Glad to see a paper that happily promotes war crimes against the Palestinians had focused on this little tidbit in a rare instance where they gave a voice to the other side.
Boycott the NYT.
~
Boycott the NYT.
~
1
At least he didn't have the effrontery and unmitigated gall to submit a crossword puzzle.
1
Commit murder - contribute to the NYTimes.
Cool.
Cool.
2
The Guest Contributor essays are almost invariably click bait in one way or another. Check it out.
The Public Editor should fully appreciate the extent of the damage her paper inflicted on its already shabby reputation with respect to its coverage of Israel. Dao's sanitized ID of the author was so ludicrous it had to be calculated either to outrage Jews or to delight "critics" of Israel. The NYT is never an objective source for news about Israel. A pity.
8
RMB: "The NYT is never an objective source for news about Israel."
An OpEd is not "news".
An OpEd is not "news".
1
An OpEd is not news, but the editors decide which OpEds to include and the editors decide how to express the relevant background of the person whose editorial they included. If an OpEd piece was included by someone who the editors found problematic, but nevertheless illuminating, they should provide context. Choosing to print propaganda by a murderer where that fact is not disclosed is why the NY Times has, once again, damaged their credibility with regards to reporting on Israel. The disabling of comments strongly suggests they tried to suppress being called out on their bias.
1
Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland only after leaders ceased their ad hominem attacks - 'terrorist!' and 'oppressor!', and began to seriously listen to each others' narratives. Marwan Barghouti raises serious concerns about the Israeli justice and penal systems. These complaints deserve to be considered on their own merits, regardless of the identity of the author. It is irrelevant what details the Times prints about his crimes. I suspect that those who insist that the Times should have printed details of Barghouti's offenses, do so in the hope that others will read those details and disregard what Barghouti has to say; in effect, an indirect ad hominem attack.
3
And of course, the NYT's knew what they were doing. Thought they could white wash this and no one would notice, and instead focus on the poor man's treatment in prison. I suppose that's why they took no comments
4
@calista
The NY Times is providing cover for anti-Israel forces because it places ideology above truth.
The NY Times is providing cover for anti-Israel forces because it places ideology above truth.
2
Once again, the NYT editorial page reveals its strong bias against the Jewish state. In covering up Barghouti's heinous crimes while giving voice to his propaganda, one can only surmise that Mr. Dao has clearly taken sides in a bitter conflict. As a 30 year subscriber I have seen a steady erosion in the Times' journalistic standard. I no longer have any faith in the Times as an objective source of news on the Middle East and Jewish issues in general.
7
Yes, Barghouti was convicted by an Israeli kangaroo court. It is reported that 99.7% of all Palestinians charged with a crime are convicted in the West Bank by Israeli military courts, where the judge, jury and everyone else is an Israeli soldier. Mr. Barghouti was tried in an Israeli civil court, but refused to mount a defense, noting the illegitimacy of the court and the inherent injustice that all Palestinians face in the Israeli court systems.
The basic points of his piece are beyond dispute. Palestinians live under an apartheid system and there is no justice for them living under the boot heel of the Israeli military. And yes, there plight is analogous to South Africa where millions were denied justice or human rights by their oppressors.
The basic points of his piece are beyond dispute. Palestinians live under an apartheid system and there is no justice for them living under the boot heel of the Israeli military. And yes, there plight is analogous to South Africa where millions were denied justice or human rights by their oppressors.
2
Your comment is irrelevant as he was convicted in a civil court. I'd ask your to provide some evidence great examples of Arab jurisprudence but there is not one democracy to pick from and the current "president" of Palestine is in the umpteenth year of his original term, with only his death bringing on his exit. Remember, Arabsserve on the Israeli Supreme Court while no Jews are allowed to even live in Arab territory. Think about it "Ezekial"
3
What's missing from this discussion is that not only is Barghouti a convicted terrorist murderer, he was convicted of murders AFTER all of the Palestinians' putative, internationally recognized demands (a viable state with Jerusalem as its capital and compensation for refugees) were satisfied by Israeli peace offers in 2000 and 2001. Even if one was otherwise inclined to either excuse Barghouti, or analogize him to Begin, Mandela, or whomever, one must recognize that those individuals lay down their arms and became peaceable democrats once the confict came to a negotiated end. But even after Israel agreed to the major demands, with only small details any longer in dispute, Barghouti accepted Arafat's orders to continue to murder Israelis.
13
Interesting that when Aaron Hernandez - an unusually popular running back - kills himself, the first line of the Times article states that he was convicted of murder in 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/aaron-hernandez-dead.html
The poiint being that the news editor thinks that being a convicted killer is a highly significant identifying characteristic.
But when Barghouti writes on the OpEd page, we are denied that same highly improtant bit of background information. This is no suprise to regular readers of the NYT - the Palestinian propaganda sheet. The person that should resign is Jim Dao who has outed himself as not only a blatant partisan - but a clumsy one at that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/aaron-hernandez-dead.html
The poiint being that the news editor thinks that being a convicted killer is a highly significant identifying characteristic.
But when Barghouti writes on the OpEd page, we are denied that same highly improtant bit of background information. This is no suprise to regular readers of the NYT - the Palestinian propaganda sheet. The person that should resign is Jim Dao who has outed himself as not only a blatant partisan - but a clumsy one at that.
18
EM: "... the news editor ..."
EM: "But when Barghouti writes on the OpEd page, ..."
News and opinion are subject to different criteria, so you have a false analogy.
News articles are supposed to be unbiased, while opinion pieces are free to be biased.
The problem is that the opinion editor failed to recognize that difference when he published the Editors’ Note. That Note essentially rebuts the author by attacking his credibility. It is NOT the job of opinion editors to rebut OpEds. Rebuttal should be left to readers or to other OpEd authors.
EM: "But when Barghouti writes on the OpEd page, ..."
News and opinion are subject to different criteria, so you have a false analogy.
News articles are supposed to be unbiased, while opinion pieces are free to be biased.
The problem is that the opinion editor failed to recognize that difference when he published the Editors’ Note. That Note essentially rebuts the author by attacking his credibility. It is NOT the job of opinion editors to rebut OpEds. Rebuttal should be left to readers or to other OpEd authors.
3
Although an OpEd is obviously an opinion and not strictly news, a newspaper carries the responsibility of properly identifying the writer when it chooses to publish it. The New York Times utterly failed to identify Barghouti in this case. It would seem the Times takes more care in moderating this public Comments section than it did the OpEd, which should be held to a higher standard.
8
RA: "The New York Times utterly failed to identify Barghouti in this case."
Do you sincerely believe that anyone was confused about which Marwan Barghouti wrote the OpEd?
Do you sincerely believe that anyone was confused about which Marwan Barghouti wrote the OpEd?
Ms. Spayd discusses Mr. Barghouti's 'crimes', yet neglects to mention that his 'trial' was denounced by international observers, or that he was placed in solitary confinement by Israel following the publication of this op-ed. The points he raises are valid, and it's about time The Times started reporting on Israel's many crimes.
7
The NYT general editor should consider removing Dao for an inability to edit himself, unable to introduce Barghouti's muder convictions without adding he did not participate at his trials and refused to recognize Israel's courts. If a comment on Israeli justice is important: Barghouti refused to participate or recognize the Israel's civilian court that acquitted him of 33 murders due to insufficient evidence, but convicted him of five murders, & membership in a terrorist organization.
12
Your opinion pages never mention the crimes of pro-Israel writers. And, if you are going to list what Barghouti was convicted of, it would also be appropriate to mention the outcome was not decided by an unbiased jury of his peers. He was tried in an Israeli court on evidence that many consider flimsy, although the judge surely would have convicted him on any evidence made-up by the prosecutor or none whatsoever. Not to mention, the same crimes for which he was charged, if committed by Israeli Jews, would not be prosecuted if they were considered crimes at all by Israel.
4
Basically, everything you've said is false or misleading. He wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, because no such trial exists in Israel. He was tried the same way as anyone else in Israel, by a panel of judges.
You claim the evidence was flimsy; i guess that's a subjective assessment. But when you offer no defense, you're likely to be convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
Finally, Jews in Israel are arrested, tried and convicted for the same crimes as Barghouti. This is a simple fact, easily proven by a simple Google search.
