The New York Times and Gaza: Justifying genocide

[IndianaGreen]

The New York Times and Gaza: Justifying genocide

31 December 2008

On the fourth day of the Israeli aerial blitz against the population of Gaza, the New York Times, the mouthpiece of US establishment liberalism, weighed in on the subject for the first time on its editorial pages.

In a lead editorial, the Times made its position clear in short order. "Israel must defend itself," it began. "And Hamas must bear responsibility for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory."

There is little to distinguish the "newspaper of record's" version of events from the mendacious account being peddled by the American media in general: the Palestinians are the aggressors and Israel the victim. Never mind the grim and unequal equation of the conflict: roughly 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli.

The Times' potted explanation of the war, presented as though it were common knowledge and irrefutable fact, conveniently ignores that it was the Israeli military which broke the cease-fire with a provocative cross-border raid into the Gaza Strip in which six members of the Hamas security force were killed. The date of the raid was November 4, not by coincidence Election Day in America. The timing is an indication that the attack was a politically calculated provocation by the Israeli regime, which it held in abeyance until after the electoral contest in the US, its indispensable patron, had been concluded.

Press reports in Israel indicate that the attack on Gaza had been actively prepared for six months, with the Zionist regime agreeing to the cease-fire only to give its military the time it needed. One of the principal aims of the operation was to reestablish the credibility of Israel's military after the humiliating defeat it suffered in Lebanon two-and-a-half years ago and to thereby intimidate all others in the region.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/pers-d31.shtml

[Idealism]

1. Heres Counterpuch speaking of the misinformation about Hamas being the aggressor

Reiterating the rationale that Israel’s bombing of Gaza was an act of retaliation and not of agression, Axelrod, on behalf of the Obama administration, continued to spread the same misinformation as President Bush: that Hamas was the first to break the ceasefire agreement, which ended over a week ago, and Israel was simply responding judiciously.

Aside from the fact that Israel’s response was anything but judicious, the idea that it was Hamas who broke the six-month truce is a complete fabrication.

On the night of the U.S. election, Israel fired missiles on Gaza that were aimed at closing down a tunnel operation they believed Hamas was building in order to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The carnage left in the wake of Israel’s bombing of Gaza over the past six weeks has killed dozens of Palestinians.

“The escalation towards war could, and should, have been avoided. It was the State of Israel which broke the truce, in the 'ticking tunnel' raid ... two months ago,” the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote in a press release. “Since then, the army went on stoking the fires of escalation with calculated raids and killings, whenever the shooting of missiles on Israel decreased.”

http://www.counterpunch.com/frank12292008.html

[tan guera]

2. Empty thread

No buyer's remorse? Not yet?

[independentpiney]

3. Calling Israeli actions genocide is just over the top stupid

Disproportionate and inhumane? absolutely

[aquart]

4. But you forget the cheap thrill of satisfaction in using that word against Jews.

Really. That makes it all worthwhile.

[Meshuga]

6. Agreed 100%

What is happening is ugly and sad but calling it genocide is beyond stupid. I am starting to perceive it as hateful after reading other posts from the same person (i.e., when this person brings up the USS Liberty meme) in context with this one post we are referring to.

The poster seems to think that his/her sigline with the Barack Obama bumber sticker in Hebrew is a license to spill this kind of stupidity.

[Idealism]

7. The recent actions aren't genocide you are right, what was done before was and still is

The blockade of aid to starve people to death, limiting West bank's water supply by the Israeli-controlled Western Aquifer, bulldozing entire Palestinian settlements to the ground to build an Apartheid Wall around Gaza, seizing Palestinian farmlands, they have even tortured Palestinian children in detention camps during the second infantida

[Vegasaurus]

8. There is a border wall for Israel

Take a look, Egypt has a ten foot concrete wall between itself and Gaza.

Any Palestinian who tries to leave Gaza gets shot at.

What's the difference between an Israeli wall and an Egyptian one and why is one an "Apartheid Wall"?

[Idealism]

9. Egypt is guilty in this too, but not on the same level

Apartheid Wall was coined by an Israeli General, not my words.

Do you still think Israel to be the innocent one here?

[Vegasaurus]

10. There was no wall before suicide bombers

I sure do think Israel is innocent in this regard.

[Idealism]

12. On the egyptian side, I can't say for sure

On the Israeli side, 11 people have died since 2001 from Hamas rocket shots. Suicide bombers haven't been nearly as big a problem in Jerusalem as they've been in say Iraq. Hamas doesn't encourage people to do it, but of course their are people with pent up aggression after being oppressed for 40+ years and do act out. Either way, if this is retaliation for the few suicide bombers that have slipped through the military blockades of Gaza, it is still collective punishment of 1.5 million people, and according to UN mandates, a war crime.

[High Plains]

11. Yeah, let's play semantics.

Then we don't have to talk about all the people being killed.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Agreed

[Vegasaurus]

5. Here's a good unbiased source. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Counterpunch, the NYT, or Halo?

[IndianaGreen]

15. Perhaps you prefer the neocon Jerusalem Post, owned by Hollinger International

The Post was historically known as a left-wing newspaper, until its acquisition by Hollinger in 1989. Since then it has become a leading conservative outlet for opponents of the peace process throughout the world, thanks to its highly popular Web site.

While the political future of the newspaper remains unclear, most observers are predicting the newspaper will be sold.

Rumors about an impending sale were rippling through a gathering in Israel this week of 4,000 North American Jewish communal leaders. “The air at the General Assembly is thick with rumors of potential buyers,” said David Landau, editor of the English edition of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

“I think that obviously you are looking at wealthy Jews who are interested in extending their influence,” one Israeli media insider said. “I don’t know that any Israelis would buy it.”

Speculation has focused in part on Michael Steinhardt, the New York-based Jewish philanthropist with stakes in the Sun and The New Republic. Formerly a part-owner of the Forward, Steinhardt has previously displayed interest in buying the Post. Another name being mentioned is that of Ronald Lauder, the cosmetics heir who already has holdings in Israeli media. Russian investors Vladimir Gusinsky and Roman Abramovich also have been rumored to be interested.

Given Hollinger’s $730 million of debt, observers see no way for the company to survive without selling at least some of its assets. Numerous parties have expressed interest in The Daily Telegraph, and The Washington Post Group has been repeatedly mentioned for its interest in the Chicago Sun-Times. An Israeli media insider said the assumption is that the Post will be sold separately from the rest of the Hollinger papers.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7111/

[Violet_Crumble]

16. They prefer 'unbiased' sources like American Thinker, CAMERA, and Arutz Sheva...

Generally the more conservative the source, the more it's embraced by some here...

[IndianaGreen]

19. Not to mention the insane asylum known as Little Green Footballs

a well known rehab site for tombstoned DUers.

[azurnoir]

18. I saw the title and said to myself

definite proIsrael bait the word genocide will be pounced on any relevant message will be drowned out and denyed but he used the G word and NO other discussion will be allowed thanks for giving us a stunning example what I have seen called cyber bullying by the proIsrael forces

[IndianaGreen]

20. They discuss strategy at one of their chat rooms, then they coordinate massive Alerts

on offending DU thread. Their aim is to stifle any view that runs counter to their irrational orthodoxy. They succeeded in creating the conditions which led to the creation of this forum.

[azurnoir]

21. Thank you I thought something like that was going on

there is a certain speed to the retorts and lockstep to the posts that suggested a "team" effort, do they call up a "rear guard" at times like this?

[Alamuti Lotus]

17. That was a thorough refutation, thanks. nt