NY Times Responds Weakly Today to Israel's 'Incursion' -- As Shells Kill Dozens at U.N. School

Even as its news pages offer generally balanced coverage of Israel's attacks in Gaza -- with many chilling accounts of civilian casualties -- The New York Times' editorial page continued its role today as a key outside enabler. Its editorial today merely declared that the paper is "concerned" about the ongoing invasion -- or "incursion," in the paper's softened terminology -- not alarmed or even angry.

The headline over the belated editorial could not be more bland: "Incursion Into Gaza."

Now Haaretz, the Israeli daily, reports that 30 to 40 civilians were killed today at a United Nations school hit by shells fired by Israeli tanks. A second U.N. school may also have been hit. The Times itself, in its latest news account, notes that "Israel has been criticized in the past for the inaccuracy of its shelling. The Israeli Army has repeatedly emphasized that its operation is not aimed at Gaza's residents, amid sensitivity to deep opposition worldwide to the toll on civilians in Gaza. But parts of Gaza, a narrow coastal strip with a population of 1.5 million, are among the most densely crowded areas in the world, and artillery and tank fire can easily cause collateral damage."

Still, until today, The New York Times carried only one editorial since the massive Israeli air strikes began more than eleven days ago; took three days to respond to Saturday's invasion; has published in all this time only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere) and two pieces by regular columnists - by the conservatives Kristol and Brooks, both backing Israel's air war and attacks.

Now the paper's editorial today soft-pedals the invasion as a mere "incursion." It says it can "sympathize" with the attempt to "decimate" Hamas and "wrest Gaza from its grip," despite much expert commentary that this would do more harm than good in the long run (especially since Hamas did win a democratic election).

The Times does seem to recognize this, in its warning that Israel should not overdo its assaults and instead "try to end" (as opposed to "must end") this conflict as soon as possible. But on what grounds? A nearly, if not clearly, decimated Hamas, with its arsenals destroyed. In return, Gaza gets international monitoring of a ceasefire and increased flow of goods from Israel.

It takes until paragraph #8 for the Times, the leading newspaper in the U.S., to mention that, by the way, Israel "must" allow foreign journalists access to Gaza, especially since its highest court so ordered. Why didn't the paper run a full editorial about this days ago?

Meanwhile, the United Nations today has declared that Gaza is in the grip of a "full-blown" humanitarian crisis and Haaretz reports:

Israel Defense Forces tank fire killed up to 40 Palestinians at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, medical sources at two hospitals said. The attack brought the Palestinian death toll to nearly 600 in Israel's 11-day offensive on the Hamas-ruled coastal territory.

Two tank shells exploded outside the Gaza school, spraying shrapnel on people inside and outside the building, where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge from fighting between Israeli soldiers and Hamas militants. In addition to the dead, several dozen people were wounded, the officials said. Medical officials said all the dead were either people sheltering in the school or local residents.

That's some kind of "incursion."

Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His current book on Iraq and the media is "So Wrong for So Long."

Comments

[politricking]

NYT times lost it's luster some time ago. Iraq invasion anyone?

It was days before they even put out an editorial on what was unfolding in Gaza.

NYT have been enablers for quite some time.

[quindy]

CNN is doing same thing. If you go now on their web page you can read that "Israel continues campaign in Gaza after 3 hour break". Since when the word 'campaign' became euphemism for war?

[PKSSK]

I terminated my subscription to the NY Times long ago after I found out they were complicit in selling us the Iraq war. Looks like I made the right decision, as they are doing the same thing with the Iraeli war on Gaza.

[windypaperboy]

Who is the owner of The New York Times ?

[quindy]

And NYT wonders why they cannot sell their paper? I dropped them years ago. They have lost all their credibility.

[hollybork]

I don't know what to think about the NY Times and their failure to condemn the bloodletting in Israel. Does any rational person think this incursion will destroy Hamas and have the effect of chastening the Palestinians? More likely it will cause them to dig in and vow endless revenge.

Secty Rice says we cannot stop the Gaza effort until there is a "lasting solution." Bush mouthed the same words yesterday. This is disingenuous - blocking a temporary ceasefire in Gaza (because merely saving lives isn't enough) reminds me of Rice/Bush's refusal to urge Israel to halt the disastrous 2006 Lebanon invasion which only served to kill twice as many people. Now the Bush Administration has the distinction of having two Israeli wars on their watch! Wow, and what is gained by all this, exactly?

In failing to call for a ceasefire, in failing to support the UN resolution on a cease fire, the NY Times, like the Bush Administration, obviously doesn't want the peace to extend into the new year, and lend their voices to the hawks giving the green light to Ehud Barak for this prolonged and bloody assault on Gaza.

According to the UN, there is now a full fledged humanitarian disaster unfolding there due to lack of food, water, energy and medical resources. I cannot stomach it. How can the NY Times and our own government remain silent? What is behind this?

[knowBuddhaU]

For an inversion of this same process, a hardening of language, see here.

Richard Simmons Terrorizes "Fox & Friends" (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/richard-simmons-terrorize_n_155552.html

[knowBuddhaU]

Thanks for exposing the myths that are being used, in real-time, to jack us to hell. Again.

SCOTT HORTON, QUOTING NYT'S ERIC LICHTBLAU: ...the Office of Legal Counsel, which has become controversial because of its legal defense of practices *bordering on torture*.

[...]

[Addressing the NYT Editors] So when Bush uses it, suddenly it becomes “bordering on torture”? By consciously softening your language, you are allowing those who introduced torture to escape the opprobrium that is their due. Moreover, you are enabling torture. Your readers deserve better. http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004135

As "Matthew Alexander" demonstrated, we're using fear and control, in keeping with our mechanical conception of being in the world, to manufacture consent; whereas it is more truly human--and effective--to empathize and persuade based on mutual respect.

So I call it *myth-jacking*. As you know, a myth isn't a lie, it's a metaphor, a vessel for going from ignorance to understanding. Myths can be hijacked in order to deliver us not into the Promised Land, but into the hands of butchers.

Think-tanks have assumed the role of myth-makers. Their bombardiers then disperse to drop their bullsh!t bombs on unsuspecting target audiences.

Thanks for exposing how we're getting jacked to hell, with weapons-grade propaganda, and stuck with the bill, by think-tank bombardiers in "the paper of record."

[klondiker]

I'm really surprised that Tom Friedman hasn't written about it yet, given his vast expertise in the region - his Sunday column didn't appear this past Sunday.