You claim the evidence was flimsy; i guess that's a subjective assessment. But when you offer no defense, you're likely to be convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
Finally, Jews in Israel are arrested, tried and convicted for the same crimes as Barghouti. This is a simple fact, easily proven by a simple Google search.
5
If Israeli Jews commit the kinds of crimes that Barghouti was convicted, they would be tried. But consider a Jew in an Arab country committing such a crime. You know what the result would be!
6
What is the argument against allowing readers comments on Op Eds? Doing so would at least establish a clear distance between the Editorial Board and the opinions aired on the NYT, while allowing omitted aspects of the truth to come to light. The moderated comments section is one of the strongest assets of the NYT, along with the occasional investigative pieces. This latest incident is clear case of abuse of power by the editor, probably because of his personal agenda. By not allowing comments, he takes on himself the shutting out of dissenting voices and reveals that anti-democratic tendencies are not a privilege of right wing extremists.
7
PE: "I see no reason to skimp on this, while failing to do so risks the credibility of the author and the Op-Ed pages."
It is not the job of the Times to protect "the credibility of the author". If the author discredits himself or herself, that is the fault of the author.
And the Times cannot protect its "credibility" by appending bios that essentially rebut the author.
Here are some practical suggestions:
1. Send the OpEd back to the author before publication asking that the AUTHOR address obvious problems, including omitted information, false statements, and conflicts of interest.
2. Restrict OpEd author bios to the MINIMUM amount of information needed to uniquely identify the author.
3. Append a DISCLAIMER to every OpEd saying that the OpEd is the responsibility of the author and not the Times.
4. Embed links in the online version of the OpEd and the bio to relevant NEWS articles about the subject or the author.
5. Open OpEds for comments so that READERS can rebut the OpEd.
The Times's opinion editors evidently failed to do any of the above for the Barghouti OpEd, and they are rightly being excoriated for those failures.
It is not the job of the Times to protect "the credibility of the author". If the author discredits himself or herself, that is the fault of the author.
And the Times cannot protect its "credibility" by appending bios that essentially rebut the author.
Here are some practical suggestions:
1. Send the OpEd back to the author before publication asking that the AUTHOR address obvious problems, including omitted information, false statements, and conflicts of interest.
2. Restrict OpEd author bios to the MINIMUM amount of information needed to uniquely identify the author.
3. Append a DISCLAIMER to every OpEd saying that the OpEd is the responsibility of the author and not the Times.
4. Embed links in the online version of the OpEd and the bio to relevant NEWS articles about the subject or the author.
5. Open OpEds for comments so that READERS can rebut the OpEd.
The Times's opinion editors evidently failed to do any of the above for the Barghouti OpEd, and they are rightly being excoriated for those failures.
5
If this was the first time the NYT had to provide context on Israel issues, it would be understandable. But time and time again, articles that discuss events that deal with Palestinians in Israel make the country's actions out to be either insensitive at best or villainous at worst. The Times' bias is fairly well established. For me, it's angering. More broadly, it erodes credibility (except of course for those who are already inclined to believe that Israel is a bad actor).
11
Murder? Let's be careful about who we're calling murderers. For one, Barghouti was tried by an occupying force's kangaroo court, one which he did not recognize and he did not raise a defense. Agree with him or not, his "conviction" was railroaded.
In any event, Netnayahu himself is quite an accomplished terrorist and murderer. He, and Likud, have followed in the footsteps of other terrorists and murderers, most notably Ariel Sharon and the granddaddy of Likud, Menachem Begin. It has always amazed me that they showcased Begin as a keynote speaker at the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. But then, Begin himself was quite an accomplished and dedicated terrorist. He was so proud, he even wrote a book about it. Google his name and you can even find his old "WANTED" posters.
No, people like this have no room whatsoever to be going around calling people murderers and terrorists. They are the very same ones who set the stage and arranged the spotlights.
In any event, Netnayahu himself is quite an accomplished terrorist and murderer. He, and Likud, have followed in the footsteps of other terrorists and murderers, most notably Ariel Sharon and the granddaddy of Likud, Menachem Begin. It has always amazed me that they showcased Begin as a keynote speaker at the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. But then, Begin himself was quite an accomplished and dedicated terrorist. He was so proud, he even wrote a book about it. Google his name and you can even find his old "WANTED" posters.
No, people like this have no room whatsoever to be going around calling people murderers and terrorists. They are the very same ones who set the stage and arranged the spotlights.
3
I think you are confused about who you are calling a terrorist. Begin as well as para military organization s Irgun and Stern fought against mainly well armed British soldiers who occupied Israel at the time. They also sometimes fought against Arab militants. They did not target British or Arab civilians. They were not terrorist but a legitimate resistance organizations.
On the other hand, Barghouti and his organization specifically targeted Israeli civilians. Especially women and children. They ran away when they saw Israeli soldiers. Barghouti is a murderer, terrorist and a coward. It is his problem that he did not defend himself in Israeli civilian court. He belongs in prison...
On the other hand, Barghouti and his organization specifically targeted Israeli civilians. Especially women and children. They ran away when they saw Israeli soldiers. Barghouti is a murderer, terrorist and a coward. It is his problem that he did not defend himself in Israeli civilian court. He belongs in prison...
Indeed, Israel is so inhumane that if a terrorist who had killed tens of schoolchildren was surrounded by the Israeli Defense Forces and he gave himself up he could live his natural life in prison. No death penalty in Israel.
Whereas in the US terrorists and others are executed. So, if Israel is inhumane, then the US is even more inhumane.
The author calls Israel colonialists. Yet, the Jews in Israel, about half of whom were kicked out of their own countries by surrounding Arab states, have simply returned to their land. It was the Arabs who colonized Jewish land. But of course, the people Barghouti is writing to, the residents of the US, truly are colonists for our ancestors forcibly killed or moved about 16 million Native Americans. The Jews of Israel by simply returning to their land what was colonized by others have a far greater right to live there than the residents of the US, including the Palestinians living here, to be here.
The reason the Palestinians never got their state in 1948 when Israel was created was because they turned it down, electing instead to follow The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent WW II with Hitler in Berlin and tried to convince Hitler to implement The Final Solution in what is today Israel. 6,000 Israelis, 1% of the population died defending Israel in 1948, the proportional equivalent of over 3 million Americans.
I predict the Palestinians will never have their state until they apologize for following The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Whereas in the US terrorists and others are executed. So, if Israel is inhumane, then the US is even more inhumane.
The author calls Israel colonialists. Yet, the Jews in Israel, about half of whom were kicked out of their own countries by surrounding Arab states, have simply returned to their land. It was the Arabs who colonized Jewish land. But of course, the people Barghouti is writing to, the residents of the US, truly are colonists for our ancestors forcibly killed or moved about 16 million Native Americans. The Jews of Israel by simply returning to their land what was colonized by others have a far greater right to live there than the residents of the US, including the Palestinians living here, to be here.
The reason the Palestinians never got their state in 1948 when Israel was created was because they turned it down, electing instead to follow The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent WW II with Hitler in Berlin and tried to convince Hitler to implement The Final Solution in what is today Israel. 6,000 Israelis, 1% of the population died defending Israel in 1948, the proportional equivalent of over 3 million Americans.
I predict the Palestinians will never have their state until they apologize for following The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
13
NYT, please have more coverage on Rikers Island and less on people that commit multiple murders in Israel and are free to write opinion essays while imprisoned for life.
7
Since the Presidential election, the NY Times has abandon standards of journalism in order to advance their agenda. It constantly overstates transgressions of republicans while omitting abuses by Palestinians, democrats, etc.
The response of the NY Times is inadequate and disgraceful. The only reason the editors made a change is that honest readers called them out for it.
Time to dump the Times!
The response of the NY Times is inadequate and disgraceful. The only reason the editors made a change is that honest readers called them out for it.
Time to dump the Times!
6
How would the commenters complaining about Barghouti's piece appearing in the NYT, or that the piece does not indicate that Barghouti was convicted of killing five people, feel if the NYT identified say, Benjamin Netanyahu as an unindicted mass murderer when Netanyahu writes his opinion pieces in the Times.
Not so outraged, are you?
Not so outraged, are you?
14
RHE: "... Benjamin Netanyahu as an unindicted mass murderer ..."
That's a desperate analogy. Barghouti was tried and convicted in court. In his FIRST SENTENCE, Barghouti says he is in prison, yet he doesn't say why.
The only reasonable complaint about this OpEd is that it doesn't have any bio for Netanyahu:
Why Israel Needs a Fence
By BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
JULY 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/why-israel-needs-a-fence.html
That's a desperate analogy. Barghouti was tried and convicted in court. In his FIRST SENTENCE, Barghouti says he is in prison, yet he doesn't say why.
The only reasonable complaint about this OpEd is that it doesn't have any bio for Netanyahu:
Why Israel Needs a Fence
By BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
JULY 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/why-israel-needs-a-fence.html
1
Not the same issue at all. Everyone understands that there's disagreement about the rights and wrongs of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that some people, evidently including you, strongly condemn many Israeli policies. But there is no particular reason for this information to appear when identifying, say, the prime minister of Israel as the author of an article--it would just (obviously prejudicial) boilerplate.
Here, in contrast, the fact that Barghouti has been convicted of murdering civilians in an Israeli court is directly relevant to the reader's evaluation of his credibility, since the article is in fact about Israeli criminal justice. In other words, the question is whether Barghouti is really a "political prisoner" as he claims, or not. Moreover, the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, and thus is responsible for many aspects of Israeli policy, is common knowledge, whereas the fact that Barghouti is a convicted murderer is not common knowledge.
So, no, it's not really the same thing at all.
Here, in contrast, the fact that Barghouti has been convicted of murdering civilians in an Israeli court is directly relevant to the reader's evaluation of his credibility, since the article is in fact about Israeli criminal justice. In other words, the question is whether Barghouti is really a "political prisoner" as he claims, or not. Moreover, the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, and thus is responsible for many aspects of Israeli policy, is common knowledge, whereas the fact that Barghouti is a convicted murderer is not common knowledge.
So, no, it's not really the same thing at all.
4
Please Robert, What are you talking about, where are your sources for such an outrageous statement. The Palestinian Press or the radical far left or are you just repeating something you heard somewhere but can't remember where?
Come on, let's have the details.
By the way, isn't it interesting that the Palestinian villages in Israel are wide open, while the Jewish villages have to be fenced and their ent rances guarded. Does that not clearly point to the aggressor? Have you ever heard of even one Jewish suicide bomber, or one car rammer or decapitator ? Have you seen small Jewish children in military uniform exercising with weapons and shouting death to Arabs? But the "Palestinian" Arabs have special training camps for pre-teens. Is that enough or would you like to hear more?
You should be ashamed to utter such gross propaganda.
Come on, let's have the details.
By the way, isn't it interesting that the Palestinian villages in Israel are wide open, while the Jewish villages have to be fenced and their ent rances guarded. Does that not clearly point to the aggressor? Have you ever heard of even one Jewish suicide bomber, or one car rammer or decapitator ? Have you seen small Jewish children in military uniform exercising with weapons and shouting death to Arabs? But the "Palestinian" Arabs have special training camps for pre-teens. Is that enough or would you like to hear more?
You should be ashamed to utter such gross propaganda.
5
Ms. Spayd:
Have you also insisted that Israeli authors not omit their crimes when publishing in the NYT? I have seen no evidence that you have done so.
Have you also insisted that the New York Times not omit the crimes of Israeli authors when the paper publishes the opinions of Israeli authors? I see no evidence that you have done so.
Have you also insisted that the New York Times allow its readers to comment when the NYT publishes partisan opinions by Israeli authors? I see no evidence that you have done so.
Most Israeli leaders, certainly including Benjamin Netanyahu, have been complicit in the same sort of crimes, and on a larger scale, than this Palestinian you so self-righteously point out murdered innocent people, while you have failed, and continue to fail, to insist the NYT point out his crimes, but not the crimes of murder, crimes against humanity, crimes against international law, that Netanyahu and many other Israelis commit. Are those crimes not worth mentioning? Or is the conviction or non-conviction in un-representative courts your grounds for your double standard?
You are as guilty as the New York Times is.
Have you also insisted that Israeli authors not omit their crimes when publishing in the NYT? I have seen no evidence that you have done so.
Have you also insisted that the New York Times not omit the crimes of Israeli authors when the paper publishes the opinions of Israeli authors? I see no evidence that you have done so.
Have you also insisted that the New York Times allow its readers to comment when the NYT publishes partisan opinions by Israeli authors? I see no evidence that you have done so.
Most Israeli leaders, certainly including Benjamin Netanyahu, have been complicit in the same sort of crimes, and on a larger scale, than this Palestinian you so self-righteously point out murdered innocent people, while you have failed, and continue to fail, to insist the NYT point out his crimes, but not the crimes of murder, crimes against humanity, crimes against international law, that Netanyahu and many other Israelis commit. Are those crimes not worth mentioning? Or is the conviction or non-conviction in un-representative courts your grounds for your double standard?
You are as guilty as the New York Times is.
15
OK, let's play your game. What should the Times say if George W. Bush writes an Op Ed?
2
Because the Israeli authors have never been convicted, not even indicted in any recognized judicial system in the world.
You are guilty, Mr Eller, of sophistry.
You are guilty, Mr Eller, of sophistry.
10
Except that these Israelis have not been convicted of a crime. All there is against them is accusations and conjecture. Conjecture that largely doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
6
Strangely enough, the Times doesn't mention the crimes of any Israeli leader who's given an op-Ed or discussed in an article. How many times has the NY Times reminded its readers that Rabin, the figurehead of the Israeli "dove" movement, was also a terrorist who murdered an estimated 300 civilians in Lydda for the crime of being born Palestinian, most of whom were elderly, sick or pregnant? Or that Sharon, beloved by the Times for his strategic withdrawal from Gaza, was also responsible for the deliberate murder of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Lebanon? I smell a double standard!
17
Was Rabin or Sharon ever convicted of any crimes you noted, Andrew?
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
5
I smell someone who confuses political propaganda with history.
4
I would be more comfortable with the post op-ed opinions if the facts of Barghouti's arrest and trial were more complete. There is little doubt that he was arrested and tried at a time that his voice was becoming an alternative to the Hamas-Fatah logjam. His point about the military occupation suppressing political activity makes his arrest and trial have a 'context'. The belief that Palestinians are given justice in Israel is becoming more and more an act of faith, not borne by fact.
8
This is such a gross omission, misleading the reader, that the Op-Ed editor should be dismissed to save the already tarnished reputation of the New York Times.
16
It is truly beneath contemptible the way the "op-ed" piece and the missing bits of info about his bio was handled by the Times editors. If this was another publication (the WSJ or the Washington Post), this would be front page news in the Times. Shame on you!! And shame on the Ms. Spayd for the light-hearted way in how this was handled. THis whole affair is shameful and gives a foul taste in how even-handed the Times actually is.
16
The Times has an anti Israel bias. This is at least the perception of many Jews and friends of Israel. They also hate Mr. Trump. So ... what else is new?
15
Barghouti’s Op Ed is newsworthy because of its first person description of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners and the purpose of the hunger strike. Does Barghouti’s conviction for murder 13 years ago in a case where he presented no defense and did not perjure himself make his statements about the current situation less likely to be true? Are people truly outraged by the omission, or are they outraged because they wish to suppress the message of this particular speaker? Have these same people expressed similar outrage every time The Times has published statements of other public figures without referencing their prior “bad acts”? Think about (1) Menachim Begin, who ordered Irgun bombings and shootings that murdered scores of British citizens and Palestinians, (2) Gerry Adams, widely believed to have ordered killings and bombings during Ireland’s “Troubles,” and (3) Nelson Mandela, who as co-founder of the ANC’s armed wing, spent 18 years in prison after being convicted of sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the South African government. The Editorial Board’s original decision not to include prior “bad acts” is understandable, given that they would be more likely to distract from the relevant news than augment it. The supplementary information published after the complaints supports this conclusion.
15
Eccl3: 'Think about ... (2) Gerry Adams, ...'
That's a bad analogy. Adams kept himself out of his OpEd.
In contrast, Barghouti refers to himself throughout his OpEd. In particular, Barghouti says that he is in prison in his FIRST SENTENCE, yet he never says WHY he is in prison.
