportedly been sent to the region. Pressure intensified on Israel to end the blockade, which it and Egypt imposed after the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007.”
Oh, look, here’s one from Kershner herself, from June, 3, 2010:
“Gaza has been under an Israeli-led blockade since Hamas took full control of the territory in 2007.”
Another one from Kershner. May 31, 2010:
“Israeli officials said that international law allowed for the capture of naval vessels in international waters if they were about to violate a blockade. The blockade was imposed by Israel and Egypt after the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said Monday that the blockade was “aimed at preventing the infiltration of terror and terrorists into Gaza.”
The references from the Times saying the Israeli blockade was imposed after the “Hamas takeover” in 2007 are no doubt useful in exposing the lie Kershner borrowed from Turkel, but we should all remember that the 2007 dating is also bogus. As Tuyzenfloot correctly observes, what happened then was just a tightening of the “diet” the Israelis began to impose immediately after Hamas’ famously free and fair electoral victory in January 2006. The 2006-2007 siege got even less coverage in the U.S. media than the later blockade, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t disastrous for the people of Gaza. Here’s the beginning of a report by Conal Urquhart in the Observer of London in April 2006:
In fact, if you look at the big picture, even 2006 wasn’t the beginning, just a new tactical phase in a regime of economic pressure that had been going on since around 1994, when Israel put up the wall around the Gaza Strip and began what Sara Roy calls the “de-development” of Gaza.
henry, initially the blockcade was called an ‘economic embargo’. if one googles that along w/gaza 2006 there are many many references. the knesset planned it directly after they won and it was in place by the time of hama’s inauguration.
they changed the name to a blockade a year later then tried to erase their culpability from the year before.
Thanks, Henry. Yes, I know the 2007 date is bogus, and Annie, I do know it was called an embargo before 2007. Also, don’t forget Gilad Shalit was captured in June of 2006, and that was part of Israel’s calculation as well.
Knowing that New York Times would not consider any other source than themselves regarding the facts of the situation, I was just trying to point out that the NYT is upending even its own previous propaganda about the siege of Gaza.
And the world balances on the back of this Turkel? THIS Turkel?
May be this should be titled the Urkel report?
I wonder what role, if any, did Turkel’ Philipino nurse play in the proceedings?
What was it called before that date? What transformed an existing “blockade” of land and sea into some other type of “naval blockade” or vice versa?
david, it was called an “economic embargo” or a “financial embargo” prior to june 07. here’s how the cia factbook @ jewish virtual library describes it. initially it included the WB. not sure the timing of when fayyed was appointed to the government but he’s always been the US’s ace in the hole as quoted below. also the state departments jpg’s available in the gaza bombshell article confirm this factoid re fayyed.