Today’s New York Times editorial on the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh should have appeared weeks ago. Nearly a month has passed since she was shot in the head while reporting from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The editorial itself is curious and disjointed. That, and the long delay, suggest that the paper’s editorial board disagreed over what to say, and probably over whether to say anything.
First the good news; the Times finally spoke up about the killing of a colleague — in its lead editorial on a Sunday, the most widely circulated edition of the week. This is a step forward for a newspaper that remains silent about, for instance, Amnesty International’s finding in February that Israel’s oppression of Palestinians amounts to “apartheid.” What’s more, the editorial praises Abu Akleh, calling her “brave” and “independent,” and adding, accurately, that “she served as a model of courageous, honest reporting for many aspiring journalists, including many women.”
Also, the editorial noted disapprovingly that “Israeli police officers attacked some of the hundreds of mourners at Ms. Abu Akleh’s funeral procession in East Jerusalem.” The Times usually disguises such Israeli assaults with expressions like “clashes erupted between.”
But the editorial board’s more strongly pro-Israeli faction also got their say here. The paper tried to partly exonerate Israeli police behavior by claiming that the occupiers wanted to “prevent the funeral from turning into a nationalist rally,” and that the pallbearers had violated a “previously approved plan” by trying to carry the coffin on foot. The existence of this “plan” is disputed, and what’s wrong with a “nationalist rally” anyway?
But the pro-Israel faction’s greatest triumph was that it successfully imposed its headline: “Who Killed Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh?” Within minutes of the killing, Israel had followed its time-honored manipulative practice of muddying the story, in this case by suggesting without evidence that “Palestinian gunmen” had killed her. Israel knew that the Times and other mainstream outlets would both-sides the story, leaving readers confused.
In fact, reporting over the past month (although not in the Times) makes clear that the only genuine questions are: Did the Israeli soldier who killed Shireen Abu Akleh target her on purpose? If so, who ordered it? And who in the Israeli chain of command is continuing the coverup?
The editorial board’s more honest members recognize this. So they somehow slyly slipped in this surprising paragraph:
CNN and other news organizations have begun their own investigations. After reviewing video footage, witnesses’ accounts and audio analysis of the gunshots, CNN reported that the evidence suggested that ‘Abu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces.’
This is a masterstroke. The Times editorial faction that has some integrity is citing the CNN investigation because their own reporters on the spot have been sitting around doing nothing.
The pro-Israel ed board faction hit back. The editorial said that “scores of other journalists lose their lives without public notice” — and you think you are about to read about some of the 50 Palestinian journalists killed since 2000, a fact noted by this site’s Yumna Patel the same day that Abu Akleh was killed. But no. Instead the Times diverts our attention by pointlessly explaining that journalists all over the world are killed “on dangerous assignments,” including recently in Ukraine.
The Times calls for an investigation, but cautions, mildly, that “Israel’s political right does not look kindly on investigating troops.” In fact, all the editorial board had to do was look at the respected Israeli daily Haaretz, which reported more decisively weeks ago that “. . . one of the reasons [Israel will not probe Abu Akleh’s death] was the belief that such an investigation. . . would provoke opposition within the [Israel military] and in Israel society in general.” A genuine investigation would almost certainly bring down Israel’s fragile coalition government, a fact the Times nowhere mentions.
But let us be thankful with this small step forward. At least the New York Times finally spoke out, even in this choppy and self-contradictory way. By contrast, the Washington Post editorial board has, so far, not said a word.
Miko Peled says of course she was killed on purpose, and the permission — or more likely the order — had to come from very high up in the Israeli government, possibly from the prime minister. And Miko Peled, the son of a famous general, should know.
Thank you for getting behind that most muddled of editorials.
I wish I could share your optimism, James. This is still very much just a “both sides” piece designed to appease fence sitters and the woefully and willfully uninformed, and further plaster over the extremely rough and gritty truth ahead of Biden’s now delayed trip to Israel.
CNN, for all of its faults, did it right. It pointed out the outright lies and misinformation from the Israeli military and government (in their own words), and didn’t allow them an inch of room to slip in their double speak or a breath of oxygen to their propaganda.
It went with facts, experts, evidence, and eye witness testimony and not rumor, conjecture, propaganda, denials, or unsubstantiated out of context video clips and mistranslations paved over with state-sponsored propaganda.
If the NYT didn’t sit on its hands, bite its tongue, and instead did its own unbiased trademark deep-dive investigation, it would not only have come to the exact same conclusion as CNN, but would have exposed even more of the coverup in Israel AND the US. Biden, with no political cover or deniability would be forced to cancel his trip, not just delay it, due to the floodgates bursting opening on this issue.
Instead the NYT has, like Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea, in effect deliberately held back the waters on both sides, in a very one-sided tragedy, to allow safe passage for the Biden Administration to travel with plausible deniability to the very scene of the crime, citing the same ol’ playbook mantra of “both-sides need to show restraint” and “it’s complicated”, when in fact it’s neither. Only ONE side is deliberately wounding and murdering journalists and only ONE side is unashamedly lying, refusing to investigate or even allow an investigation, and muddying the waters cover up their crimes to make it appear complicated.
My estimate is that the struggle is between moral universalists, who believe all people deserve justice, and a Jewish supremacist contingent, who believe Israelis are exempt from generally accepted universal moral rules. Since they can’t say that outright, they rely on obfuscation to muddy and stall discussion. As usual.
Internal debates are taking pace in newsrooms, organizations, communities and political parties.
Those promoting peaceful co-existence in Israel-Palestine will do well to facilitate the development of plausible political programs.