Brexit and Irish Unity
By GERRY ADAMS
JULY 12, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/opinion/brexit-and-irish-unity.html
That's a bad analogy. Adams kept himself out of his OpEd.
In contrast, Barghouti refers to himself throughout his OpEd. In particular, Barghouti says that he is in prison in his FIRST SENTENCE, yet he never says WHY he is in prison.
Brexit and Irish Unity
By GERRY ADAMS
JULY 12, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/opinion/brexit-and-irish-unity.html
1
I would agree with you that it is a closer call with Barghouti than with Adams, since the topic involved imprisonment. I was already familiar with Barghouti's past crimes and also with reports from human rights groups, former prisoners (e.g. peace activist Sami Al Jundi--in The Hour of Sunlight), and some former members of Shin Bet indicating that there seems to be a problem with young Palestinian men being "rounded up" as the usual suspects and forced to remain in stress positions . . . . Most Americans have not been exposed to this information, and personally (I could be wrong), many of the people commenting on the article seemed to be using Barghouti's crimes as a pretext for a desire to suppress the information that he was providing. I felt that from his description and prison term, his "interest" would be obvious.
1
Bottom line: Had Barghouti's article said either (1) Palestinian prisoners are treated grandly, or (2) Palestinian prisoners have it coming to them and deserve everything they get, then would most of the people who complained that the article didn't go into detail about Barghouti's crimes have been so upset?
1
To all of you commenters who think there's a double standard in favor of Israel in the editors' Op-Ed correction: Now you know how Israel's supporters feel when Israel alone is judged because you naively succumb to Palestinian propaganda.
15
Barghouti’s Op Ed is newsworthy because of its description of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners and the purpose of the hunger strike. Does Barghouti’s conviction for murder 13 years ago in a case where he presented no defense and did not perjure himself make his statements about the current situation less likely to be true? Are people truly outraged by the omission, or are they outraged because they wish to suppress the message of this particular speaker? Do these same people express similar outrage every time The Times publishes statements of other public figures without referencing their prior “bad acts”? Think about (1) Menachim Begin, who ordered Irgun bombings and shootings that murdered scores of British citizens and Palestinians, (2) Gerry Adams, widely believed to have ordered killings and bombings during Ireland’s “Troubles,” and (3) Nelson Mandela, who as co-founder of the ANC’s armed wing, spent 18 years in prison after being convicted of sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the South African government. It will be interesting to see if the Editorial Board’s publishing of supplemental information in this particular instance represents a true change in policy along the lines suggested by Liz Spade (e.g. will The Times identify prior “bad acts” of future Op Ed contributors expressing countervailing points of view?), or a politically mandated response to placate the usual lobbying groups.
4
Jan 17, 2002 - The shooting attack during a bat mitzvah celebration at a banquet hall in Hadera. Six Israelis were killed in this attack, 26 were injured.
Jan 22, 2002 - The shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem. Two Israelis were killed, 37 wounded.
Feb 25, 2002 - The shooting attack in the Jerusalem residential neighborhood of Neve Ya'acov. One Israeli policewoman was killed, 9 Israelis were wounded.
Feb 27, 2002 - The murder of an Israeli at a coffee factory in the Atarot industrial zone of Jerusalem.
Feb 27, 2002 - The suicide attack perpetrated by Daryan Abu Aysha at the Maccabim checkpoint in which two policemen were injured.
Mar 5, 2002 - The shooting spree at the Tel Aviv Seafood restaurant. Three Israelis were killed, 31 wounded.
Mar 8, 2002 - A suicide terrorist was killed in Daheat el Barid as he was on his way to carry out an attack in Jerusalem.
Mar 27, 2002 - The interception of an ambulance and the confiscation of an explosive belt which was being smuggled from Samaria into Barghouti's terrorist infrastructure in Ramallah.
Marwan Barghouti was also directly responsible for operating the terrorist cell of Raed Karmi in Tulkaram which carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks.
Jan 22, 2002 - The shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem. Two Israelis were killed, 37 wounded.
Feb 25, 2002 - The shooting attack in the Jerusalem residential neighborhood of Neve Ya'acov. One Israeli policewoman was killed, 9 Israelis were wounded.
Feb 27, 2002 - The murder of an Israeli at a coffee factory in the Atarot industrial zone of Jerusalem.
Feb 27, 2002 - The suicide attack perpetrated by Daryan Abu Aysha at the Maccabim checkpoint in which two policemen were injured.
Mar 5, 2002 - The shooting spree at the Tel Aviv Seafood restaurant. Three Israelis were killed, 31 wounded.
Mar 8, 2002 - A suicide terrorist was killed in Daheat el Barid as he was on his way to carry out an attack in Jerusalem.
Mar 27, 2002 - The interception of an ambulance and the confiscation of an explosive belt which was being smuggled from Samaria into Barghouti's terrorist infrastructure in Ramallah.
Marwan Barghouti was also directly responsible for operating the terrorist cell of Raed Karmi in Tulkaram which carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks.
21
Would you describe (former prime minister of Israel) Menachem Begin as a terrorist?
Here's part of the list of attacks carried out by the Irgun while he was its commander in chief (from Wikipedia). The entire list is far too long to fit into the comment space limit:
1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, ("Black Sunday")
1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem.
1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel Aviv.
1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv.
1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded.
1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa.
1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem.
1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa.
Here's part of the list of attacks carried out by the Irgun while he was its commander in chief (from Wikipedia). The entire list is far too long to fit into the comment space limit:
1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, ("Black Sunday")
1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem.
1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel Aviv.
1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv.
1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded.
1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa.
1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem.
1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa.
1
Once again the NYT shows its bias.
Thank you Ms. Spayd for putting it out there that this omission was addressed in some way. But, the greater issue is that this was a deliberate attempt to mask the author's background and push an agenda to demonize Israel (like the NYT usually does).
This just gives the public more reason to distrust what you publish.
Thank you Ms. Spayd for putting it out there that this omission was addressed in some way. But, the greater issue is that this was a deliberate attempt to mask the author's background and push an agenda to demonize Israel (like the NYT usually does).
This just gives the public more reason to distrust what you publish.
17
Israel and it's supporter cannot stand it when one of the top American news papers like NY times publish something that tells the truth about what's going on in the occupied territories. The Apartheid Israel have thousands in prisons including children. The only country in the world that imprison children for resisting occupation and the inhumane treatment of Palestinians. This op-ed criticizes Marwan's opinion published earlier only because he says the truth about the suffering of the Palestinians.
7
Let's talk about Palestinian prisoners. Why is Marwan Barghouti in prison? :The following are some of the more heinous terror attacks for which Marwan Barghouti is responsible:
Jun 12, 2001 - The murder of a Greek Orthodox monk on the road to Ma'ale Adumim.
Jan 17, 2002 - The shooting attack during a bat mitzva celebration at a banquet hall in Hadera. Six Israelis were killed in this attack, 26 were injured.
Jan 22, 2002 - The shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem. Two Israelis were killed, 37 wounded.
Feb 25, 2002 - The shooting attack in the Jerusalem residential neighborhood of Neve Ya'acov. One Israeli policewoman was killed, 9 Israelis were wounded.
Feb 27, 2002 - The murder of an Israeli at a coffee factory in the Atarot industrial zone of Jerusalem.
Feb 27, 2002 - The suicide attack perpetrated by Daryan Abu Aysha at the Maccabim checkpoint in which two policeman were injured.
Mar 5, 2002 - The shooting spree at the Tel Aviv Seafood restaurant. Three Israelis were killed, 31 wounded.
Mar 8, 2002 - A suicide terrorist was killed in Daheat el Barid as he was on his way to carry out an attack in Jerusalem.
Mar 27, 2002 - The interception of an ambulance and the confiscation of an explosive belt which was being smuggled from Samaria into Barghouti's terrorist infrastructure in Ramallah.
Marwan Barghouti was also directly responsible for operating the terrorist cell of Raed Karmi in Tulkaram which carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks.
Jun 12, 2001 - The murder of a Greek Orthodox monk on the road to Ma'ale Adumim.
