The New York Times today printed a long article giving credence to Israeli claims that Razzan al-Najjar, the young medic killed by an Israeli sniper a week ago, was not innocent. The article takes at face value Israel’s desperate efforts to taint the young woman, whom the army has previously maintained it killed by accident.
The first paragraph announces the Times’s service to Israel:
The Israeli military published a brief video on Thursday aimed at showing that a Palestinian medic killed by Israeli forces last week was not the neutral health care worker she has been portrayed as.
The article parrots Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, about al-Najjar: that in a video interview of the medic that the Israelis passed along she described herself as a “human shield.”
Not till paragraph 20 of 22, does the Times state what Jonathan Ofir reported yesterday, the Israeli video cut short al-Najjar’s actual statement in an effort to misrepresent her.
In the longer video, the comment that the military translated as “I act as a human shield” was part of a sentence in which Ms. Najjar said, “I’m acting as a human rescue shield to protect the injured inside the armistice line.”
Nonetheless, Times author Herbert Buchsbaum, a desk editor in New York, chimes in: al-Najjar “may have been a more complex person than either side is making her out to be.”
What can the Times mean by “more complex”? That is, she was not only saving lives, but was part of the protest. Apparently there is something “complex” about this and therefore Israel isn’t really guilty of lying, just oversimplifying.
That is obfuscation. Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives. Calling this “complex” is just the NY Times saying she wasn’t really sweet and innocent. If Russia did this the Times would call it the cynical slander and lie that it is. But since it is Israel they have to make this into a he said/she said debate. There is a “battle” of narratives about al-Najjar, the Times says.
There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly. The NYT wants to give some sort of face-saving excuse for this and all they can come up with is this subtle endorsement of the slander about her lack of innocence. The video, Buchsbaum writes, is “an effort to chip away at Ms. Najjar’s image of fresh-faced innocence.”
If the Times really wanted to find out more about Najjar, it would not ape propaganda. It would send out reporters to interview her family and friends. Or they could call B’Tselem to ask its opinion. No, the Times has a deskbound New York man parroting Israeli talking points.
Calling al-Najjar a human shield is a serious charge. Shouldn’t they have asked her mother for a reaction? The family would surely tell you: This is despicable.
H/t Norman Finkelstein.
Hmmm — I wonder — do Palestinians have the right, now, to kill “complex” Israeli persons? Is that what the NYT — ever radiant in its reputation as defender of human rights — is saying or implying? In other words, per NYT, Israeli people who might seem to be “innocent” and “civilians” may in a proper case instead be regarded as acceptable targets for deliberate non-war-crime military killing? and shall the determination of this delicious complexity repose solely with the Palestinians?
What scares me — and I lived in the Gaza Strip for six years and the West Bank for nearly four — is that “complex” Israelis should be permitted to travel at will. I witnessed first hand their violence. They shot and killed one of my colleagues and injured another. Perhaps a people who lived in the shtetlach and ghettos for centuries should be confined to the shtetl that they have constructed for themselves in the Middle East, complete with razor wire, watch towers, and walls. The aim should be to keep them confined to their “safe space” that Americans subsidize.
DJ/JN/PW- “There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly.”
Over at CounterPunch, there is a review of the Liberty attack, following which Israel claimed that the Liberty was to blame.
“Predictably, Israel’s first response was to blame the victim, a tactic that has served them so well in the Palestinian situation….“The Liberty contributed decisively toward its identification as an enemy ship,” the IDF report concluded.” (Jeffrey St. Clair)
Israel traditionally relies upon lies and deceptions to achieve its objectives. To point this out opens one to charges of anti-Semitism. To point out the pro-Israel bias of the Times Zionist reporters and editors also opens one to charges of anti-Semitism. America’s newspaper of record should move its offices to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and be done with it.
Democracy Now does a fairly decent job of shedding light on Israel’s “Human Shield” deception
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/6/8/israeli_military_pushes_misleading_video_in
The NYT always fights for the Palestinians
The NYT fought slavery in 1865. The NYT did not fight with Israel who wore the confederate uniform.
The NYT fought Nazism in 1944. The NYT did not fight with Israel who wore the swastika
The NYT fought for civil rights in 1968. The NYT did not fight with Israel who lived as a police dog in Alabama.
The NYT fought apartheid in 1985. The NYT did not fight with Israel who was a South African policewoman.
The NYT always fights with the Palestinians whether they are slaves, Jim Crow non citizens or victims of totalitarianism. It doesnt matter what uniform Isrsel wears.
There is only one exception. When Israel wears the Star of David.
The NYT is in a hopeless place
https://youtu.be/tg00YEETFzg