Israel Seeks Fairness From ‘New York Times’And then you have some Israeli’s who are beginning to see the penny drop. They have been to the mountain top and seen the wind is now blowing against Israel. Israel’s “old ways” of getting what it wants are no longer working. Even the endless cries of Anti-Semitism levelled at anyone who dares criticize Israel’s actions don’t work because they have been ill used, wrongly used, and over used. (example in above letter from the Israeli UN official) However, whilst people like Mirit Cohen and the other thousands of “Zionist Apologists” are still focusing all their attention at using hasbara against newspaper articles, others Israeli’s are seeing the bigger picture, the more dangerous picture, the more sinister picture of Israel’s future:
Dear Mr. Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times,
I write in connection to a series of articles published in The New York Times in recent weeks regarding the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, colloquially referred to as the Goldstone Report. I am deeply concerned by the subjective and often damning language that The New York Times uses towards Israel as it fails to accurately reflect the nature and scope of the report.
Over and over, The New York Times’ articles on this matter employ language that easily leads the reader to believe that the Goldstone Report found conclusive evidence that Israel committed war crimes. In Neil MacFarquhar’s “U.N. Council Endorses Gaza Report” (Oct. 16), the article states that the Goldstone Report “details evidence of war crimes committed by the Israeli Army…” In Sharon Otterman’s “Gaza Report Author Asks U.S. to Clarify Concerns” (Oct. 22), the Goldstone Report is described as having “found evidence of war crimes committed by Israel…” In yet another example –– MacFarquhar and Otterman’s “Palestinians, in Reversal, Press U.N. Gaza Report” (Oct. 14) –– the Goldstone Report is once again described as having “found evidence of Israeli war crimes…” These articles reflect only a sample of the many that discuss Israel vis-à-vis the Goldstone Report in conclusive and condemnatory terms.
I wish to reiterate Israel’s position that the Goldstone Report is deeply flawed and one-sided as it offers legitimacy to Hamas terrorism and its deliberate strategy to launch attacks, store weapons and use as shields the civilian population and infrastructure of Gaza. At the same time, the report’s mandate predetermined its findings that wrongly condemned Israel’s legitimate exercise of its right to self-defense. The tendency of The New York Times to gloss over such realities must be rectified and I sincerely hope that paper will use accurate and appropriate language to ensure that its coverage of the Goldstone Report and the wide Middle East is fair and honest. I remain at your disposal if you would like to further discuss this matter.
Mirit Cohen, Spokesperson, Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN
Criticism is one thing, wanting Israel abolished is anotherYes, I think for some the penny has dropped. Because soon the struggle will no longer be about newspaper articles, but instead will be on the validity of allowing the continuation of a rogue apartheid state to exist at all.
First there was the Goldstone report, with its accusations that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
That was followed by the J Street conference, celebrated by many as an opportunity to demonstrate their devotion to Israel by encouraging the U.S. to get tough with it, to force it out of the militant and pro-occupation mindset it has allegedly forged for itself.
Then there was the appearance in English of Tel Aviv University professor Shlomo Sand’s new book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” with its claim that the concept of a Jewish people was a late invention, which the Zionists cynically manipulated to justify their taking land from the indigenous Arabs.
Finally, verging on the surreal, Donald Bostrom, the Swedish journalist who authored the article accusing Israel of harvesting organs from Palestinian victims of Cast Lead, was invited to a conference in the Negev.
The utterly predictable responses are not terribly interesting. On one side of the divide, there are those who assail Goldstone for unfairness, J Street for allowing its campus activists to drop the “pro-Israel” portion of its “pro-Israel, pro-peace” moniker, Sand for shoddy and self-hating scholarship and the Dimona Media Conference, which invited Bostrom, for utter naïveté.
What’s so dangerous is clear on the Amazon.com page for Sand’s book.
In the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section, one will find: “Israel and Palestine: Reflections, Revisions, Refutations” by Avi Shlaim, the well known post-Zionist; “Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides,” as if there’s actually something to debate; and “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.”
But there is also suicidal folly in denying what we know: Were the U.N. to vote today on the creation of Israel, the motion would fail, for the world has decided that Israel was a mistake. No other country anywhere is subjected to debate as to whether it should exist.
And that is the fact that matters more than any other.
The ultimate question is the one that the biblical Joshua posed to the angel (Joshua 5:13): “Are you with us, or do you seek our destruction?” It is frustrating, and tragic — but right now, in the world in which we live, those are our only choices.
Read it in its entirety here