web analytics
October 21, 2014 / 27 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » Blogs » HADAR »

New York Times’ Jerusalem Chief Admits Anti-Israel Bias

Even after the New York Times issued a remarkable correction, the paper's bureau chief claims she was essentially correct in writing that construction in E-1 would cut Judea and Samaria in two.
New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Wilgoren

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren

H/T Yisrael Medad

After New York Times‘ Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren incorrectly reported that building in E-1 would make a “contiguous” Palestinian state impossible, the Times issued this lengthy correction to her article this past Sunday:

An article on Dec. 2 about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two. And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. [Emphasis added].

Following the correction, former Bush adviser and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Elliot Abrams accused Rudoren of being completely bias when it comes to Israel, saying there was no other explanation for her failure to know or consult a map:

Here’s my theory: that just about everyone she knows –all her friends– believe these things, indeed know that they are true. Settlements are bad, the right-wing Israeli government is bad, new construction makes peace impossible and cuts the West Bank in half and destroys contiguity and means a Palestinian state is impossible. They just know it, it’s obvious, so why would you have to refer to a map, or talk to people who would tell you it’s all wrong? This was precisely what was feared when Ms. Rudoren was named the Times’s bureau chief: that she would move solely in a certain political and social milieu, the rough Israeli equivalent of the Upper West Side of Manhattan. This embarrassing episode–one story, many errors and corrections–may lead her to be more careful. One has to hope so, and to hope that both she and her editors reflect again on the thinking and the pattern of associations that lead a correspondent to misunderstand the issues so badly.

Yesterday, Politico posted part of an e-mail sent by Rudoren defending herself. She argued that she is not bias (of course) and blamed “imprecise language” on the pressures of making a deadline late at night. But that was not all. She went further, arguing that in essence she was and is correct about E-1 cutting Judea and Samaria in two, saying that’s “precisely why this area was chosen at this time” by the Israeli government. While as a writer and an attorney I can sympathize with the burdens of watching every single word while adhering to multiple deadlines for various pieces of work, her non-apology apology gives her bias away.

For years, Israel’s “friendly” critics have argued that Israel could establish a Palestinian state through various technical agreements and security arrangements, such as using bypass roads, which would theoretically enable Israelis to travel safely through certain areas of Judea and Samaria without worrying about road attacks. Even after the correction, Roduren assumes that such an arrangement would be impossible and goes even further by acting as if the territory in between Ma’aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea which would connect the top and bottom portions of Judea and Samaria does not exist.

My hope as a Jew and an Israeli citizen is that the government did choose to build in E-1 both to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state as well as to send a message that one could not be created about our consent. As I have written elsewhere, the timing indicates that this may be the case. But it could also be about other things: building in an area which all Israeli governments have viewed as being part of Israel in any future agreement with the Palestinians; sending a message to the Palestinians and/or the international community that Israel will take unilateral action in response to action taken by the Palestinians to change the status of the territory without Israel’s agreement (violating the Oslo Accords), or just building in a controversial area at what was thought to be strategically opportune time.

But Roduren, in a news report for the world’s leading publication, made an assumption about allegedly nefarious Israeli goals. And there is a difference between reporting what critics say and reporting facts – such as that a “contiguous” Palestinian state would be impossible with Jews living on the hill known as E-1, as she did. In order to be fair and present readers with all the facts, news articles should not cite the sources and not present them as undisputed facts.

In fact, when an issue is so bound up in controversy – that was what makes building on some empty hill in the middle east newsworthy to people around the world – reporters should not only cite the Arab critics, but also an advocate for Israel who explains why E-1 would not make a “contiguous” Palestinian state impossible or, even better, defending Israel’s right to do so regardless of its effect on the prospect of “contiguous” Palestinian statehood or the establishment of a Palestinian state at all.

The fact that even after the revisions, the article still only cites anti-settlement sources, is evidence of Abrams’ theory, that everyone Ruderon speaks to pretty much thinks the same thing.

