New York Times Falsifies Obama-Netanyahu Meeting [UPDATED]

Original Post Updated At the Bottom

The New York Times assigned to the story a national correspondent, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, whose political perceptions are bland and whose innocence about Israeli-American relations could be relied on. At the newspaper of record, a thing like that does not happen by accident. They took the most anxiously awaited meeting with a foreign leader of President Obama's term thus far, and buried it on page 12. The coverage of a major event, which the same newspaper had greeted only the day before by running an oversize attack-Iran op-ed by Jeffrey Goldberg, has officially now shrunk to the scale of a smaller op-ed.

What is more disturbing and far more consequential is that the Times made this meeting into a story about Iran. They read into Obama's careful and measured remarks exactly the hostile intention toward Iran and the explicit deadline for results from his negotiations with Iran that Obama had taken great pains to avoid stating. Obama's relevant remark was this:

My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn't mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we'll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.

"Shortly after," "fairly good sense," "the right direction," "good faith effort," "probably," "by the end of the year." This was a language chosen deliberately to cool the fever of Netanyahu and his far-right War Coalition in Israel. But Stolberg, writing for the Times, converts these hedged and vague suggestions into a revelation that Obama for the first time seemed "willing to set even a general timetable for progress in talks with Iran."

In fact, as any reader of the transcript may judge, President Obama sounded a more urgent note about the progress Israel ought to make in yielding what it long has promised to the Palestinian people. Palestine was the proper name that dominated Obama's side of the news conference. In the Times story, by contrast, the word Iran occurs three times before the first mention of "Palestinians." Iran is mentioned twice more before the words West Bank are uttered once.

Regarding the necessity of a Palestinian state, President Obama was explicit:

We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.

And when Netanyahu said the Israeli attitude toward Palestine would completely depend on the details of progress toward securing Iran against the acquisition of a single nuclear weapon, Obama replied that his view was almost the reverse. In a leader as averse as Barack Obama to the slightest public hint of personal conflict, this was a critical moment in the exchange; how far, a reporter asked Obama, did he assent to the Netanyahu concept of "linkage" -- the idea that first the U.S. must deal with Iran, and a more obliging Israeli approach to Palestine will surely follow. Obama answered:

I recognize Israel's legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause. Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis -- then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

This was a reluctantly formulated but direct and inescapable inversion of the Netanyahu doctrine on linkage. Not a trace of it appears in the Times account.

Finally, Gaza was much in President Obama's mind and on his conscience at this meeting; so much so that he broke decorum and stepped out of his way to mention it:

The fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can't even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

And yet not a word from Stolberg and the Times about these words of Obama's on Gaza. Nor was any analytic piece offered as a supplement -- the usual procedure in assessing an event of this importance.

To sum up, what happened at the meeting can be judged plainly enough by the news conference that followed. Binyamin Netanyahu tried to make it all about Iran. Obama declined, and spoke again and again about the importance of peace in the entire region, and the crucial role that Israel would have to play by freezing the West Bank settlements and negotiating in good faith to achieve a Palestinian state.

Let us end where we began, with Barack Obama on the good of peaceable relations with Iran, and the New York Times on the importance of thinking such relations are close to impossible.

President Obama: "You know, I don't want to set an artificial deadline."

Now the Times headline: "Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has a Timetable on Iran." And the Times front-page teaser for their A12 story: "Obama's Iran Timetable."

The decision-makers at the New York Times are acting again as if their readers had no other means of checking the facts they report. They are saying the thing that is not, without remembering that the record which refutes them has become easily and quickly available. A great newspaper is dying. And on the subject of Israel, it is doing its best to earn its death-warrant.

UPDATE BELOW

A commenter on this column pointed out that there was an analytic companion to the Stolberg report, after all. It is a web-only piece, dated May 19, written by David Sanger.

Sanger begins:

WASHINGTON -- Now that President Obama has established what he called a "clear timetable" for Iran to halt its nuclear program--progress must be made by the end of the year, he declared on Monday--both American and Israeli officials are beginning to talk about how to accomplish that goal.

A one-sentence paragraph, and all business. Is the Times trying once again to commandeer public opinion for U.S. or Israeli military action against a large country in the Middle East? Improbable as it may sound, it is becoming hard to escape that conclusion. Certainly, the reader of Sanger's piece is encouraged to draw the same inference as the reader of Stolberg's report: namely that the central subject between Netanyahu and Obama on Monday was the laying out of a timetable against Iran; and that Obama was friendly, compliant, and with-the-program (if vague).

Symptomatic excerpts from Sanger:

"So now begins Mr. Obama's diplomatic sprint." (The Times holds a stopwatch. And the title of the article reinforces the pressure: "After Israeli Visit, a Diplomatic Sprint on Iran").

One of "Obama's strategists" is quoted as saying: "the Israelis, of course, are racing to come up with a convincing military alternative that could plausibly set back the Iranian program." A military alternative to what? Alternative to negotiations, or to some other, American, military action? Sanger withholds comment, only noting: "Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Netanyahu made any reference on Monday to Israel's regular allusions to those alternatives. This was, after all, a first meeting."

Notice the public assumption by Sanger--contradicted by the tenor and details of the news conference itself--that Obama has already agreed to pay respectful attention to Israel's military ideas. Obama's reluctance to say so aloud is taken to exhibit merely the shyness of a new leader on a "first meeting."

Again: "Mr. Obama's strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after the Iranian elections on June 12, the way will be clear to convince the Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal." How gigantic is the gamble, in fact? That depends on whether you set greater store by the Israeli or the American estimate of Iran's progress toward a weapon. It is a gigantic gamble only on the Israeli view. Evidently, Sanger takes on trust the accuracy of that view.

This analytic piece concludes with two paragraphs of Israeli doubts about any dealings at all with Iran, and Israeli doubts about Obama. There is a rushed, single paragraph in the middle, on Palestine. No second analytic piece about Palestine as a subject of Monday's news conference has yet been posted at the New York Times on-line.

The Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and the Times analysis by David Sanger both tell the same story. It says that Iran is the major business between the U.S. and Israel in the coming year. The story is false, as an impartial viewer or reader of Monday's news conference will recognize. The giant gamble of the Times is that by repeating the story they can shape events and help to make it true. This double distortion was policy, not accident.

Comments

[veritasor]

Great article! Like the rest of the MSM under control, NY Times is just a mouthpiece; if they can lie about their own President so blatantly, they can lie about anything..­. What if there is no alternative like HF here?

[care4mypeeps]

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times has created a mess for herself as well as the Times.
Whenever one departs from the truth to cherrie pick information to dimish the capacity of another
to present a positive truthful picture of a peaceful solution in the making does it at the discredit of their own integrity and credibility.

Why are we not surprised that they have stooped so low. It seems as if they are comfortable in the sewer.

President Barack Obama is a very careful and measured man and thinks before he speaks.
All this does is make the New York Times look like they are in the Tank with the Republicans and are fulfilling their agenda to discredit President Obama and create controversy where it does not exist.

[Justtellthetruth]

unfortunately, this is in no way a republican or democratic issue. The people who support the insane idea of an expanding Israel cross all sorts of religious, political and socio-economic boundaries.

Consider the case of all of those tens of millions of christian fundamentalists who see a predominantly Jewish controlled Palestine as a pre condition for the return of Christ .

Look at Jane Harman and Haim Saban, a dem house member and the single largest financial supporter of the Dem party. They were both are caught on tape committing crimes that were meant to move forward AIPACs (the Likud party in the US) bidding.

The times CLEARLY sympathizes with Harman et al. They are just as willing to help sell the lies that will set the preconditions for a war with Iran as they were willing to help the Neocons like Cheney et al sell the lies that helped bring about the Iraq war.

People like Harman are just as dangerous as Cheney, and there are many like her in Senate and the house, some working from a zionist perspective, MANY working from a whacky christian zionist perspective, and many more in the pentagon working from a very ruthless US exceptionalist perspective, and EVERY ONE of them as wrong as they can be about the outcomes that they would see occur regarding the US relationship with Israel and Iran.

[Ramus]

Agree with justtellthetruth. Good comment. Exactly correct.

[max08]

Agree.

[hulka37]

True.

[themodernleader]

KKojei. Being born American requires that to enjoy the inalienable rights and fruits of liberty, we also must bear the responsibilities that make rights and freedoms the substance rather than a cliche of our Republic.

[BiBiJan]

Every time the press floods with nonsense, US loses out to its competitors in terms of economy, security, credibility, etc.

Mr Netanyahu's Iran bashing as reported by the press is as follows:

-------
a) Iran's current leader in 2005 threatened to destroy Israel in the 2010-2014 time frame (when Iran would potentially have the means).

b) arabs are more worried about Iran, than they are of Israel, US, etc.

Given that the forewarned­-adversary­-to-be-des­troyed is nuclear-armed, and that Iran's current leader will probably-definitely be out of office between 2010-2014, are we surprised that few take the US press seriously.

On Arabs fear of Iran, take a look at the 2009 Zogby/University of Maryland poll:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/%7E/media/Files/events/2009/0519_arab_opinion/2009_arab_public_opinion_poll.pdf

Over 60% of Arabs do not fear Iran's Nukes (in the unlikely event Iran decides to get nukes) and think Iran has a right to a nuclear program

In United Arab Emirates only 3% ranked US/Iran policies as a focus as opposed to 30% who ranked anti-Muslim sentiments as an important issue when assessing US policies.
------

All Mr Netanyahu's Iran bashing amounts to is a "dog ate my homework" excuse for why US should regard Israel as an indispensable ally no matter how much problems she needlessly causes.

[robbep]

Just another example of SOME supporters of Israel trying to play the US for suckers. It is not our responsibility to make sure that the enemies of Israel are defeated that is for the Israeli goverment to handle. If the threat to Israel is as great as Bibi says it is then it is HIS responsibility to nullify it not Obama's. We cant keep attacking and sanctioning middle east countries on behalf of Israel and think we can broker peace in the area. I know our paid for congress and media keeps telling the american public that Israel is our best friend and protecting their interest is crucial but is it really? The tired arguement that they are the only elected democracy in the area is no longer true after the election of Hamas. We give them billions in aid and the question no one asks is why? What is the difference btwn US support for Israel and the former South Africa? As a citizen of this country it alarms me that a small ethnic grp has so much influence in this countries media, banking, and political circles.

[alexa07]

I agree with you 100%. Let's hope that our foolish Congress is smart enough to back Obama & strongly counter Bibi's demands. It's time for the Israelis to stand on their own feet. We can't risk another messy war in the region to placate the Israelis, esp. against Iran. We are already paying too high a price in Iraq & Afghanistan. For what? To buttress a brutal occupation & theft of land in Palestine?

[SolomonTheWise]

Totally in agreement with BOTH of you. Israel is starting to become a national security threat to the US homeland and other US interests around the world because of their domestic policies with Palestine alone. Israel now needs to be able to stand on its own 2 feet. If they are big enough to beat their chest and try to push us (USA) around to do their bidding then they should be big enough to "get off the n.ipple" of the US. Time for the the US to start cutting off $$-aid-$$.

[max08]

I couldn't agree more.

[semorg]

I've lost all hope on MSM. They re nothing but glorified PR firms now.

[gbrooks]

Good article.

I'll give Obama his due on this issue, I like what he's saying and that he's not caving to pressure to "deal with" Iran prior to Israel supporting a two-state solution/ending stopping settlements.

Now, if he had said "no more aid or arms until Palestine is a state," he'd be my freakin' hero.

[SolomonTheWise]

Ditto 1,000%!

[todd1888]

If you followed Stolberg on the campaign trail with McCain, you would not be suprised by her reporting at all. She was abysmal -- merely giving a play by play of what was said and who said it as if she was merely the equivalent of an announcer at a sporting event. But then even they give some analsis!

She offered no analysis -- or even an attempt to analyze what McCain or surrogates would say, but only to print their quotes and what the weather was like at a rally as they pontificated on their latest screed -- and then she let the readers decide if they had time to look up whether the quotes were factual or way off base.

It is amazing to hear the NY Times saying they will charge for content online when they have reporters like her on staff.

[Justtellthetruth]

This is from foreign policy. Strange, how the Arab world heard the REAL message from Obama loud and clear, while the NYTimes seems to still be struggling to properly grasp his CLEAR meaning.

Imagine how ridiculous it makes the US look (a nation that is supposed to have a free and largely unbiased press) in the eyes of the rest of the world, when our supposed leading news paper literally inverts the story for nakedly political (Israel's politics, I suppose) reasons.

"Arabs get the message on the Obama-Netanyahu meeting
Tue, 05/19/2009 - 7:05am

I don't have time today to write anything substantive about yesterday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu -- more later. But I did want to mention that the headlines across virtually all the Arab papers have the same basic message: Obama backs two-state solution and calls for stopping settlements. That has to be the message which the administration hoped would reach Arab public opinion, and judging by the first round of coverage it did. (His direct mention of the need to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza played well as well.) "

[doctormaus]

A most important piece, and thanks to the author. The Times and other media should be aware we now care to doublecheck their work.

[KennyFox]

This same group probably had Stolberg's ear. Though I didnt read their latest rebuttal re: Obama and Netanyahu, the use the words Obama and Tyrant in their headline analysis piece.
http://www.iasps.org/index.php


This, and other right wing Likudnut think tanks,is likely where the NYT and other major dailies covering the mid east formulate their opinions on US foreign policy in the Mid East. I mean...tha­ts what these institutions exist for anyway, to sway elite opinion and they have done so successfully at least 99% of the time.

[KennyFox]

I wonder if Stolberg got a speaking to before she was sent out. I wonder what her background is, for her to be so blinded by the Iran narrative is so Matt Drudge, isnt it? Assumign she is not a right wing Republican, what else got to her? Or did she just blindly follow the general mainstream narrative that now taht we screwed Iraq, lets screw Iran. I mean, afterall, thats what Netanyahu asked for in Clean Break. We havent gone to chapter two yet...

Some notes on Clean Break "Securing the Real" (ie, Ersatz Israel, right? Can we call a spade a spade here folks?)

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

[KennyFox]

I thought Palestinian-Israeli peace depended on us removing Hussein from Iraq, as Netanyahu requested and backed in his Clean Break policy report, with Rusmfeld and Richard Perle and Dough Feith? Now it's iran? Then it will be Syria. Then it will be Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu is a cult leader of the right wing Likud party (the jewish version of the GOP) ... and a disgrace.

[rothschild53]

"What Obama and Netanyahu really talked about" - OliveTreeNews

[Meteor]

The Main Stream Media in the US is a traitorous disgrace.