You’re the NY Times bureau chief in Jerusalem. The pricetag attack on a Palestinian family by Jewish terrorists that burned a baby to death is getting headlines around the world for what it reveals about the Israeli occupation and the disappearing possibility for a future Palestinian state.
How do you write this up in a way least damaging to Israel’s reputation?
Well, you lump the story with the murder of a woman at the Pride Parade in Jerusalem over the weekend. The title honors the Israeli soul: “Soul-Searching in Israel After Bias Attacks on Gays and Arabs.” You agonize:
How did it come to this?
You go out and interview a lot of Jews in West Jerusalem. You don’t interview any Palestinians at all. Israel is 20 percent Palestinian. But one out of five Israelis are completely ignored in your report. Their views don’t count. Their views aren’t even worth asking them what they are. You tell us how Jews are coping:
Naftali Sirchuk, 20, in the signature white button-down, black pants and black-velvet skullcap of his yeshiva, sat for nearly an hour arguing with Nir Cohen, 30, and Vered Hoshmand, 29, who both have degrees in philosophy.
You have to bring up the murder of the Palestinian baby, but then, right away, you pivot:
The attack on the Dawabsheh home may have more international significance; the Palestinian foreign minister raised it in a meeting this week with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, reported. But for many in Jerusalem, the stabbing that killed young Shira was equally painful, highlighting the tension in a city where a third of the Jewish residents are ultra-Orthodox.
That’s where you shift the story away from occupation and pricetag — terror attacks on Palestinians in response to Israeli government action against settlers — and highlight the gay pride parade attack, which has no connection with the occupation.
Then you follow with 12 consecutive paragraphs purely about anti-gay prejudice. You shift the emphasis completely away from occupation and pricetag to the ultra-orthodox.
As awful as the Pride Parade stabbings were, they are not as politically significant as the attack in the West Bank. That attack revealed the power of the violent settler movement. So your article concentrates on blaming the ultra-orthodox and leaves out the occupation and pricetag.
Why? Because occupation and pricetag is the deathknell of the two-state solution. “Israel will not be able to move even 10,000 settlers, let alone 100,000, without creating a bloodbath,” I wrote the other day, and called the two-state solution “a pipedream.” The Times of Israel says the same thing: “[T]he time has come to say it out loud. To the Israeli right wing: You have won. No Palestinian state will exist here beside the State of Israel,” Avi Issacharoff wrote from the West Bank.
You are Jodi Rudoren, the bureau chief of the New York Times, and you can never state this simple truth. You must massage it away forever, so that Americans don’t abandon Israel.
Thanks James for this superb dissection of yet another disgraceful Rudoren/NYT whitewash. Thanks for exposing the NYT for what it is on the i/p issue; a zionist propaganda rag.
“Jodi Rudoren, the bureau chief of the New York Times, can never state this simple truth. She must massage it away forever, so that Americans don’t abandon Israel.”
Perfectly stated
Thank you, James North, for explaining the Great and Powerful Rudoren’s masterful use of misdirection.
I read it this morning and it was terrible even by Jodi-Jodi-Jodi standards.
–But for many in Jerusalem, the stabbing that killed young Shira was equally painful, highlighting the tension in a city where a third of the Jewish residents are ultra-Orthodox.– “That’s where you shift the story away from occupation and pricetag — terror attacks on Palestinians in response to Israeli government action against settlers — and highlight the gay pride parade attack, which has no connection with the occupation.”
I noticed that too and I could feel her relief as she turned her thoughts to the Jewish victims and never mentioned the Palestinians again.
Chuck Schumer has learned this trick too. As quoted by the NYT yesterday: “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”
Samah Salaime has a very interesting account at 972mag of how she got unexpectedly drafted into translating for Netanyahu when he spoke with a relative of the hospitalized family. There’s a lot she covered but this part really stood out. It takes place after the meeting (behind closed doors) ends.
“The meeting came to an end. The door opened. Muhammad and Netanyahu stood facing one another. Muhammad, the brave doctor, recoiled from Netanyahu’s attempt to hug him, and moved back. They shook hands, and it was over.”
Note how Netanyahu waits until the door is open before trying to hug the man. Like most sociopaths he understands what is expected of a respectable politician. If he must make a gesture to show his “compassion” then it will be on camera, the better to reap the positive visuals. And that’s what it is all about, looking good for the camera. Rudoren’s latest column is a perfect example of this. Never mind what Israeli society or the government are actually doing to stop racism do we have good pictures of folks standing around looking troubled?