Greenwald writes: "The refusal to use the word occupation without scare
quotes is one of the most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times
has made since refusing to use the word 'torture' because the Bush
administration denied its validity."
Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
30 May 16
On January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly describe
Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
is: an occupation.
In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during a
trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
the planet.
But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent conflict
over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
scare quotes appears:
A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation" of
the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National Convention
in Philadelphia in July.
The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since refusing
to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
morning by one man in the West Bank:
The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only to
Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
her campaign.
The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the Israeli
writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
"just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds of
fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid stances.
But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top Democrats
- led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
"even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
Israelis and Palestinians.
Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had decide
not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
"amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and pro-God
amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not only
submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
sustaining it.
* * * * *
For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
outstanding two-minute video.
UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on A1
of this morning's print edition.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york-times-and-clinton-campaigns
-abject-cowardice-on-israel/https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york
-times-and-clinton-campaigns-abject-cowardice-on-israel/
The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
30 May 16
n January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly describe
Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
is: an occupation.
In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during a
trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
the planet.
But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent conflict
over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
scare quotes appears:
A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation" of
the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National Convention
in Philadelphia in July.
The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since refusing
to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
morning by one man in the West Bank:
The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only to
Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
her campaign.
The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the Israeli
writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
"just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds of
fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid stances.
But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top Democrats
- led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
"even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
Israelis and Palestinians.
Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had decide
not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
"amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and pro-God
amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not only
submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
sustaining it.
* * * * *
For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
outstanding two-minute video.
UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on A1
of this morning's print edition.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