Jan 17, 2002 - The shooting attack during a bat mitzva celebration at a banquet hall in Hadera. Six Israelis were killed in this attack, 26 were injured.
Jan 22, 2002 - The shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem. Two Israelis were killed, 37 wounded.
Feb 25, 2002 - The shooting attack in the Jerusalem residential neighborhood of Neve Ya'acov. One Israeli policewoman was killed, 9 Israelis were wounded.
Feb 27, 2002 - The murder of an Israeli at a coffee factory in the Atarot industrial zone of Jerusalem.
Feb 27, 2002 - The suicide attack perpetrated by Daryan Abu Aysha at the Maccabim checkpoint in which two policeman were injured.
Mar 5, 2002 - The shooting spree at the Tel Aviv Seafood restaurant. Three Israelis were killed, 31 wounded.
Mar 8, 2002 - A suicide terrorist was killed in Daheat el Barid as he was on his way to carry out an attack in Jerusalem.
Mar 27, 2002 - The interception of an ambulance and the confiscation of an explosive belt which was being smuggled from Samaria into Barghouti's terrorist infrastructure in Ramallah.
Marwan Barghouti was also directly responsible for operating the terrorist cell of Raed Karmi in Tulkaram which carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks.
10
The Editors’ Note for the Barghouti OpEd begins: "This article ..."
Wrong. "This" is an OpEd. There is a big difference between a news article and an opinion piece. The Times should NOT confuse the two.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strike-pri...
Wrong. "This" is an OpEd. There is a big difference between a news article and an opinion piece. The Times should NOT confuse the two.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strike-pri...
10
I appreciate that the public editor has acknowledged this error, and brought about a correction. However, these steps cannot fully undo the damage caused by the original omission. First, as other commenters have noted, many Times readers who read the original piece without the crucial biographical details about its author will now have moved on to other concerns, and will not become aware of the Times' correction. Second, the fact that such an egregious omission took place suggests a certain unwillingness by the Times' editorial staff to discuss Palestinian terrorism against Israel, even when doing so is required for basic journalistic balance. As a result, correcting this omission after the fact will not undo the impression of bias that the original incident has created.
13
It is a pattern of deception and hatred on the part of the times
2
Context is EVERYTHING! The Times requires context from their reporters, correspondents, and editorialists. In short it is what makes The Times, "The Times"... it is the essence which differentiates it from other publications.
While this Op-Ed was no doubt timely, the lack of sufficient and comprehensive background commentary regarding the author is both appalling and misleading. This error in judgement cannot be construed as anything other than intentional. To demean the integrity of this publication in this manner is inexcusable!
While this Op-Ed was no doubt timely, the lack of sufficient and comprehensive background commentary regarding the author is both appalling and misleading. This error in judgement cannot be construed as anything other than intentional. To demean the integrity of this publication in this manner is inexcusable!
11
"I asked Jim Dao, editor of the Op-Ed pages, about the decision not to include Barghouti’s crimes."
Why not ask Mr. Dao what motivated him to publish the article in the first place? This is not just an "error". It is a fundamental problem with the editor's political bias that allows him to give a platform to a murderer. Which brings the question: who made the decision to make him the editor of the Op-Ed page?
Why not ask Mr. Dao what motivated him to publish the article in the first place? This is not just an "error". It is a fundamental problem with the editor's political bias that allows him to give a platform to a murderer. Which brings the question: who made the decision to make him the editor of the Op-Ed page?
15
It's amazing that this still is not right. The paper is fighting tooth and nail to help an avowed terrorist conceal his malignant background so as to better influence the unwary.
The Times' belated note does not disclose who the victims were in the five counts of murder. It ignores the fact that they were innocent civilians. It heaps coverup upon coverup. It is itself an outrage, and complicit in terror.
The Public Editor should not be pleased, but rather outraged. If the Times can't make proper full disclosure, it is not the paper of record.
The Times' belated note does not disclose who the victims were in the five counts of murder. It ignores the fact that they were innocent civilians. It heaps coverup upon coverup. It is itself an outrage, and complicit in terror.
The Public Editor should not be pleased, but rather outraged. If the Times can't make proper full disclosure, it is not the paper of record.
15
The Times (Mr. Dao) gives cover (read 'credibility') to Mr. Barghouti because he refused to acknowledge Israeli court jurisdiction. So would Osama Bin Laden if he had been brought to justice in the US. The Tmes (Ms. Spayd) gives cover (read 'credibility') to Mr. Barghouti as 'an unusually popular political figure among Palestinians.' As was Osama Bin Laden among many in the Muslim world immediately after 9/11 as the Times itself reported http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/world/nation-challenged-protesters-pak... Shame on the Times for dishonoring the memory of those killed by Barghouti: the court found Barghouti responsible for a June 2001 attack in Maale Adumim, in which a Greek monk was murdered, a January 2002 terror attack on a gas station in Givat Zeev, a March 2002 attack at Tel Aviv's Seafood Market restaurant, in which three people were murdered, and a car bomb attack in Jerusalem.
17
No, it doesn't "risk the credibility of the Opinion pages" Ms. Spayd. It cements the non-credibility of The NY Times and exposes it for the propagandist rag it has become.
16
One thing's for sure. Both the public editor Liz Spayd and opinion page editor James Dao believe this closes the book on the matter. No matter how much outrage Times readers express, the public editor has already returned to her bunker, and the opinion page editor couldn't care less.
13
Wouldn't it be a wonder if Liz Spayd could get James Dao to make a public statement about why he asked a murdering terrorist to write an Op-Ed and who approved the text for publication?
5
The irony of course - which I'm sure is lost on Israel-haters - is that this murderer is complaining about inhuman conditions but somehow is able to freely post an op-ed in the NY Times anyway. Wonder how many prisoners in a Palestinian Authority or Hamas prison would be afforded the same luxury?
Meanwhile Bargouti naturally uses the occupation to excuse his acts -- read murder of civilians including a Greek Orthodox priest Bargouti targeted because he thought the priest was a rabbi. But all these crimes were committed AFTER Arafat rejected a sweeping offer without counter-offer made by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000 that would have given Bargouti his state and end to occupation: 100% of Gaza, 95% of the West Bank and capital in East Jerusalem. Rejected.
This reveals Barghouti's true motives. But what are the motives of those who willingly swallow his garbage and sanitize his crimes? What'should the op-editor'so excuse?
Meanwhile Bargouti naturally uses the occupation to excuse his acts -- read murder of civilians including a Greek Orthodox priest Bargouti targeted because he thought the priest was a rabbi. But all these crimes were committed AFTER Arafat rejected a sweeping offer without counter-offer made by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000 that would have given Bargouti his state and end to occupation: 100% of Gaza, 95% of the West Bank and capital in East Jerusalem. Rejected.
This reveals Barghouti's true motives. But what are the motives of those who willingly swallow his garbage and sanitize his crimes? What'should the op-editor'so excuse?
26
One bit of news surely fit to print about Marwan Barghouti is the indisputable fact that he is a terrorist murderer who was convicted of unspeakable crimes after a fair, public and civilian trial. Citing his refusal to mount a defense during his trial as part of the Times' "clarification" is one more not-so-subtle example of the Times' unstinting hostility to Israel. It should be noted that Barghouti was also acquitted of 21 other murders he was charged with at this same trial where he "declined to offer a defense."
Since his conviction, he has managed to earn a PhD in political science from the University of Cairo and the Arab Academy for Research and Studies in the Egyptian capital, despite the "cruel (prison) conditions" he describes.
Israel is a democratic nation of laws, and no amount of outright lies and rhetorical distortion changes that. The 6500 Palestinians currently imprisoned in Israel because of security offenses are not "freedom fighters" or "political prisoners." In fact, they are violent criminals who are fortunate that Israeli law does not allow for the death penalty.
Palestinian Authority Land Law states that the sale of land by any Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death (really). I shudder in imagination of the kind of "justice" any government led or supported by Marwan Barghouti would render, and I am disgusted that the Times insists on perpetuating the execrable moral equivalency that has become its trademark in reporting about Israel.
Since his conviction, he has managed to earn a PhD in political science from the University of Cairo and the Arab Academy for Research and Studies in the Egyptian capital, despite the "cruel (prison) conditions" he describes.
