Quick to report Gaddafi’s use of ‘cluster bombs,’ the NYT called white phosphorus a ‘standard, legal weapon’ when Israel dropped it on Gaza

Israel/Palestine
on 0 Comments

Editor’s note: Ed Moloney has a wonderful post at his site contrasting the New York Times’ alacrity in covering the use of cluster bombs by Gaddafi with its tardy coverage of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza during Cast Lead two years ago. Here is a substantial excerpt.

Hats off to The New York Times for being one of the first, if not the first, to report last Friday that Col. Gaddafi’s forces in Libya have been firing cluster bombs into residential neighborhoods of Misurata, the sole city in western Libya still in rebel hands, thereby escalating the possibility of major civilian carnage….

So how did The New York Times cover the deployment of white phosphorous by the IDF in Gaza? Again by way of contrast, the best way to start answering that question is perhaps to look at how one its European rivals covered the same story. The paper in question is The Times of London….

The Times can sometimes rise majestically to the occasion. Its coverage of Israel’s deployment of white phosphorous was one such instance. The paper’s first story appeared on January 5th [2009] under the headline ‘Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorous shells’ and two days later, on January 8th, followed that up with a story about the horrifying injuries caused by WP, while noting that the IDF’s official denials that the weapon was in use and identifying the shells as being of US origin: “There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorous against civilians is prohibited under international law”. Another story on January 12th provided more detailed evidence of widespread civilian casualties caused by the weapon.

On January 15th, The Times reported that the UNWRA complex in Gaza had been hit by white phosphorous shells and that the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon had protested to the Israeli government (a counter claim by Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert that his forces had been forced to reply to Hamas attacks was not supported by Goldstone). It continued in terms that left little doubt the paper believed the Israelis to be liars: “The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorous shells in the Gaza offensive, although an investigation by The Times has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures.”

So how did The New York Times compare to its British equivalent? I did a search of the paper’s website and archive and trawled Lexis-Nexis for references in the paper to white phosphorous during Operation Cast Lead. In total there were just five reports and with the exception of the last article, filed after the Israelis had withdrawn from Gaza, the NYT’s references to WP were perfunctory, repeated IDF and Israeli government explanations for its use and made little if any mention of the death and injury caused to Gazan civilians.

The first was a story on January 11th by Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the NYT since March 2008. Although the subject had been well reported by The Times of London and other European newspapers up to a week beforehand, Bronner devoted just one sentence to WP in a report that led with Israel’s warnings to Gaza residents about a planned escalation of its incursion. Although Bronner also reported signs of growing international criticism of Israeli tactics and the dangers posed to Gazan civilians, the reference to WP was a meager one that carried echoes of the IDF’s line on its use. He wrote: “Human rights groups are also concerned about the Israeli use of white phosphorous, which creates smoke on a battlefield, at low altitudes or crowded areas, because it can burn like a kind of napalm.”

The second report came on January 16th, five days later and dealt with the shelling of the UNWRA complex. The article dwelt on Israeli doubts about the UN’s neutrality and complaints about its “institutional bias”, carried the IDF claim that its shelling was in response to Hamas fire and devoted just two paragraphs in a 1600 word article to the use of White Phosphorus.

Bylined Isabel Kershner, the story had this to say about the weapon:

Citing agency representatives who were present during the attack, Mr Gunness (a UNWRA spokesman) said three white phosphorous shells had hit the compound, causing fires that raged for hours, an allegation to which the Israeli military did not respond.

White phosphorous is a standard, legal weapon in armies, long used as a way to light up an area or to create a thick white smoke to obscure troop movements. While using it against civilians, or in an area where many civilians are likely to be affected, can be a violation of international law, Israel has denied using the substance improperly. On Wednesday, Hamas fired a phosphorous mortar shell into Israel, but no-one was hurt.

On January 22nd, the day after Israel withdrew from Gaza, The New York Times carried two pieces on WP, one by Ethan Bronner and Alan Cowell which reported that Israel had established a military investigation “to look into the issue” of alleged misuse of WP following allegations reported in what an IDF spokesman called “the foreign press”. It was the first admission by the paper that Israel’s use of white phosphorous had angered and incensed international opinion.

A second piece, solely by Ethan Bronner, finally put a human face to the consequences of white phosphorous use and reported on the ordeal of the Abu Halima family. Five members of the family, four children and their father, had perished in a WP attack over two weeks earlier and the incident had been widely reported, both in The Times of London and other European outlets, but it was only now that The New York Times was giving the story any coverage.

Bronner quoted Sabah Abu Halima, the surviving widow, at length and also doctors who had treated survivors and had seen the horrific injuries up close. One doctor said that in a few cases the damage done by WP was so acute that “seemingly limited burns led to the patients’ deaths.” Sabah Abu Halima’s grief was so profound, she said she wanted to see Israel’s foreign minister and president “burn like my children burned”.

It was a good piece of reporting that well reflected the horrors visited upon Palestinian civilians by Israeli white phosphorous. But it came far too late, like the horse that bolted the stable. It also smacked of catch up by the Gray Lady, as if someone in the New York HQ had realized that the paper really ought to say something about the matter given the level of international concern over Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But by this stage the horse had galloped several fields away.

It could be said in the paper’s defense that The New York Times was hampered, as was all the media, by Israeli government restrictions on media access to the Gaza war zone. Reporters like Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner couldn’t actually report from the ground, could not see the evidence or lack thereof for themselves and couldn’t get to speak to victims like Sabah Abu Halima, much less look into her eyes as she voiced her allegations. All their reports, bar the second Bronner piece on January 22nd, carried the Jerusalem dateline. Only when the IDF had evacuated could Ethan Bronner get into Gaza to speak to Palestinians.

That all sounds reasonable except for one thing. Like the NYT, The Times of London’s reports were all datelined Jersualem and for its detailed coverage of events on the ground in Gaza the paper seemingly relied on local stringers. And it managed to report in considerable detail both the use of WP and the devastating injuries being caused. So what about The New York Times? Did the paper have someone on the ground in Gaza and if so, why didn’t its coverage match its English counterpart?

Well yes, the paper did have someone on the ground in Gaza. Her name was Taghreed El-Khodary, a Palestinian journalist and she was the paper’s local correspondent, able to go places and speak to people inaccessible to Bronner and Kershner. On January 19th, 2009, she featured in a lengthy readers’ Q&A session reported in the Lede blog on the NYT website where she was asked about evidence that she had seen about the use of WP. She replied, inter alia: “I could find evidence of the use of white phosphorus bombs……As a result, we wrote about the use of the phosphorus. Israel used white phosphorus in densely populated areas.”

Ms El-Khodary may well have written about white phosphorous but if so, her reports about its use, the evidence she had found and her assertion that the weapon was used in “densely populated areas” never appeared in her paper, at least no edition available in any archive that I could search.

In all of this, it may entirely be a coincidence that the NYT’s Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner has what many would see as a major conflict of interest. He is married to an Israeli citizen and his son is a soldier in the Israeli army. Philip Weiss in his Mondoweiss blog reported on The New York Times response when Bronner’s background became known: “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’ executive editor, Bill Keller, has kept Bronner in Jerusalem, presumably hoping that the issue dies down and no one says anything about it.” (Taghreed El-Khodary resigned when the NYT refused to reassign Bronner and spoke of her “disappointment” at the paper’s decision). The NYT’s other Jerusalem-based correspondent Isabel Kershner is an Israeli citizen.

Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that such considerations would or could affect how a journalist covers a particular story or how a newspaper should regard his or her stories. But put it this way. If CJ Chivers was a Libyan citizen, or was married to one, and had a son who was fighting for the rebels in Benghazi and all this was known to the world, would The New York Times have been just as quick to publish his story about Gaddafi’s use of cluster bombs, just as confident that it could weather the inevitable controversy?

About Ed Moloney

journalist

Other posts by .


Posted In:

No Responses Yet

  1. Avi
    April 21, 2011, 12:06 am

    It was a good piece of reporting that well reflected the horrors visited upon Palestinian civilians by Israeli white phosphorous. But it came far too late, like the horse that bolted the stable. It also smacked of catch up by the Gray Lady, as if someone in the New York HQ had realized that the paper really ought to say something about the matter given the level of international concern over Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But by this stage the horse had galloped several fields away.

    Ed Maloney’s article is good, but he forgets that like the Israeli media, the media in the US refrains as often as possible from criticizing the government or the military during an ongoing ‘war’.

    From the Israeli perspective, two factors contributed to the media’s ‘late response’, if you will, to the atrocities:

    (1) The military censor placed some heavy restrictions on the Israeli press, as well as foreign journalists.

    (2) Israelis, even so-called ‘leftists,’ steer clear of voicing their critical views during an ongoing Israeli attack — or as those with a heart of stone would call it, “a military operation” — lest such criticism undermine or jeopardize the soldiers’ lives or the government’s objectives, or some such nonsense.

    It’s really no different than the “Support the Troops” or “Don’t undermine our president” shtick that many peddle in the US whenever the military is deployed overseas.

    So, Maloney’s characterization, when he writes,

    as if someone in the New York HQ had realized that the paper really ought to say something about the matter given the level of international concern

    is rather naive.

    Still, to end on a positive note, I think the article is a good roundup of the bias surrounding such issues.

    • lysias
      April 21, 2011, 10:29 am

      But I thought the New York Times was an American paper, not an Israeli one. (Just like The Times (of London) is a British paper, not an Israeli one.)

  2. straightline
    April 21, 2011, 2:15 am

    For all of the cynicism of myself and others about NYT’s biased view of the I/P issue, here is a reasonably good take by NYT on the cluster bombs Israel dropped on Lebanon in 2006 as a ceasefire was being negotiated.

    link to nytimes.com

  3. Sonja
    April 21, 2011, 2:27 am

    Israel fired over 1.2 Million Cluster Bombs at Lebanon during its 33 day offensive, 90% of which were fired in the last 3 days of the conflict, AFTER the UN Resolution 1701 was passed.

    “What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs,” the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.
    link to haaretz.com

  4. Sonja
    April 21, 2011, 2:28 am

    NB! American cluster bombs

  5. Robert767
    April 21, 2011, 3:44 am

    NYT reaction to the use of weapons is but one of a nearly endless array of double standards regarding Israel’s near daily assaults and crimes against Palestinians.A valid question to ask is how many dead Palestinians and over how many years is required before the “international community””intervenes”,what level of death and destruction,theft of land,collective punishment illegal siege etc in Palestine before the holier than thou “West”-killers of over 1 million Iraqis 1991-2003-declare a “humanitarian disaster’ in Palestine?The really tragic thing in my view is that Israel could be stopped in it’s tracks without resort to force, by the US ceasing all aid-financial,weapons,diplomatic-for the love of God[Allah] the US vetos a Security council resolution which EXACTLY mirrors it’s stated position on the “settlements”.

  6. MHughes976
    April 21, 2011, 7:10 am

    And it’s interesting to note that Rupert Murdoch, who owns the London Times, was not exercising proprietorial influence to censor those reports from Gaza, at least in this respect. But then he’s in competition with other UK papers some of whom have a visible degree of sympathy with the Palestinians.
    Mind you, I wish Mr. Moloney could spell ‘phosphorus’.

    • lysias
      April 21, 2011, 10:31 am

      I think there’s been a crackdown since 2006. It was my impression that BBC coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war was much more objective than that of the Gaza war in 2008-9.

  7. pabelmont
    April 21, 2011, 9:38 am

    I suppose Qaddafi was using cluster bombs in a legitimate way (against enemy soldiers) and not “against civilians”, just as Israel was using WP legitimately (that is, whatever it was doing with them, it was not using them “against civilians”).

    WP: to make smoke: Was Israel running large numbers of troops into Gaza which required being hidden by smoke? WP: to light up an area: was Israel using them ONLY at night (and only in that way)?

    When an army has such a high, such a very high, reputation for care, competence, control, (to say nothing of exquisite morality, the greatest in the world, sort of the way the USA’s Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world, etc.), then — in that case — what can we say of all these claims of mistakes? Dropping WP on UN? (“So sorry, my mistake”). Etc. To me the easily anticipatable consequences of making hi-tech warfare in a crowded place must be considered a deliberate consequence.

    In my view, use of WP in a manner that could — even possibly — fall to earth among civilian persons while still burning is a war crime. Whether it does so or not!

Leave a Reply