In any case, here’s the excerpt of the e-mail that Politico published:

It’s not correct that most of the people I associate with have a left wing perspective, or any particular perspective. In fact I have been widely praised for speaking to a broad variety of people for my stories.

The essence of what our E1 story said was correct: that building there is seen by palestinians, peace advocates and diplomats worldwide as the death knell of the two state solution, because it prevents meaningful contiguity in the West Bank and easy access to the heart of East Jerusalem. (The Israelis also understand this; it’s precisely why this area was chosen at this time.)

On deadline, late at night and at the end of a very long couple of weeks, I used imprecise language and, yes, did not study the map carefully enough. I deeply regret that, but it does not betray any agenda or anything about who I know or consult in my reporting. [Emphasis added].

About the Author: Daniel Tauber is a frequent contributor to various prominent publications, including the Jewish Press, Arutz Sheva, Americanthinker.com, the Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz. Daniel is also an attorney admitted to practice law in Israel and New York and received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law. You can follow him on facebook and twitter.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “New York Times’ Jerusalem Chief Admits Anti-Israel Bias”

  1. Just another useful idiot.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

hadar-jp-logo copy
Current Top Story
Steve Emerson, author, journalist and terrorism expert.
Haaretz Smears American Terrorism Expert with Political Hit Job
Latest Blogs Stories
NY rally against Met Opera's 'Death of Klinghoffer' opera. Sept. 22, 2014.

Leon Klinghoffer’s daughters: “‘Klinghoffer’ is justified as ‘a work of art’…This is an outrage.”

eg

Kids bring in the light and let out the darkness through breathing exercises; it changes people.

Mir

If I make a million dollars in 2 weeks, how can I observe something like this and sit by quietly?”

Arab children look at pictures of two of a kind - Arafat and Barghouti.

Sometimes collective action against the heinous acts of the majority is not enough. The world should not only support the blockade of Gaza; it must enforce the dismantling of Hamas.

How long will it take for Israel and the Jewish World to admit that we are in very serious danger?

How do changes in technology affect the human life and our interactions with each other?

Palestinians (and Jordanians) often use the term “provocation” regarding Israeli action in Jerusalem

The zealots who engineered the ban have been publicly disgraced.

I am sick and tired of this one way street boycott! Time to boycott all products developed or invented in the Palestinian controlled areas! Let’s start with……umm….

Such an incredible miracle to have Israel, it’s crazy that every Jew isn’t clamoring to live here!

Driving is cultural. I come from a place with incredibly polite and safe drivers, unlike Israel.

My difficulties persisted until I met a beggar outside a restaurant after Tisha B’Av 12 years ago.

I’m more worried about the dangers of the Palestine virus than the Ebola one.

“Nonsense” seems to be the New York Times sense of balanced and accurate coverage.

The Palestinian terrorists could undergo career reorientation and take to cod fishing.

It’s very bad news indeed that the idea of terrorist release is once again under discussion.

More Articles from Daniel Tauber
JStreet crowd

Congratulations, JStreet, you won before you even started! Perhaps you can save your breath, energy and George Soros’ and god knows who else’s money and go home.

drunk UN

A US diplomat proposed that UN negotiating rooms be ‘inebriation-free zones.’

In the version of events provided by Argo, it wasn’t radical Islamists who stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, but the Iranian people as a whole.

Not exactly what Jewish Home voters thought they would get on election day.

The institution of party primaries in Israel needs to be expanded not shrunk, so that the government will be under the supervision of the people from which it derives power and the moral authority to govern.

Ayalon’s new position on the Palestinian statehood doesn’t quite match his prior criticism of the Palestinian’s bid for statehood at the UN.

East Jerusalem has become code for: where Jews shouldn’t be.

Israeli willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands may be the only thing preventing civil wars or heated rhetoric from becoming mass atrocities.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/hadar/new-york-times-jerusalem-chief-admits-anti-israel-bias/2012/12/20/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: