In a spectacular reversal, this past Friday Judge Richard Goldstone published an op-ed in the Washington Post which reverses the key charge against Israel in the report about the Gaza War which bears his name. He no longer believes the blood libel put forth in his document, that Israel deliberately targeted Gaza civilians in the war, and he now believes Hamas was the war criminal.
“We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.
When the story broke in the Washington Post, it seemed strange that Judge Goldstone would choose the D.C. paper to print his retraction. Goldstone has written op-eds in the NY Times defending his report. Others, including former President Jimmy Carter, have also filled the Times opinion pages with defenses of the Goldstone Report, so it would seem logical for the Judge to publish his retraction in the same vehicle he used for its defense.
The answer to this mystery is simple, according to Israeli Newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the New York Times was offered Goldstone’s piece first, but refused to print it.
Yedioth Ahronoth’s English Website YNet reported:
Not only did Judge Richard Goldstone’s words of regret fail to match the global resonance of his original report, it now comes to light that one of the most important newspapers in the world refused to publish his retraction.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday that a source close to Goldstone stated that in the past few days the judge had approached the editor of the New York Times opinion pages requesting to post the article he wrote in the paper – and was told his article was rejected.
Has the New York Times sunk so low that it refuses to allow someone to correct a report that resulted in violent incitement against Israel? Ynet’s source in the Goldstone camp believes it so:
The editor gave no explanation as to why the article was rejected, but the source believes this was due to the newspaper’s political agenda.
The letter was ultimately published in the more conservative Washington Post over the weekend.
The New York Times said in response that they do not comment on the editorial or reporting process. In recent years the New York Times adopted a highly critical line of reporting towards Israel. Lately, its senior commentator Thomas Friedman has been publishing extremely aggressive articles against Israel and its current government. [my emphasis]
The New York Times acknowledges that it rejected an Op-Ed submitted by Mr. Goldstone for publication on March 22, but according to the editors it was different from the retraction that appeared in the Washington Post. What is clear based on its coverage, regardless of how much the column differed from the Washington Post mea culpa, is that Times editors did not want to publish a column reflecting Mr. Goldstone’s more recent opinions.
Story placement has always been a weapon in the Times‘ propaganda war against Israel. Often you would find a terrorist attack on Israel relegated to position off the front page or at least below the fold, but any IDF retaliation would be a front page top of the fold item.
Similarly, of the many Times articles covering Judge Goldstone and his report, two merited front page placement: an initial article, titled “U.N. Inquiry Sees Gaza War Crimes; Israel Chastised,” that focused on the report’s condemnation of Israel, and “A Gaza War Study, an Outcry, A Bar Mitzvah’s Missing Guest,” which sarcastically criticized the South African Jewish community for branding Goldstone a traitor and trying to prevent him from attending his grandson’s bar mitzvah (he was allowed to attend because of pressure from Jews worldwide and a wise Rabbi).
The lead story about Goldstone recanting his charges Head of U.N. Panel Regrets Saying Israel Intentionally Killed Gazans appeared on page 10. But then again Goldstone’s retraction doesn’t make Israel look bad so why give it attention. Even with this page 10 placement, in its coverage of Goldstone’s mea culpa the Times did all it could to make Israel look bad:
Mr. Goldstone’s article fell like a bomb in Israel, where many people considered the 2009 publication of the Goldstone report as one of the most harmful events in recent years. It was viewed as offering spurious justification for damaging accusations, which Israelis considered to be part of a campaign to delegitimize the state and label it as a war criminal.
Israel carried out its military campaign after years of rocket fire by Palestinian militants in Gaza against southern Israel. As many as 1,400 Gazans were killed during the three-week offensive in December 2008 and January 2009, including hundreds of civilians. Thirteen Israelis were also killed.
Here the Times downplayed 5,000+ projectiles fired by Hamas terrorists into Israel. They weren’t fired into “southern Israel,” as the paper described trying to downplay their real effect, they were sent into communities, where families lived, in fact often those rockets were targeted toward schools.
The paper also ignores Hamas fires its missiles from land that Israel pulled out of years before. In its editorials pages, the Times keeps calling for additional Israeli concessions while refusing to recognize the fact that Israel’s major unilateral concession in 2005, withdrawing from Gaza, was greeted with a rocket barrage that continues through today.
As far as the difference in death counts, many times more Iraqis were killed in the War in Iraq than Americans. Does that make the US war criminals? Of course not!
During the invasion, graphic images of human suffering were broadcast around the world, and after the fighting ended, the United Nations Human Rights Council asked Mr. Goldstone, who is Jewish, to head an investigation into Israel’s actions. He said he would do so on the condition that he could broaden his mandate to include Hamas’s conduct as well.
Here the Times is indicating that graphic images of suffering is proof of Israel’s guilt. Pictures are selected by editors and can be just as biased as the articles. And the Gray Lady was biased in its picture selection. For example, few saw the pictures of the rockets landing in Sderot because that suffering was largely ignored by the Times, the same way the paper ignored the Holocaust while it was happening. Maybe the NY Times doesn’t believe that Jews can suffer.
The fact that Goldstone has retracted his main charge doesn’t stop them from informing readers that groups not involved in the report are still calling for action taken against Israel:
In February, a group of Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups asked the United Nations Human Rights Council to take further action on the Goldstone report’s findings to ensure justice for the war’s victims.
But if there was no crime there should be no action, but the New York Times “forgets” that part.
The New York Times forgets lots of facts in its coverage of Israel. It also refuses to publish facts that hurt its anti-Israel agenda. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good blood libel.
Crossposted From NewsRealBlog
‘NYT refused to publish Goldstone retraction’
Source close to South African judge claims he initially approached liberal publication to print his letter of regret – and was rejected. New York Times says in response it does not comment on editorial process
|
| Not only did Judge Richard Goldstone’s words of regret fail to match the global resonance of his original report, it now comes to light that one of the most important newspapers in the world refused to publish his retraction. Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday that a source close to Goldstone stated that in the past few days the judge had approached the editor of the New York Times opinion pages requesting to post the article he wrote in the paper – and was told his article was rejected. The editor gave no explanation as to why the article was rejected, but the source believes this was due to the newspaper’s political agenda. The letter was ultimately published in the more conservative Washington Post over the weekend. The New York Times said in response that they do not comment on the editorial or reporting process. In recent years the New York Times adopted a highly critical line of reporting towards Israel. Lately, its senior commentator Thomas Friedman has been publishing extremely aggressive articles against Israel and its current government. |
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.