Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event
I’ve been reading The New York Times pretty much every single day since I was ten years old. That’s more than a half-century by now.
Along the way, I’ve been informed, inspired, and occasionally infuriated.
Last week, there were several causes for infuriation.
The first came on Monday, in the form of four photographs that appeared on the first page of the International section.
The largest of the four, 6 x 9 inches, was at the top of the page and immediately caught the reader’s attention. It was a poignant picture of a little girl leaning against a largely empty wall and staring upward, as the caption explained, to a small picture of her grandfather.
Walid Aqel, 48, was to be among those Palestinian prisoners released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas in 2006.
The paper failed to mention, in the caption or elsewhere, that Aqel was a founder of Hamas’s military wing, had much Israeli blood on his hands, and was sentenced by Israel to life imprisonment.
Instead, the overriding impression conveyed was that Aqel was, above all, a grandfather, whose adorable granddaughter was pining for his return from his Israeli captors.
Then, just below the photo was the article itself – “Israel Names 477 to Go Free in Trade for Hamas-Held Soldier.” And beneath the article were three small photos, each measuring 2 x 3 inches, which conveyed images of the human havoc wreaked in Israel by some of those Palestinians to be released in the deal.
Because of their diminutive size and busy images, those photos didn’t draw the eye easily, though they should have been the heart of the story. After all, they conveyed the nature of the terrorists to be freed, helping readers understand how gut-wrenching the decision must have been for Israel.
Yet those photos, together totaling 18 square inches, were submerged, while the single, stark photo at the top, 54 square inches, dominated.
Then came a Times editorial, “Gilad Shalit’s Release,” on Wednesday. It was among the most upsetting I’ve ever read.
The day after Shalit was returned to Israel, with 477 Palestinian prisoners sent to Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere, and a second group to be freed soon, the paper chose to go after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yet again.
He’s been a favorite whipping boy for the editorial writers since he assumed office in 2009.
They give him little credit for what he’s done to advance prospects for peace and Palestinian development – the ten-month settlement freeze, the lifting of blockades and checkpoints on the West Bank, oft-expressed support for a two-state outcome, and help for the rising Palestinian economy. And they spare no criticism for his alleged misdeeds.
But this editorial took the cake, darkly suggesting the Shalit deal was really a Machiavellian plot to further weaken chances for peace — and the blame, predictably, was laid at Netanyahu’s doorstep.
Of course, the editorial could have gone in other directions.
It might have dwelled on the extraordinary importance Israel attaches to human life, in this case the life of one soldier. It could have focused on the nature of Israeli democracy, where Gilad Shalit’s parents never stopped mobilizing on behalf of their son, and created a national movement to liberate him, irrespective of the cost.
It might have reminded the world of the contrast between Shalit’s captivity – more than five years without a single visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross, much less his family – and that of the Palestinian prisoners, none of whom surely would have wished to trade their diet, access to the outside world and, indeed, to sunlight, or opportunities for education with what Shalit endured.
And it might have contrasted the moods following the swap.
Israel warmly welcomed home its son’s return, while engaging in a sobering debate about the meaning of it all and what might loom ahead.
Meanwhile, in the West Bank and Gaza, there were no expressions of remorse for the Israeli blood spilled by the freed terrorists in pizzerias, lynchings, discotheques, and Passover Seders. To the contrary, there were frenzied calls for the kidnapping of more Gilad Shalits, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, not wanting to be outdone by Hamas, lauded the arrivals: “You are freedom fighters and holy warriors for the sake of God and the homeland.”
But as usual, Abbas got a pass in the editorial. Ultimately, he never seems to be responsible for anything.
Praising terrorists? A fiery speech at the UN last month, where he denied the Jewish people’s ancestral connection to the region, while citing the Muslim and Christian link? Avoiding bilateral talks? Setting preconditions for negotiations, while refusing Israel’s right to do the same? A reconciliation agreement with Hamas? PA spokesmen who continue to call for Israel’s eventual destruction and a judenrein West Bank?
All of that seems to count for little, since, we’re told, it’s Netanyahu’s fault anyway.
Then there was one final reason for infuriation.
With Muammar Khaddafi’s demise on Thursday, I was reminded again of just how shocked I was on January 21, 2009, when I opened the Times to see an op-ed, titled “The One-State Solution,” by, of all people, the Libyan leader. Surprise of surprises, he called for an end to Israel and, addressing a topic to which he brought such great expertise, the creation of one big, happy family in Israel’s place.
Having some idea of how difficult it is to get published on that page, I couldn’t quite grasp why the paper would give this tyrant prime real estate to spout off his irrelevant, absurd views on such an issue.
All I can say is, to better times!
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state
Blaming Israel for the violence in Gaza, he ends up justifying Hamas’s terrorism.
In the Thirties it was common for anti-Semites to call on Jews to “go to Palestine!”
“This arbitrary ban is an ugly stain on our democracy, and it also undermines the rule of law.”
We take US “aid” for psychological reasons-if we have an allowance, that means we have a father.
ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.
Foolish me, thinking the goals were the destruction of Hamas thereby giving peace a real chance.
The free-spirted lifestyle didn’t hold your interest; the needs of your people did.
And why would the U.S. align itself on these issues with Turkey and Qatar, longtime advocates of Hamas’s interests?
Several years ago the city concluded that the metzitzah b’peh procedure created unacceptable risks for newborns in terms of the transmission of neo-natal herpes through contact with a mohel carrying the herpes virus.
The world wars caused unimaginable anguish for the Jews but God also scripted a great glory for our people.
We were quite disappointed with many of the points the secretary-general offered in response.
Judging by history, every time Hamas rebuilds their infrastructure, they are stronger than before.
Gov. Mitt Romney has made some outrageous comments and taken some extreme positions in this presidential campaign. But few, if any, are more baffling than his latest statement on his plans for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Asked what he would do to strengthen America’s alliance with Israel, he said, “by and large, you can just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite.”
This election season in the United States was not a great one for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Republicans and the tainted Emergency Committee for Israel launched mendacious ads and campaigns against pro-Israel Democrats across the country threatening the historic bipartisan support for Israel that has existed in Washington. The lies in these campaigns have been called out by an array of independent journalists from The New York Times to Salon, and politicizing support for Israel in this way has been condemned by key figures such as Israel’s U.S. ambassador, Michael Oren.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/skewing-the-shalit-deal-new-york-times-style/2011/10/26/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: