Pages: 1 2
Anyway, back to the Sunday New York Times. We see the four-column color photo of the Palestinian Muslims-at-prayer from behind. We see rows of peaceful “surrendered” civilians wearing pink, red, green, rust, white, and tourquoise shirts; their heads are nearly touching the ground as they face a row of ten Israeli soldiers: armed, standing, and in army uniforms.
The column which is immediately to the right of this photo on pg 1 is titled: “In Israel, Time For Peace Offer May Run Out. Growing UN Support for Palestinian State.” It is written by Ethan Bronner and continues on pg 10 where there are no fewer than three articles all about Israel.
Back to page A 1. At the very bottom of the Bronner article, noted in bold black, we have the following title: “Gaza War Report Gets a Retraction.” The Times gives 4 ½ lines on its first page to this major, scandalous, shocking story. Four and a half lines-surrounded by peacefully praying Palestinians and a story about the continued pressure on Israel to give in more, give up more, suggesting as it always does, that it is Israel’s fault that there is no Palestinian state.
This is yet another Big Lie.
Turn to page A10. On top, Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner’s story is titled: “Head of U.N. Panel Regrets Saying Israel Intentionally Killed Gazans.” There is a small black and white photo of Goldstone. This article takes up less than 1/3rd of the page. It is immediately followed by an article titled: “Strike Kills Gaza Fighters, Spurring Hamas Warning.” Three Hamas operatives have been killed by Israel in an overnight airstrike. Their silent corpses are shown in their burial shrouds. We are meant to feel compassion towards them—after all, they are dead. We do not see them launching rockets at innocent Israeli civilians. The size of this photo is about 12 times larger than Goldstone’s photo.
Is this meant to suggest that their deaths and those who came to mourn them are far more important than Goldstone’s recantation? Well, as they say: A picture speaks a thousand words.
Finally, at the bottom of page A 10, we read the rest of the front page Bronner piece about the imminent, urgent, coming of the long-overdue Palestinian state.
This is how the Paper of Record—which has had countless articles about the Goldstone Report—now positions—softens, hides, slants–the news.
I have just been told that the BBC has also published news of the Goldstone recantation, but guess what? They link back to their previous articles which ran his allegations. Do they mean to suggest that the allegations are still as true as the recantation? Or, do they wish to remind their readers that, despite this recantation, Israel is still the state that one must remember to hate?
Interestingly, in recent years, Richard Goldstone published three op-ed pieces in the New York Times, all in 2009; one was about his investigation into what happened in Gaza. Funny, this recantation, which has major policy implications, not only for Israel but for any country which the UN wishes to similarly target—this recantation op-ed appears in the pages of the Washington Post.
I leave my readers to ponder this further.
I would like thank an unidentified correspondent for raising this very question.
Pages: 1 2