Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner are being acclaimed by some liberal American critics of Israeli policies for their two stories last week on Israeli war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law during its attack on Gaza last summer.
True, given the record of the New York Times and its correspondents of repeated obfuscation about the realities of the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”–which would be better described as “the Israeli repression of the Palestinians”—the stories do represent a willingness on the part of the Times to face up to at least some of the grim realities of Israeli policies and actions.
Even so, both stories are in some respects seriously misleading.
Jodi Rudoren
On January 26, in a story entitled “Disillusioned by War, Israeli Soldiers Muted in 1967 Are Given Fuller Voice,” Rudoren wrote about a new Israeli documentary,“Censored Voices,” that reveals deliberate Israeli attacks on Egyptian civilians in the 1967 war, as well as other atrocities.
But then Rudoren adds, dismissively—maybe even contemptuously–that “the film raises concerns that, viewed without consideration for the existential threat Israel faced at the time, it could become catnip for contemporary critics.”
There is no need for me to analyze whether it is true that Israel faced a threat to its survival in 1967, for in his excellent dismantling of Rudoren on that issue (“NYT perpetuates myth was ‘fighting for its very survival during 1967 war,’ Jan. 29, 2015,), Stephen Shalom discusses the decisive evidence that a number of leading Israeli generals at the time—and none other than Menachem Begin later—believed not only that Israel faced no such “existential threat” but that it would easily defeat the Egyptian forces. This assessment was shared by the U.S. Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA. As Steve concludes his essay, “to offer up the pro-Israel myth as if it were undisputed fact is simply propaganda.”
However, I do wish to add one point: For Rudoren to dismiss a painfully honest Israeli documentary—none of whose factual claims she challenges—as “catnip for critics,” is unforgivable, because of its obvious implications. As the Wikipedia discussion of “catnip” puts it, catnip “is used as a recreational substance for pet cats’ enjoyment…commonly leading them to roll on the ground, paw at it, lick it, and chew it.”
Isabel Kershner
In her January 28 NYT story, “Israeli Group Says Military Attacks on Palestinian Homes Appeared to Violate International Law,” Kershner writes about a new B’Tselem report that described the Israeli attacks on Gaza, especially on residential buildings, as grave violations of international law
It is a serious and mostly commendable article, particularly because Kershner noted that previously-released reports by Amnesty International and the Israeli chapter of Physicians for Human Rights had reached similar—actually, even more devastating—conclusions. There is one serious problem, however, with Kershner’s story. Almost all of it is drawn from the written report of B’Tselem–until Kershner writes that “B’Tselem concluded, however, that Israel was not deliberately trying to harm civilians.”
Presented as a stand-alone, one-sentence paragraph, Kershner clearly intends to draw particular attention it, as it would appear to absolve Israel of even worse war crimes than those discussed in the report. The problem is that the written report of B’Tselem makes no such statement. I emailed Kershner to point this out, and she responded that in a briefing by the B’Tselem staff, it was stated that “they did not believe that [deliberate killings of civilians] was the case.” Kershner’s response to my query clearly suggested that I was just quibbling, that it didn’t matter whether or not the cited statement came from a formal and public written report, but in fact it matters a great deal. An unverifiable account of an apparently off-the-record “briefing” is quite different: if B’Tselem wanted to go on official record as absolving Israel of deliberately targeting civilians, it would have said so in the report.
Moreover, the January 28 Haaretz story about the B’Tselem report, (Gili Cohen, “IDF broke international law in dozens of Gaza war strikes, Israeli rights group says,”) makes no claim that B’Tselem said that Israel hadn’t attacked civilians—even though it seems fair to assume that Cohen attended the same oral briefing. In any event, there is no question that Israel has repeatedly deliberately targeted civilians throughout its history–the evidence that this has been the case is decisive, including what many Israeli generals have openly stated. While that doesn’t prove that it did so last summer, when you bomb apartment houses, the distinction between “massively indiscriminate” and “deliberately targeting civilians” all but disappears.
In any case, an earlier report by the Israeli Physicians for Human Rights, in conjunction with a number of other human rights and physician groups-a 250 page report actually mentioned in Kershner’s story, but not described—lays all doubt to rest about the issue, for in Ben Norton’s excellent summary (“Independent investigation details Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza,” Jan. 29), the report states that Israel
- used civilians as human shields;
- shot civilians dead at close range;
- left mortally wounded children on the ground to die, even after soldiers made eye contact with them;
- conducted multiple consecutive strikes on a single location (“double taps”), killing injured survivors and those attempting to rescue them;
- bombed medical clinics that were acting as shelters for civilians and the wounded;
- “deliberately” attacked hospitals;
- prevented emergency medical evacuation, even by international organizations such as Red Cross;
- killed and injured “many” medical teams that were evacuating the injured;
- refused to allow civilians to exit areas being attacked;
- targeted civilian escape routes;
- shelled ambulances;
- attacked civilians attempting to flee areas under fire;
- physically beat civilians;
- denied civilians food and water;
- and more
In sum, Rudoren and Kershner deserve both praise and criticism for their recent important stories.
This post first appeared on Slater’s site yesterday under the title, Two Cheers and One Boo for Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner.
Thank you Prof. Slater.
Sorry. I can’t accept the idea that these two propagandists deserve “praise” for their recent articles. What, one article each which sort of exposes the truth about Israel’s war crimes (with plenty of qualifications and spin, of course) out of how many previous and yet to come articles which will be filled with lies and misinformation?
Rudoren’s supposed praiseworthy article is little more than an assignment for Propaganda 101. She promotes the lie that Israel was under some sore of existential threat in 1967, justifies their war of aggression based on that lie, and salts this little tidbit of propaganda into the NYT archives for future use by other Hasbarists.
Kershner comes a little closer to actually writing a piece of decent journalism. But of course, as Slater points out, she then tarnishes the effort with a blatant lie at the end. Again, a nice bit of salting for later use of a lie by other’s who will quote the mighty NYT as a source of legitimate information.
Praise? Nah. These two should one day be brought before a Truth and Justice Commission, (along with many of the other spin doctors at the Times who write about U.S. foreign policy and use lies to promote our wars of aggression) to account for their misdeeds.
Two Cheers and One Boo to Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner
Shouldn’t that read –
“Two Cheers and MULTIPLE Boos to Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner” ?
And perhaps “One Cheer and TWO boos to Jerome Slater ?
Just asking . . .
How about mouse traps for the zio mice?
Here are the only two really effective mouse traps imo…..the bully pulpit and the David Harris-Gershon suggestion.
http://www.redressonline.com/2015/01/how-obama-could-take-on-defeat-the-zionist-lobby/
January 29, 2015
How Obama could take on, defeat the Zionist lobby
by Alan Hart
excerpts…
”My view is that he could set in motion a change of political dynamics to ensure the Zionist lobby’s defeat by taking to the bully pulpit – going over the heads of Congress with a primetime television and radio address in which he would spell out, explicitly, why it is in America’s own best that a comprehensive deal with Iran be done.
He could also point out that even if the day did come when Iran possessed nuclear bombs, the notion that it would use them to launch a first strike on Israel is ludicrous because doing so would invite Iran’s complete destruction. On this point he could add that those in Congress who insist that Iran poses a threat to Israel’s existence are recycling Zionist propaganda nonsense.
That said, Obama could then deploy his rhetorical nuclear bomb – a statement to the effect that it is time for American Jews to decide whether they are Americans first or not.
And he could put flesh on that bone by adding something like this:
” The question our American Jewish citizens need to come to grips with is the following. Is it acceptable that a lobby which represents the views of less than a quarter of America’s Jews, and by no means speaks for all Israeli Jews, can cause Congress to defy policies enunciated by the elected president of the United states and commander-in-chief of its armed forces?”
If I was drafting a bully pulpit speech for Obama I would have him add that while he understood and empathised with American and European Jewish fears that anti-Semitism is on the rise, he could not leave unsaid the fact that the prime cause of the creeping transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism is Israel’s behaviour – its defiance of international law and all that comes with it, including ongoing colonisation of the occupied West Bank and brutal rejection of the Palestinian claim for an acceptable amount of justice.
Question: How would Jewish Americans respond if the Zionist lobby continues its campaign to kill the prospect of a comprehensive agreement with Iran and President Obama confronted it in the way I have suggested above?
While I was thinking about the answer I read an open letter to President Obama by the Jewish American writer David Harris-Gershon. As published by Tikkun Daily, it reads as follows (my emphasis added).
You don’t know my name, though you know the names of those who represent hundreds of thousands of American Jews who, like me, publicly support your diplomatic efforts with Iran.
And while you don’t know my name, you know that I and those like me represent 52 per cent of US Jews who support your diplomatic efforts over those presented by congressional Republicans and Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who are now shamelessly working, behind your back, in concert to undermine your administration’s historic gains.
As the leader of Israel, Netanyahu often claims to speak for all Jews, absurdly conflating his political ideals with those of American Jewry. But he does not speak for most of us. Indeed, there are over three million American Jews for whom he does not speak. Over three million voices in the American Jewish community who reject current efforts to scuttle historic nuclear negotiations with Iran. Who reject efforts to undermine peaceful diplomacy. And who reject John Boehner’s outrageous breach of protocol by inviting a foreign leader to deliver a response to your State of the Union address.
I know you are rightly outraged, viewing Netanyahu as having spat in your face after your consistent defence of Israel on the international stage. I know that you and officials in your administration feel as though there should be consequences for what is about to transpire on 3 March, when Netanyahu will rise before Congress as the leader of a foreign “ally” and publicly reject your diplomatic efforts for political gain back home.
This, in my view, should be the consequence: the amplification of “pro-Israel” voices like mine in the American Jewish community who reject Netanyahu, be it for his desire to bomb Iran, his desire to continue Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians or his expansion of settlements and rejection of peace.
I’m not actually asking for a personal invitation to the White House, though I would certainly not turn one down. What I’m asking is that you invite American Jewish leaders and activists to the White House on 3 March to publicly amplify those liberal and progressive voices Netanyahu claims to represent. I’m asking that you use this as an opportunity to reveal to the American public that most American Jews see Netanyahu as a harmful force, both in Israel, in the Middle East and in the world. I’m asking that you give us a chance to support your diplomatic efforts with Iran passionately and eloquently as Congress rises repeatedly to applaud Netanyahu’s damaging rhetoric.
And after you have done so, I ask that you invite civil leaders and activists in the Iranian-American and Palestinian-American communities in order to amplify their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace voices.
The New York Times calls what Israel and the GOP [“Grand Old Party” – the Republican Party] have done to be a disrespectful “breach of sense and diplomacy.” What NYT editors did not say is that this breach is an opportunity, now that the hole is gaping, for you to counter Netanyahu’s voice with powerful ones which exist within the nation you lead.
I ask that you let us help you lead.
Best,
An American Jew
I agree with Harris-Gershon. Netanyahu, the Zionist lobby and Boehner have overplayed their hand to such an extent that they have created an opportunity for Obama to take them on. If he does, the result will be what Harris-Gershon is calling for – an amplification of American Jewish voices which reject Netanyahu and all he represents and the support of a significant (possibly overwhelming) majority of America’s Jews for Obama’s efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement with Iran. And that would be a major and very public defeat for the Zionist lobby, a defeat which I think would mark the beginning of the end of its ability to call the policy shots.”
Unfortunately I don’t think either of those things is going to happen.
One thing that has happened though is the piggybacking team of congressional zios and cuban exiles has been kneecapped a bit with Obama’s opening up of Cuba. The zio and cuban hardliners have always backed each up and cooperated to advance their separate agendas.
Since the new Cuban policy is not likely to ever be reversed even with Jewish lobby interference, the Cuba cabal is going to have less power and incentive to help the Zios with their dirty work in congress. The only thing they might get out of cooperation with the zios now is some campaign money…their dream of overthrowing Cuba and re creating Batista’s Cuba is over.
Thanks, though I don’t see much basis for praise.