Let me start this indictment of the New York Times’ coverage of Israel/Palestine on a personal note. I’ve been following the U.S. mainstream media closely for more than a decade for Mondoweiss, with a particular focus on the Times. In 2019 I spoke at the annual conference of the excellent Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and my topic was “How the New York Times Rigs News on Israel Palestine.” (My talk, available on YouTube, has gotten nearly 27,000 hits, which suggests that there is interest in the subject).
So when it comes to New York Times bias, I’m not naive. But I admit to being astonished, almost speechless, at the fact that more than a week has passed since Amnesty International released its landmark report charging that Israel was characterized by “apartheid” — and that so far, America’s newspaper of record has not printed a single word. The omission is especially stunning because Times journalists often cite Amnesty reports about human rights violations elsewhere in the world. Just last month, for instance the paper mentioned Amnesty in 7 different articles.
That the Times continues to ignore the Amnesty news is also astonishing because there has been plenty of public debate about it. The pro-Israel lobby is “going haywire” over Amnesty’s finding. AIPAC, the lobby’s old warhorse, predictably called it an “outrageous slander,” and implicity endorsed the charges that it is “antisemitic.” The more liberal Zionist wing of the lobby, organizations like Partners for Progressive Israel, issued a more balanced reaction:
While we therefore refrain from using the word “apartheid,” we appreciate the work of Amnesty International insofar as it directs American and international attention to the reality of ongoing injustices.
U.S. politicians have also chimed in, mostly to attack Amnesty. The State Department went out of its way to “reject the label” on “the world’s only Jewish state.” And Haaretz, the leading newspaper in Israel, has not been afraid to run at least 5 articles so far about the Amnesty report. So the Times‘s failure to report any of this is no oversight, but a deliberate effort to suppress the news.
What happened? Last April, when Human Rights Watch released a similar report that said Israel practices “apartheid,” the paper’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Patrick Kingsley, did publish an article — even though he attacked the report before he even summarized it fully. A source in the Israel/Palestine journalism world is nearly certain that Kingsley has pitched an article this time around, but that Times editors have blocked it so far.
How long can the Times news blackout continue? Is it possible that the paper’s higher ups recognize that they will have to eventually publish something, but by the time they get around to it the news will have simmered down enough to pass with less notice? And will Times opinion writers like Thomas Friedman and Bret Stephens ever say anything? If they do, how can the paper in good conscience run editorial pieces about events that never appeared in its news pages?
Meanwhile, brave organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace were not afraid to speak up and be counted. JVP’s Rabbinic Council did not hesitate to release an inspiring statement in response to Amnesty’s finding. Here is part of it:
We, the Rabbinic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace, stand by the recent reports which use the term ‘apartheid’ to describe Israeli rule over Palestinians. The past year’s reports by B’tselem, Human Rights Watch and now Amnesty International contain well-documented evidence describing how the State of Israel maintains a system of identity-based domination over Palestinians. This detailed evidence demonstrates the systemic and shocking human rights violations and extreme violence and cruelty unleashed upon Palestinians living both under Israeli military and civil jurisdiction.
The bias at the Times has been obvious for decades, but this is truly uncharted waters now.
Not even mouth frothing opinions from Stephens and Friedman or someone in Congress? Which I can guarantee HAVE been written! Nothing about the litany of tweets and rabid rantings from Congress members. Not even a word about the farcical press conference and statement from the White House. The Times has gone completely comms dark and AWOL on Israel and the third major report of this kind in a year!
They’ve somehow found the time to wax nauseatingly lyrical about Whoopi fuckin’ Goldberg, spewed vast amounts of “human rights” angled articles about the Winter Olympics on a daily basis, yet anything related to Israel has been effectively denied access to their their pages and website.
I’m truly curious as to their angle and grand plan here.
Do they seriously believe they, as the quintessential newspaper of record, can ignore such monumental report from such a well known and respected organization like Amnesty International without anyone noticing, calling them out, or some kind of public pushback from Amnesty International itself?
Are they really just petulantly delaying in some kind of bizarre political expediency or to minimize the impact of the report on Israel’s behalf?
Are they maybe in full level 10 internal damage control regarding Israel and their position on Israel/Palestine as a whole?
Are they maybe, given their recent shift in tone and sentiment towards the Palestinian cause, and in the wake of last year’s Sheikh Jarrah incident and Gaza atrocities, possibly even looking to roll out their own detailed report and deep dive into Israel as a de facto Apartheid state, so they’ve kept the story from the press so as to not bury the lead?
Or maybe the exact opposite and working feverishly on a total knock-down, drag-out, bare-knuckles, no-holds-barred smear piece to utterly delegitimize and discredit Amnesty International in a public, state-sponsored, political hit job?
Or maybe making some kind of abstract ‘silence is consent’ statement?
Or are they still busy crafting by committee the most excruciatingly carefully worded and lawyerly news article they somehow plays the entire field in a miraculous needle threading attempt to appease the liberals, Israel, their lobbyists, J a street, the ADL, Congress, Jews, and NGOs like Amnesty, HRW and B’Tselem?
I’m intrigued by the New York Times’s complete silence on this report.
I have tried repeatedly to confront Natasha Frost, editor of the NY Times Brief for Europe, on this issue and have sent her many (unanswered tho I am sure she read them) email messages – which I will also send with this article. The TImes has always been pro-Jewish but now their reporting reeks of defensive journalism. But what can you expect with Thomas Friedman, self-imposed holy of holiest of journalism gods, just waiting to pounce. After all, HE’S A MULTI-PULTIZER PRIZE WINNER!!!!!
Even FoxNews reported it. (Pejoratively, but reported it.)
A bit OT, but not entirely. Includes important comment on official inquiries.
https://www.redressonline.com/2022/02/didnt-those-now-enraged-at-boris-johnsons-smears-of-keir-starmer-defame-corbyn-at-every-turn/
“When the public outcry reached a peak in 2012, Starmer played the go-to trick in the Establishment book. He commissioned an ‘independent’ lawyer he knew to write a report exonerating him. Mistakes have been made at lower levels, lessons will be learnt… you know what it says. “
Just a shot in the dark here…perhaps the good folks at the NYT realize that if they, The Newspaper of Record, were to respond to the AI Report – either for it or against it – that it would, in effect, normalized the Report in the discourse and the resulting cascade of consequences for the NYT/Zionism would have been/will be enormous. For starters, if the Times supports the findings what impact will that have on Zionism’s invaluable IHRA “definition” of antisemitism? Any weakening of that insidious fabrication would be a staggering blow to Zionist disinformation efforts.
How? For starters it would immediately topple this pillar of IHRA:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
A positive verdict from the Times for the AI Report, validating the finding that the Occupation is, indeed, an apartheid endeavor, would also deeply undercut, perhaps fatally, Zionism’s desperate effort to demonize BDS. A positive NYT evaluation would bestow a transcendent benediction on SJP/BDS/IAW/JVP and Palestine solidarity as a whole were it to state that the AI Report was honest and accurate.
I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the Times editorial board but might it be that they decided (based on information they have that we do not have) that with a shooting war on the cusp in Ukraine that by waiting a bit till the shooting starts and Ukraine devours the headlines that then would be an ideal time to comment on the AI Report? Jus’ sayin’.
Q: Is it antisemitic according to IHRA to ask these questions or to fail to ask them?
View 166 Palestine posters on the subject of intra-Zionist discord