The front page of the New York Times today carries a long news analysis by Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren on the Palestinians’ bid for international recognition. The thrust of the article is that the Palestinians are going too far, too fast.
We learn that the strategy has “upset Washington,” and a former Israeli general at a pro-Israel DC thinktank explains that the world is being “ushered into a new era of political and legal conflict” — and that’s “a dangerous game.”
But let me focus on two egregious statements in the article. Second paragraph:
International recognition, by 135 countries and counting, is what Palestinians are betting could eventually force changes on the ground — without their leaders having to make the concessions or assurances they have long avoided.
I have a question for the Times. What “concessions” should an occupied people make whose land has been continuously stolen and whose people are routinely being killed extrajudicially and jailed without trial?
As for “long avoided,” the PLO recognized Israel more than 25 years ago, inside the 1967 borders. What more assurances does Israel need?
And late in the piece there is this sop to Israel over possible war crimes charges:
Israel, which has already undertaken 13 criminal investigations of its military’s behavior during this summer’s war with Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, could also deter the International Criminal Court by proving its own justice system deals seriously with suspected offenders.
Don’t bet on it. Consider how well these investigations have gone in the past. Remember the Gaza onslaught of ’08-09, when hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed and the world demanded accountability (of both Israeli and Palestinian forces)? Human Rights Watch tells us:
To date, neither Israel nor Hamas has held the perpetrators of these violations to account, despite recommendations… that Israel and Hamas conduct credible, independent investigations.
In Israel, only one soldier has been convicted for a wartime abuse: he got seven months in prison for the theft of a credit card.
The New York Times should have provided this “context,” so we could judge how well these investigations are likely to go.
“In Israel, only one soldier has been convicted for a wartime abuse: he got seven months in prison for the theft of a credit card. ”
I think he bought beer with it.
The IDF seems to take looting by its troops much more seriously than killing. It’s almost like they’re saying “hey, guys, don’t steal from the natives…that’s the government’s job!”
As to the “investigations” the only purpose they serve is to provide Israel’s supporters with the claim that Israel is a nation of laws and on one is above them. But has any IDF personnel ever served significant jail time for murder of an Arab? No, never.
Perhaps the quotation marks should go around “reporter” instead of around “NYT.”
As with the recent deplorable piece by Dennis Ross, it is good that NYT airs these perspectives. It is good that people can clearly see what mentality, what morality, what values have shaped U.S. policy for so many years.
Once again, the NYT readers’ comments are instructive. How long can they keep on offending them like this? You can bet that for every reader who comments or recommends a post online there are a score more who quietly agree.
Stop reading the NYTimes! I avoid all mainstream media. I can’t take the lies anymore. Eventually, if enough of us leave their viewing or reading pool, they will have to change.
“The New York Times should have provided this context, so we could judge how well these investigations are likely to go.”
Once again, a writer who assumes that the NYT is something other than a blatant propaganda tool. Why we continue to legitimize this rag is beyond me. The only thing that should be written about the Times, the only time it should be quoted or referenced as concerns Israel or any foreign policy issue, is to point out the lies and misinformation that are its stock in trade. North does this, but then he reinforces the notion that the Times is an actual News source by suggesting that all we need to do is remind them that they should provide a context for their propaganda smears. This is particularly true of any thing written by Judi Rudoren. To even suggest that she is a journalist is offensive. Her articles are so absurdly transparent as to be downright criminal. She should be ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.