As the discourse shifts, ‘NYT’ stays rooted in the past (the 1800s to be exact)

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr
“The only way to stop this evil is for the red man to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was first, and should be now, for it was never divided.” – Tecumseh

While the New Yorker may be changing the mainstream UWS paradigm with its publication of Munayyer’s excellent article, The New York Times remains firmly entrenched in Zionist talking points.  An new editorial explicitly puts the blame for a hundred Palestinian deaths in Gaza on Hamas, rather than the bombs dropped and missiles fired by Israel.  Many canards are repeated – Hamas has a nihilistic ideology of “hate”, it cares not about the deaths of Palestinian in Gaza, it resorts to violence, it “took control of Gaza in 2007 – all without even a pretense of actual fact-checking.  No mention is made of Hamas winning a democratic election only to be blockaded and attacked.  Naturally, no mention whatsoever is made of Hamas’ primary role as a much-needed social service organization, the actual timeline of recent events, of the historical context of occupation and siege and ethnic cleansing and apartheid.  Unsurprisingly, the editors even throw in the requisite garbage about “the threat of Iran’s nuclear program” and Israel’s “right to defend itself.”

One can only assume that, had the Gray Lady begun publishing 40 years earlier than it actually did, scouring its archives for 1811-12 editorials would surely reveal its scathing contempt for the rhetoric and actions of Shawnee leader Tecumseh, who dared resist the ongoing white settlement, genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.  He would be the blood-thirsty one, while the soldiers under future-president William Henry Harrison’s command would be righteous defenders of white civilians, those inspired settlers who claim the land as their own and destroy the lives and livelihoods of the indigenous people.

History will not remember the New York Times editorial board fondly when equal rights and justice finally come to Palestine.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hi all, First time poster. Very much enjoying the articles and commentary. Of course the NYT is utterly worthless when it comes to the ME. That’s been known for years, nay decades. Sadly, however, the Guardian, which once used to be one of the few mainstream newspapers which didn’t toe the Israeli line, is morphing into the NYT by the day. Their ‘live blog’ has been one IDF tweet after another. They excuse Israeli murder… Read more » But on the international stage, this conflict and the response it has provoked from moderate governments like Turkey’s are game-changers. There are no longer persuadable partners in the region. Washington will defend its old friend. President Obama has made crystal clear that Israel’s operations in Gaza have his full support. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is expected to travel to the region today. Yet, the US is not the power looking to… Read more »

contrary to tshe NYT the LA Time has been more even-handed in its coverage of the IDF attack upon Gaza. Take today’s lead article, “Gaza strife an obstacle for Obama” (subtitle, “A ground invasion by Israel could further weaken the U.S. infgluence in the Mideast”), includes quotes from, among others, Brooking Institution’s Shadi Hamid (“the bottom line is that this will poison everything the U.S. is trying to do in the region” & “ would… Read more »

I haven’t read the LA Times articles, but from the headlines you quote, it sounds as though they are more concerned over the impact of this war on US politics than on the people of Gaza. It appears that the writers are not concerned about the fact that civilians are being massacred, but that it might make life tricky for Obama and Clinton. Not much to celebrate.

Worth it to read the Comments below the article, sorted by Reader Picks.