The other day the New York Times ran a favorable piece about the surging non-Zionist Jewish group, Jewish Voice for Peace. Today the following clarification appears after the article:
After this article was published, editors learned that one of the two writers, Daniel Ming, had been active in pro-Palestinian rallies. Such involvement in a public cause related to The Times's news coverage is at odds with the paper's journalistic standards; if editors had known of Mr. Ming's activities, he would not have been allowed to write the article.
From the Vassar College newspaper a year ago. Sounds like the same guy:
In 2008, Ming was the recipient of a Tannenbaum Peace Fellowship and spent the summer after his sophomore year working with a Jordanian Catholic priest who develops interfaith relationships between Muslim and Christian communities in the country. During his time in Jordan, Ming took time off to visit the West Bank where he toured the area with an anti-occupation group called Stop the Wall.
My headline refers to the fact that the NYT's Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Ethan Bronner, who is married to an Israeli, has a son in the Israeli army. When it broke the news last year, Electronic Intifada said that it was a conflict of interest; and the newspaper's public editor concurred; he said that Bronner should be reassigned to some other beat. The Times's executive editor, Bill Keller, has kept Bronner in Jerusalem, presumably hoping that the issue dies down and no one says anything about it.
And that’s why no one reads the NYT any longer. Can’t wait for it to disappear forever behind a pay wall . . . maybe AOL will then buy it out of bankruptcy and merge it with HuffPo.
Ha! That really would be a fate appropos what the paper has become and what it represents.
That’s great! So no journalists who have every toured the West Bank with an Israeli group can write for the NYT!
“non-Zionist Jewish…”
“Non-Zionist”?!? Oh yeah baby. that’s how to deal with the biggest threat to Judaism and and the Jewish religion ever! By being “non-Zionist”
Sorry, folks, nothing less than being anti-Zionist will cut it. It’s easy, all you have to do is think of Zionism, and Zionists, as a corruption, a social, religious and societal disease which attacked Judaism at its weakest and most confused point, offered all the usual temptations, and took over.
Jeez, at least the Christies had the guts to schism. And now there are almost as many Christian sects as there are Jews!
“Non-Zionist” is just another way of saying “well, my mind could be changed, at the right price”
Sorry kids, nothing less than anti-Zionism, nothing less than a firm conviction that ZIonism is the most lethal threat, to Judaism, and will never, can never, and could never result in any good.
As an example, I offer the fact that every time I try to upper-case the “Z”, I can never release the shift-key fast enough to exclude the “I” from Zionism.
And now there are almost as many Christian sects as there are Jews!
good one!
“Non-Zionist” is just another way of saying “well, my mind could be changed, at the right price”
well, mine could. i’d have no objection if a bunch of ethnic nationalists want to set up camp in a place w/no other people. i’ve said before my main problem w/zionism is they decided to do it in palestine. if they had to ethnically cleanse people to make way for their tiny state they should have done it w/people who had wronged them, like germans. they should have chipped off a corner of germany.
i’m a non zionists not an anti zionist. i’m against the policies of the racist state of israel, not zionism per se. they could have been nice, they weren’t.
“they could have been nice, they weren’t.”
Good. So I assume you are against most of the countries of the world, who did not achieve the land they have by being “nice.”
could you name the other countries in the process of acquiring their land thru ethnic cleansing?
i’m against all countries current ethnically cleansing people to achieve their land. it’s against international law.
the context of that sentence of mine was to explain why i do not consider myself an anti zionist but am against the policies of the racist state of israel. put another way it means ‘had zionism not been brutal and made peace (like most countries have made peace w/their neighbor to a reasonable degree) i would have no problem w/it. most countries of the world are not in a continued process of ethnic cleansing. israel is still ‘achieving’ land. if israel stopped and started to be a nice country i wouldn’t be against it.
Well, see if you can tell the difference between someone writing an article without full disclosure of his obvious conflict of interest and someone writing an article without disclosing the political ties of all of his relatives.
Try hard.
Gee, are you insisting the Bronner himself has ABSOLUTELY NO TIES to Israel? Are you insisting that he’s not a Zionist? Really.
i think you need to recognize the Times shills for Israel. They’ve done it for decades.
So I gather had the Times’ Berlin desk, in 1935, been held by someone who’s son had left the States to join the German army that would have been just hunky dory. Right, what possible conflict of interest could there be.
O, you toughies, so tough on the poor old dame! She’s not as bad, prolly, as Mubarak or Ahmedinejad or the torturers in the USA’s torture-services.
I mean, it’s just a newspaper trying to retain its readership, such as it is, hein?
I think there’s a difference between being a participant in a group that you’re reporting about, as is the case with Mr. Ming, and having a son in the IDF, as is the case with Mr. Bronner. If his son is in the IDF, he’s an adult, responsible for himself, and his father shouldn’t have to lose his job because of that.
Paula Zahn is married to…….?
Andrea Mitchel is married to……?
Christiane Amanpour is married to…….?
No conflict of interest, eh?
“Paula Zahn is married to…….?
Andrea Mitchel is married to……?
Christiane Amanpour is married to…….?
No conflict of interest, eh?”
What conflict of interest do you think there is?
what’s you evidence mr ming was a participant in the group he was writing about? it doesn’t say he was a member of jvp it says he “had been active in pro-Palestinian rallies”.
furthermore mr bonner covers more than the idf. he covers israel’s politics. the standard used by the nyt to justify disqualifying meeks would disqualify bonner by merely being pro israel or going to a pro israel rally. or being a zionist.
Ming was reporting on JVP. Was he a participant in JVP? Or did he just tour the WB in the company of a group with similar views?
So let’s forget about Bronner’s son. What tours did he participate in that were sponsored by Israel or pro-Israel groups?
Today I got a selection of NYT articles about Israel in the post. It was advertised on the haaretz site and is called “the history of the state of Israel compilation”. info@anydate.com
What is most striking about the last 20 years is the regularity with which the NYT announces Israel has just started peace talks.
31 Oct 91 Israel and arabs.. begin quest for mideast peace
14 Sept 93 Clinton applauds brave gamble
5 june 03 Israel.. first steps in quest for peace and so on.
The collection is supposed to be a keepsake for fans of Israel but instead it is a testament to Israeli bad faith.
It will be a fascinating memento when Zionism collapses. Never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity, Israel. Israel could have chosen peace when the US was rich.