- “Gaza War Full of Traps And Trickery”; By Steven Erlanger; 1, 14
- “As Talks Falter, Israel Warns Gazans of Stepped-Up Attacks”; By Ethan Bronner; 6
- “Turk Raises Eyebrows In Criticism of Israel”; By Sabrina Tavernise; 14
- “Israeli Offensive Focuses on Web of Tunnels, a Lifeline for Gazans”; By Stephen Farrell; 14
- “The Week January 4-10"; WK2
- "Standing Between Enemies"; By Clark Hoyt; WK10
- "The Peacemaker"; By Deborah Solomon; MM11
Two articles in the International section of the NY Times provide fair coverage of the operation in Gaza, as Stephen Farrell and Steve Erlanger make four important points:
1. Hamas has stored weapons in “mosques, schools and civilian homes.”
2. Iran and Hezbollah have trained Hamas.
3. Hamas’ tactics purposely put civilians in danger.
4. The IDF’s strategic objective is to prevent "arms-smuggling" through the Rafah tunnels, a point that was reinforced with a quote from Israeli Brig. Gen. Kuperwasser.
A third article is critical of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s negative comments about the Israeli operation in Gaza. Bringing "that anger into diplomatic efforts reduces Turkey’s ability to moderate," says Cenzig Candar, a columnist for the Turkish paper Radikal. Part of Candar’s disapproval stems from his awareness of Israelis' disappointment with the PM’s comments.
The article's author, Sabrina Tavernise, describes the PM’s speech as “hardly a stellar performance, especially considering his country is a member of NATO and the United Nations Security Council, not to mention an applicant to the European Union.”
Despite the overall reasonable coverage in today's paper, Ethan Bronner saved – or ruined – the day with a blasé equivalence. “Both Israel and Hamas rejected a United Nations Security Council resolution on Friday calling for a cease-fire. And the actions of both on Saturday made their resolve to keep fighting manifest,” he writes. As Hamas is not a member of the United Nations, Security Council resolutions do not apply to it.
Bronner lazily allows Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, to essentially write the final few paragraphs of the article. Abrahams’ statements are, by and large, harsh and fast judgments of Israel. No Israeli spokesperson is given the opportunity to counter Abrahams’ charges.
“The Week January 4-10,” a photographic feature on page 2 of the Week in Review, features the Gaza operation. Under the second picture, the text reads, “The attack…provoked an international outcry that Israel was doing too little to protect civilians.” The wording, here, is poor. Israel is responsible for not targeting civilians and avoiding civilian casualties but protecting civilians is not within its purview.
Later on, the text neglects to mention that Hamas operatives fired at the IDF from the UN school in Jabaliya refugee camp, which is what provoked Israel’s response.
On the opinion page, Clark Hoyt makes a gallant, but failed effort to demonstrate that “The Times…has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded.” Had Hoyt provided a larger contextual framework for understanding the differences between Israeli and Hamas-Palestinian's relationship to truth, his piece would have been better.
Hamas lacks a basic commitment to truth. To place Hamas and Israeli statements on a level plane makes an equivalence between a liberal democracy, responsible to an electorate, and an ethnocentric terrorist organization that consciously manipulates information to suit its propaganda needs.
In the Magazine, Deborah Solomon interviews Ari Folman, who must have listened to “Imagine” on repeat for 20 hours before the interview. In an attempt to be profound, Folman declares, “I can’t understand the word ‘war’ anyhow... I can’t understand people killing each other for a piece of land. Can you understand that?” With this statement-question, Folman successfully divests himself from the reality of Israel’s predicament and the malevolent intentions of its nemeses.
1. Hamas has stored weapons in “mosques, schools and civilian homes.”
2. Iran and Hezbollah have trained Hamas.
3. Hamas’ tactics purposely put civilians in danger.
4. The IDF’s strategic objective is to prevent "arms-smuggling" through the Rafah tunnels, a point that was reinforced with a quote from Israeli Brig. Gen. Kuperwasser.
A third article is critical of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s negative comments about the Israeli operation in Gaza. Bringing "that anger into diplomatic efforts reduces Turkey’s ability to moderate," says Cenzig Candar, a columnist for the Turkish paper Radikal. Part of Candar’s disapproval stems from his awareness of Israelis' disappointment with the PM’s comments.
The article's author, Sabrina Tavernise, describes the PM’s speech as “hardly a stellar performance, especially considering his country is a member of NATO and the United Nations Security Council, not to mention an applicant to the European Union.”
Despite the overall reasonable coverage in today's paper, Ethan Bronner saved – or ruined – the day with a blasé equivalence. “Both Israel and Hamas rejected a United Nations Security Council resolution on Friday calling for a cease-fire. And the actions of both on Saturday made their resolve to keep fighting manifest,” he writes. As Hamas is not a member of the United Nations, Security Council resolutions do not apply to it.
Bronner lazily allows Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, to essentially write the final few paragraphs of the article. Abrahams’ statements are, by and large, harsh and fast judgments of Israel. No Israeli spokesperson is given the opportunity to counter Abrahams’ charges.
“The Week January 4-10,” a photographic feature on page 2 of the Week in Review, features the Gaza operation. Under the second picture, the text reads, “The attack…provoked an international outcry that Israel was doing too little to protect civilians.” The wording, here, is poor. Israel is responsible for not targeting civilians and avoiding civilian casualties but protecting civilians is not within its purview.
Later on, the text neglects to mention that Hamas operatives fired at the IDF from the UN school in Jabaliya refugee camp, which is what provoked Israel’s response.
On the opinion page, Clark Hoyt makes a gallant, but failed effort to demonstrate that “The Times…has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded.” Had Hoyt provided a larger contextual framework for understanding the differences between Israeli and Hamas-Palestinian's relationship to truth, his piece would have been better.
Hamas lacks a basic commitment to truth. To place Hamas and Israeli statements on a level plane makes an equivalence between a liberal democracy, responsible to an electorate, and an ethnocentric terrorist organization that consciously manipulates information to suit its propaganda needs.
In the Magazine, Deborah Solomon interviews Ari Folman, who must have listened to “Imagine” on repeat for 20 hours before the interview. In an attempt to be profound, Folman declares, “I can’t understand the word ‘war’ anyhow... I can’t understand people killing each other for a piece of land. Can you understand that?” With this statement-question, Folman successfully divests himself from the reality of Israel’s predicament and the malevolent intentions of its nemeses.
Folman also suggests that the 1982 Lebanon War was "declared just for political reasons." This is a conscious act of misinformation. It was a war of self-defense, the massacre of Sabra and Shatila notwithstanding. Not every war of self-defense is a war of survival, as Folman would like it to be.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment