My take on the December 24 NY Times news story on Breaking the Silence is somewhat different from that published here yesterday. Of course, I’ve always been the glass-is-half-empty rather than the glass-is-half-full kind of guy. Maybe I’m just too cynical, but I read the story as a classical NY Times story on Israel: essentially dishonest—ok, maybe half-honest–but just informative enough to pass for a fair and unbiased piece, when in fact it is grievously misleading in a number of ways:
First, it’s the usual he-says, but she-says story, reporting “perspectives” when there is not the slightest doubt that one of the perspectives is clearly true and other is clearly false. Yes, it’s a good thing that the Times is discussing the growing prominence of Breaking the Silence, and its support by some retired generals and Shin Bet directors, but then such statements are “balanced” by criticism from the attackers of BTS. What’s missing is a discussion of the incontrovertible facts. For example, in yesterday’s Haaretz Zeev Sternhell, Israel’s most eminent political philosopher and commentator, says that “In not one case have reports and testimonies collected by Breaking the Silence have been proved wrong.”
Sternhell’s rebuttal of the critics of BTS could have gone much further: over many years literally dozens of impartial investigations and reporting of human rights and international organizations as well as hundreds of news stories (even in the NY Times) and long articles by journalists and academic specialists have made it absolutely incontrovertible that Israel repeatedly commits war crimes and acts of state terrorism. If anything, Breaking the Silence doesn’t go nearly far enough, though of course one can fully understand why it doesn’t.
Second, the Times story reports that the BTS opponents “question” why it’s not enough for the military to investigate itself, and quotes the defense minister as saying that it tried to, but was “unsuccessful.” The Times reports this with a straight face. Surely it knows that no serious observer thinks that Israel’s own “military investigations” of the kind of war crimes examined by BTS are anything but blatant white washes. When it comes to its methods, the “most moral army in the world” routinely lies about its behavior, and every serious, informed, and unbiased observer knows it. And of course it lies, what else can it do?: the actions it purports to “investigate” are the consequences, and usually the intended consequences, of its own attitudes and policies. Not a hint of these facts in the Times’ story.
Third, the Times story says that “critics [of BTS] emphasize that the group is partly funded by donations from European governments, which they say amounts to meddling in Israel’s internal affairs;” however, the story neglects to note that the U.S. government provides far larger and unconditional funding to the Israeli government and armed forces (despite their war crimes), or that wealthy American right wing extremists, like Sheldon Adelson, provide far more funds to the extremist Israeli groups who are leading the charge against BTS. Yet more: wouldn’t you think that Times might note that the European governments in question are liberal democracies, with all the implications that follow?
And I could add more. In the end, should we be grateful for some half-truths from the NY Times? Perhaps so, but I’m afraid that’s not how I see it.
Thanks Jerome. It’s fairly safe to say that whenever The Times publishes an article which contains some element of criticism of or truth about Israel, the real purpose of that article will be to salt half-truths and outright lies into the discussion. This is a tried and true method of propagandizing which so many writers at the times have perfected. Not only does it serve to promote pro-Israel mythology, it also serves as a token “criticism article” of Israel so the Times can have something to point to pretend they are actually reporting and not just spewing propaganda. It’s a win win for them, lose lose for the cause of truth in journalism.
Another fine article in the Pulitzer Prize-worthy series at Mondoweiss on the New York Times’ corrupt dishonesty in reporting about Israel.
The importance of this series is in direct proportion to the NYT’s importance in the world of news reporting, which is to say, one of the summit peaks.
The significance of this corruption at the NYT is not merely that the NYT sets a corrupt standard for other news organizations to follow. Because other news organizations, if motivated to report the facts honestly, and being bolstered by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, can break from the NYT’s corrupt dishonesty.
Therefore the corruption at the NYT reveals a more serious problem. Namely, the same corruption has also captured the other mainstream news organizations. The inescapable conclusion is that America’s entire mainstream news establishment is under the corrupt control of Israel, and Americans whose primary allegiance is to Israel regardless of its corruption.
The facts are also plain that this corruption is destroying America at home and abroad. In defense of free speech and democracy, domestic and foreign, we need more editors and reporters to rally in rebellion against this tyranny.
I haven’t paid a huge amount of attention to this particular story, but I definitely agree that this tendency to focus on ‘perspective’ rather than facts, and to turn everything into a ‘X says this, but on the other hand Y says that’ is a cop-out tactic used by media who don’t dare to report the actual facts – and yes, facts do exist – because they know they will invariably reflect very poorly on Israel. So they retreat to the comfort of ‘perspectives’. And it’s not just the New York Times, but the BBC and increasingly The Guardian and probably most other mainstream news sources too.
I remember during last summer’s World Cup massacre, Ali Abunimah was on the BBC (naturally they tucked him away at about 4am when they knew nobody would be watching). When the interviewer tried the usual ”But the Israelis claim……” line, Ali just retorted by saying ”There is such a thing as facts. Maybe you should focus on them”. The interviewer seemed flustered at such a novel approach and lamely finished the interview by saying something about trying to give a ‘balanced’ report. Funny how ‘balance’ is only ever required when it comes to Israeli massacres and occupations.
BTS has been debunked on several occasions. Use Google since the moderators won’t let me post the evidence.
“When the org is funded by hostile Europe states…”
“MaxNarr”, are you are pretty much a bottomless cesspit of slanderous and unfounded accusations, or did I miss something in the story?