Israel is a democratic nation of laws, and no amount of outright lies and rhetorical distortion changes that. The 6500 Palestinians currently imprisoned in Israel because of security offenses are not "freedom fighters" or "political prisoners." In fact, they are violent criminals who are fortunate that Israeli law does not allow for the death penalty.
Palestinian Authority Land Law states that the sale of land by any Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death (really). I shudder in imagination of the kind of "justice" any government led or supported by Marwan Barghouti would render, and I am disgusted that the Times insists on perpetuating the execrable moral equivalency that has become its trademark in reporting about Israel.
19
PE: "I see no reason to skimp on this, ..."
OK, but, realistically, how much can be put into one "Editors’ Note"?
I searched for "Marwan Barghouti" at the Times and got "about 219 Results". The earliest article is from 1984.
Even the details of Barghouti's trial were the subject of a whole article:
Palestinian Ends Defense in Murder Trial
By JOHN F. BURNS
SEPT. 30, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/world/palestinian-ends-defense-in-murd...
OK, but, realistically, how much can be put into one "Editors’ Note"?
I searched for "Marwan Barghouti" at the Times and got "about 219 Results". The earliest article is from 1984.
Even the details of Barghouti's trial were the subject of a whole article:
Palestinian Ends Defense in Murder Trial
By JOHN F. BURNS
SEPT. 30, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/world/palestinian-ends-defense-in-murd...
3
Whew! When I saw that headline, I thought Bret Stephens might be in for it. Glad he isn't. But if the author mentioned was only writing about prison treatment, what did it matter why he was there?
2
I don't understand why the Times ran this anti-Israel propaganda authored by a convicted terrorist. Are you trying to push the idea that he did nothing wrong and was unjustly punished by the Israelis? Or are you now pro-terrorism? The problem isn't that the article was originally published without revealing his crimes. The problem is that the article was published at all. Why is the Times giving a platform to terrorists? This is a new low. Shame on you, New York Times!
11
The position of public editor really should be a quasi-independent position. The phase "I'm pleased to see the editors responding to the complaints" makes the public editor seem like an apologist for the NYT rather than a watchdog.
10
Congratulations Liz for bringing out this truth. Also, congratulations NYT for publishing this. Maybe the new "Truth" editorial policy at NYT will begin to have some validity.
1
@BB
I don't accept the feeble reaction by the NY Times. Consider your reaction if Fox News pulled similar stunt.
If you support the Times, it is because you share their hypocrisy...
I don't accept the feeble reaction by the NY Times. Consider your reaction if Fox News pulled similar stunt.
If you support the Times, it is because you share their hypocrisy...
2
The unavoidable problem here in Barghouti's case is that to some extent it is ad hominem. Is it possible that despite his crimes and conviction, his op-ed essay makes valid points?
To violate Godwin's Law for the sake of reductio ad absurdum: Hitler and the Nazis strongly condemned tobacco smoking as a filthy, unhealthy habit. Ayn Rand, OTOH, deliberately embraced the habit as a rejection of the 'nanny state'; first-wave feminist Suffragettes a century ago did likewise, proclaiming their cigarettes brandished in public as 'torches of liberty'. Do we see the fallacy in automatically discrediting a POV because a particular person advances it?
To pick a more difficult example: If you make a pro-choice argument that cites the high cost of keeping a severely disabled infant alive - through a lifetime that may extend decades thanks to high-tech modern medicine - you will raise screams that this argument was, in fact, the one made by the Nazis. True enough ... but OTOH that doesn't pay the bills coming in, and they do not go away because you wring your hands and proclaim no price tag can be put on a human life. (The hell it can't. We, both as a society and as individuals, do it all the time, we just don't admit it.)
To violate Godwin's Law for the sake of reductio ad absurdum: Hitler and the Nazis strongly condemned tobacco smoking as a filthy, unhealthy habit. Ayn Rand, OTOH, deliberately embraced the habit as a rejection of the 'nanny state'; first-wave feminist Suffragettes a century ago did likewise, proclaiming their cigarettes brandished in public as 'torches of liberty'. Do we see the fallacy in automatically discrediting a POV because a particular person advances it?
To pick a more difficult example: If you make a pro-choice argument that cites the high cost of keeping a severely disabled infant alive - through a lifetime that may extend decades thanks to high-tech modern medicine - you will raise screams that this argument was, in fact, the one made by the Nazis. True enough ... but OTOH that doesn't pay the bills coming in, and they do not go away because you wring your hands and proclaim no price tag can be put on a human life. (The hell it can't. We, both as a society and as individuals, do it all the time, we just don't admit it.)
2
"Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial" because he didn't have one. If he had a defense but withheld it because he "refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy", that would be "declining to offer" a defense. You can't "decline" an option you never had.
6
I have noticed the Times is sloppy about the truth, especially by omission, in this age of alternate truths. Some examples: all the coverage and lack of it about Bernie Sanders; failure to disclose the Clintons' connections to Russia despite the Times publication of a picture Bill laughing with Putin on Ap. 21, 2015; a recent article emphasizing the Republicans in Georgia with only a brief mention of Ossof.
I no longer rely on the Times for news. I feel you helped elect Trump by excessive coverage and overestimating HRC.
I no longer rely on the Times for news. I feel you helped elect Trump by excessive coverage and overestimating HRC.
4
Whatever happened to "without fear or favor" -- NYT certainly seems to be favoring an unrepentant multiple murderer by falsely portraying him as a political prisoner. You guys keep touting the importance of "truth" in your ads, so why was it so hard for you to be truthful about Barghouti?
8
"...why was it so hard for you to be truthful about Barghouti?..."
It's not just the Barghouti omission, Topanga. It's become an everyday way of doing things. Any information that doesn't fit the Times' approved narrative on any particular subject is just left out so it won't stand in the way of the desired spin... Sort of like the Pravda and Izvestia brand of journalism...
It's not just the Barghouti omission, Topanga. It's become an everyday way of doing things. Any information that doesn't fit the Times' approved narrative on any particular subject is just left out so it won't stand in the way of the desired spin... Sort of like the Pravda and Izvestia brand of journalism...
2
I dunno. If people have a problem with the op-ed columnist as a spokesperson for Palestinians, shouldn't their real beef be with the Palestinians who freely chose him as a leader despite his alleged crimes? Don't we still want people to be able to choose their own leaders, even if we don't like whom they choose?
And on the topic of choosing leaders, we should probably first address the plank in our own eye, no?
Our president has confessed to (or rather bragged about) committing sexual assault. And yet, he would be accurately described with a similar bio identifying him as an American "leader" and duly elected president of the United States. And now that he holds a legitimate position in our government, don't most news outlets refer to this man as "president" and not "confessed sex offender"?
And on the topic of choosing leaders, we should probably first address the plank in our own eye, no?
Our president has confessed to (or rather bragged about) committing sexual assault. And yet, he would be accurately described with a similar bio identifying him as an American "leader" and duly elected president of the United States. And now that he holds a legitimate position in our government, don't most news outlets refer to this man as "president" and not "confessed sex offender"?
3
If the NY Times can publish an opinion piece from a multi-murderer terrorist, then it can surely have the guts to publish an opinion piece from an actual Jewish Israeli Zionist. I strongly suggest Professor Richard Landes, author of the indispensable Augean Stables blog. Not only is Professor Landes an erudite polemoscist and a credentialed expert in his field, he has also never murdered anyone!
8
Predictably, the pro-Israel folks here want to delegitimize the messenger, in order to delegitimize the message.
The hunger strike calls attention to Israel's nearly half-century subjugation of six million Palestinians and asks why this denial of rights is legitimate. For a half century, Israel has proffered pretext after rational after excuse as to why it must continue. Rather than giving a valid reason, they claim it should continue because of Palestinian resistance to that very denial of human rights for generation after generation. The Palestinians are in effect, proto-Nazis, we are told. Exhibit A in the defendant's brief is Barghouti and others like him who did, indeed, deliberately kill Jewish civilians.
But Nelson Mandela and the ANC deliberately killed white civilians. Yitzak Shamir's group proudly called themselves Jewish terrorists and Menachem Begin's Irgun deliberately killed hundreds of Arab civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
When Israel really decides on peace terms, and not surrender terms, they will have to include release of Palestinian political prisoners, as was the case in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and more recently, Colombia.
Painful for Israel? Sure. Just as it was for many white South Africans and the Protestant minority in the six counties. But didn't Arik Sharon say Israel was willing to make painful concessions in order to obtain peace?
The hunger strike calls attention to Israel's nearly half-century subjugation of six million Palestinians and asks why this denial of rights is legitimate. For a half century, Israel has proffered pretext after rational after excuse as to why it must continue. Rather than giving a valid reason, they claim it should continue because of Palestinian resistance to that very denial of human rights for generation after generation. The Palestinians are in effect, proto-Nazis, we are told. Exhibit A in the defendant's brief is Barghouti and others like him who did, indeed, deliberately kill Jewish civilians.
But Nelson Mandela and the ANC deliberately killed white civilians. Yitzak Shamir's group proudly called themselves Jewish terrorists and Menachem Begin's Irgun deliberately killed hundreds of Arab civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
When Israel really decides on peace terms, and not surrender terms, they will have to include release of Palestinian political prisoners, as was the case in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and more recently, Colombia.
Painful for Israel? Sure. Just as it was for many white South Africans and the Protestant minority in the six counties. But didn't Arik Sharon say Israel was willing to make painful concessions in order to obtain peace?
5
This comment denies the Israelis their human right not to be stabbed in the street ot deliberately mowed down by a vehicle or blown up in a bus or a market or a dining hall. When Israel traded hundreds of convicted Palestinian terrorists for a single Israeli captive or two dead Israeli soldier's bodies, many of those Palestinian terrorists returned to their former pursuits of killing. The focus of criticism should be on why the Palestinian establishment incites violence rather than builds a society that is prepared to function as a state that can join the world community in peace and productive pursuits.
2
Two comments:
1. Does the NYT identify pro-Israel authors as "Zionists" or as having dual US-Israeli citizenship? Was Menachem Begin identified as a "terrorist"?
2. American patriots used terrorist tactics against the occupying British army, and were called "terrorists" by the British. The Native Americans used terrorist tactics against the US Cavalry and the settlers who colonized their lands and were called "savages." The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were called terrorists and subjected to murderous collective punishment. Over the past 70 years, many tens of thousands of Palestinians have been arrested without charges, without counsel, without being able to see even a relative for months or years. So they fight back in a manner very similar to the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto. Why is anyone surprised?
If you want a column by a blond-haired blue-eyed American on Israel and the Palestinians, I will write one for you. It will go from archeology to Palestine to Israel and the occupation. I will not mince words.
1. Does the NYT identify pro-Israel authors as "Zionists" or as having dual US-Israeli citizenship? Was Menachem Begin identified as a "terrorist"?
2. American patriots used terrorist tactics against the occupying British army, and were called "terrorists" by the British. The Native Americans used terrorist tactics against the US Cavalry and the settlers who colonized their lands and were called "savages." The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were called terrorists and subjected to murderous collective punishment. Over the past 70 years, many tens of thousands of Palestinians have been arrested without charges, without counsel, without being able to see even a relative for months or years. So they fight back in a manner very similar to the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto. Why is anyone surprised?
If you want a column by a blond-haired blue-eyed American on Israel and the Palestinians, I will write one for you. It will go from archeology to Palestine to Israel and the occupation. I will not mince words.
9
Yes, the Times should have stated what his crime was. On the other hand, did anyone read the line about multiple life sentences and actually think jaywalking? Littering? Misuse of the commuter lane? What was his offense?
It was clear to me that he was a murderer, and most likely a multi murderer.
It was clear to me that he was a murderer, and most likely a multi murderer.
The Times' bias against Israel is beyond ridiculous. This rag is dead to me.
40
Editors' note should say that Barghouti was convicted in _civilian_ court, not some kangaroo military court. His denial of that court's legitimacy means he denies the legitimacy of Israel proper (not just the occupied territories).
42
Israel's military "courts" that try Palestinians are "kangaroo courts"? Shocking! Israel is a democracy! The only democracy in the Middle Earth.
Go see "The Law in These Parts" and Israeli-made 2011 documentary on the military justice system that put the vast majority of the hunger strikers into Israel's mini-gulag. My favorite part? The "judge" who says he knew full well that 90% of the Arabs appearing before him had been beaten by the "most moral army on the planet" before their "trial."
Go see "The Law in These Parts" and Israeli-made 2011 documentary on the military justice system that put the vast majority of the hunger strikers into Israel's mini-gulag. My favorite part? The "judge" who says he knew full well that 90% of the Arabs appearing before him had been beaten by the "most moral army on the planet" before their "trial."
1
Here's a Times op-ed bio from 450 BCE:
"Attila the Hun is a leader and world traveler. Mr. Hun is known for bringing about societal change."
"Attila the Hun is a leader and world traveler. Mr. Hun is known for bringing about societal change."
54
Attila would be more like 450 CE. But why so far back? We could leave it to the venerable NYT to describe Adolph Hitler as "a German statesman, former World War I veteran known for his passionate style of speech-making and populist nationalist fervor, strong opponent of the post-WWI Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany, art connoisseur (particularly art from France and Jewish-themed art collected from Eastern Europe), benefactor for composers of highly syncopated marching music, an early advocate of extensive research into rocketry, the jet engine, new approaches towards solving overpopulation and genetic research, the construction of the Autobahn, new methods in large-scale manufacturing and employment provided by German companies building their facilities on-site in neighboring Eastern European countries; and the creator of an early European common market including some partial political unity twenty-five years before the European Union would be established.
5
Touché!
2
I'm curious why you've allowed comments for Ms. Spayd's article, but not Mr. Barghouti's.
50
It's catching. The WSJ recently published an opinion piece by Karl Rove, describing him as an author and chair of a super pac. I guess that's strictly true, but....
9
Comparing a convicted terrorist with a political strategist who happened to beat your home team? Takes sore loser to new heights.
5
George W. Bush is a well-known painter, you know.
1
But what? Karl Rove has been convicted of five counts of murder??? JeezeLouise indeed.
4
The other issue is that comments were turned off for that column. Had comments been permitted, readers would have quickly provided the missing context. I know only some columns get comments, but many less important ones do. It was wrong to give Barhouti such a platform without adequate space for response.
51
I find it disturbing that Barghouti's statement:
"Israel’s inhumane system of colonial and military occupation aims to break the spirit of prisoners and the nation to which they belong, by inflicting suffering on their bodies, separating them from their families and communities, using humiliating measures to compel subjugation..."
is lacking the context that the author himself inflicted suffering on 5 people, reducing them to just "bodies" and separated 5 people from their families and communities, permanently. That fact makes all his calls for humanitarian treatment of prisoners worthless. He is an example of violent "us and them" thinking that leads to more violence. He does not deserve a megaphone.
"Israel’s inhumane system of colonial and military occupation aims to break the spirit of prisoners and the nation to which they belong, by inflicting suffering on their bodies, separating them from their families and communities, using humiliating measures to compel subjugation..."
is lacking the context that the author himself inflicted suffering on 5 people, reducing them to just "bodies" and separated 5 people from their families and communities, permanently. That fact makes all his calls for humanitarian treatment of prisoners worthless. He is an example of violent "us and them" thinking that leads to more violence. He does not deserve a megaphone.
38
That would be "five people" that we know of to a certainty. It does not account for the others who fell victim to his terrorist activities...
2
I think an opinion piece is exactly that: labeled as such and an expression of the author's opinions, valid or not. That is for the reader to judge. The NYT, by publishing the op-ed, makes no claim that it does or does not support the views expressed. If, for example, the NYT sees fit to print a piece penned by Donald J Trump (yes, yes, I know) would the blurb at the end point out that he is an acknowledged pussy-grabber, multiple bankrupt and founder of a fraudulent university? I suspect it would not.
9
So murder and terrorism is exactly the same as bragging about groupies? I'm not sure how many families of the victims of terrorism would agree that hearing Trump say a bad word is just like being murdered by a violent religious lunatic.
3
You forgot 'serial liar.'
1
Actually, it depends what the Trump Op Ed was about. For example, if it was about respecting women and the sanctity of marriage, your first example might fit. In this case, it is important to know that the writer has committed heinous terrorist acts against Israel as it brings into context and questions the veracity of his statements.
4
This "publication" is a complete disgrace. First it publishes the lunatic ian lustick propaganda that Israel should not exist, menaing jews do have the right to the same sovereignty and rights as others, and now it provides a free platform for a convicted murderer of jews to spout his bile.
It is telling of the current political climate that such a dreadful rag exists and continues to survive, albeit at a lesser level than in the past. Tragic.
It is telling of the current political climate that such a dreadful rag exists and continues to survive, albeit at a lesser level than in the past. Tragic.
42
br: "First it publishes the lunatic ian lustick propaganda that Israel should not exist ..."
That was in 2013, and Lustick said no such thing.
And to return to the subject of the PE's post -- do you have any complaints about Lustick's bio?
'Ian S. Lustick is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza” and “Trapped in the War on Terror.”'
Two-State Illusion
By IAN S. LUSTICK
SEPT. 14, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/two-state-illusion.html
That was in 2013, and Lustick said no such thing.
And to return to the subject of the PE's post -- do you have any complaints about Lustick's bio?
'Ian S. Lustick is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza” and “Trapped in the War on Terror.”'
Two-State Illusion
By IAN S. LUSTICK
SEPT. 14, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/two-state-illusion.html
Who cares about his bio? What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
That wretch said this in his propaganda:
"But many Israelis see the demise of the country as not just possible, but probable. The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence."
And claimed that Israel should not exist, sorry but that is lunatic garbage, unfit for a publication that claims to be a legitimate news source. I don't see the dreadful NYT claiming France has no justification to exist, do you?
That wretch said this in his propaganda:
"But many Israelis see the demise of the country as not just possible, but probable. The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence."
And claimed that Israel should not exist, sorry but that is lunatic garbage, unfit for a publication that claims to be a legitimate news source. I don't see the dreadful NYT claiming France has no justification to exist, do you?
2
br: "I don't see the dreadful NYT claiming France has no justification to exist, do you?"
You are confusing the Times and OpEd authors. The opinions of OpEd authors do not represent the opinions of the Times.
Your comment is a good reason why the Times should append a DISCLAIMER to every OpEd saying that the OpEd is the responsibility of the author and not the Times.
You are confusing the Times and OpEd authors. The opinions of OpEd authors do not represent the opinions of the Times.
Your comment is a good reason why the Times should append a DISCLAIMER to every OpEd saying that the OpEd is the responsibility of the author and not the Times.
The last line of the bio, to the effect that Barghouti didn't offer a defense at trial, comes off as the Times questioning the validity of his conviction. Does the Times support this murderer?
71
Now everyone is going to find something to complain about in the extended bio.
I can complain too. The extended bio fails to note that 'the court acquitted him [Barghouti] of charges relating to 21 slayings, saying there was "no evidence the defendant knew of the intention to carry them out."'
Israeli Army Pushes Sweep In Gaza, Killing 7
By JAMES BENNET and ALAN COWELL
MAY 21, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/world/israeli-army-pushes-sweep-in-gaz...
I can complain too. The extended bio fails to note that 'the court acquitted him [Barghouti] of charges relating to 21 slayings, saying there was "no evidence the defendant knew of the intention to carry them out."'
Israeli Army Pushes Sweep In Gaza, Killing 7
By JAMES BENNET and ALAN COWELL
MAY 21, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/world/israeli-army-pushes-sweep-in-gaz...
The fact that Barghouti didn't offer a defense is relevant because it means he didn't commit perjury, which means that his prior "bad acts" are not necessarily relevant to determining whether he is telling the truth about another matter.
The fact that he was acquitted of some charges is evidence that the proceedings were fair. It does not negate the fact that his fair trial also resulted in guilty verdicts.
2
The thing that bothers me most about this is that the omission is so deliberate, contrived, and manipulative. You do understand the concept of "propaganda," right? Not good, NYT.
85
They should. Since the trump "election" we've been drowning in propaganda.
2
But the NY Times certainly has no problem condemning fake news from the alt-Right. Takes one to know one?
4
Now consider that The Times doesn't leave out any detail, regardless of how minor, when it comes to republicans. It goes overboard with innuendo and hearsay, searching and relishing every bit of negative data it can dig up.
A different kind of propaganda.
A different kind of propaganda.
2
I subscribe to the NYT because it offers more global news than almost all other media. However I keep being troubled by the NYT coverage of Israel.
There is a distinct dislike and criticism of Israel that goes well beyond objectivity.
The "correction" to the Barghouty propaganda control finishes with the following comment ".......Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy........". That is just another attempt to make the reader think less of Israel.
When will the NYT's leadership step up ?
There is a distinct dislike and criticism of Israel that goes well beyond objectivity.
The "correction" to the Barghouty propaganda control finishes with the following comment ".......Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy........". That is just another attempt to make the reader think less of Israel.
When will the NYT's leadership step up ?
65
I do not see the comment that his refusal to recognize the Courts of Israel as demeaning to Israel. To the contrary, it seems to me that it enhances the brutality of the murders that he committed. It enhances the problem that exists amongst the Palestinian leadership that they refuse to recognize the right of Israel to even exist. It enhances the position of reasonable Israelis (and there are - whether we like to admit it or not - some powerful unreasonable Israelis) that it is impossible to make peace with a people who refuse to even acknowledge your right to exist. So, I take issue with this statement that the NYT, by issuing the clarification in the way it did, is attempting to make the reader think less of Israel. As a strong supporter of Israel with friends and relatives who live there, I see it quite to the contrary.
2
The NYT has a 75 year history of unrelenting hostility to first the idea of Israel and then the State of Israel after it came into existence.
5
It won't. It made the marketing decision long ago to carve out the Israel-hating progressive Left market and become the US version of the Guardian to recover market share lost to niche Web media outlets. And Israel-bashing sells.
5
Liz has certainly had her hands full apologizing for errors and poor journalism since becoming public editor. Some of the increased complaints are likely due to readers being more aggressive about calling out the NYT for bias and slights, real and imagined, but I think a lot of it has to do with a loss of objectivity at the paper.
One can expect every article about the Donald to have a negative slant, but just consider this article. Was it a simple oversight, or was the author's bio hidden in order to support an anti Israel bias at the NYT? And a couple of weeks ago, it was about naming names in cases of sexual affairs (Liz was kind enough to refer to my complaint). A weak article today claims that it is used on,y when it is important, such as the alleged perp being a football player. Sounds like the NYT has a bias on that issue as well. After all, when the Orlando shootings occurred, the NYT was very, very slow about identifying him as Islamic and suggesting that perhaps ties to ISIS were behind his killings. They were quick to claim that it was due to a homophobia.
One can expect every article about the Donald to have a negative slant, but just consider this article. Was it a simple oversight, or was the author's bio hidden in order to support an anti Israel bias at the NYT? And a couple of weeks ago, it was about naming names in cases of sexual affairs (Liz was kind enough to refer to my complaint). A weak article today claims that it is used on,y when it is important, such as the alleged perp being a football player. Sounds like the NYT has a bias on that issue as well. After all, when the Orlando shootings occurred, the NYT was very, very slow about identifying him as Islamic and suggesting that perhaps ties to ISIS were behind his killings. They were quick to claim that it was due to a homophobia.
43
' the NYT was very, very slow about identifying him as Islamic and suggesting that perhaps ties to ISIS were behind his killings. They were quick to claim that it was due to a homophobia.'
The two motivations are not mutually exclusive. In fact, religious conviction, particularly with regard to the Abrahamic faiths, all of which explicitly include scriptures condemning homosexual relations, and individual psychological problems with homosexuality often feed into and support each other.
The two motivations are not mutually exclusive. In fact, religious conviction, particularly with regard to the Abrahamic faiths, all of which explicitly include scriptures condemning homosexual relations, and individual psychological problems with homosexuality often feed into and support each other.
Sadly, you are only too correct. Everyone expects the NYT to be negative about our current US President, just as NYT was positive (or apologetic) about our prior President. Why do so many readers want this bias?
3
"Why do so many readers want this bias?"
Because they seek confirmation of the "correctness" of their own views and of their belief that they themselves are paragons of clarity of thought, and are without any unfounded personal bias...
Because they seek confirmation of the "correctness" of their own views and of their belief that they themselves are paragons of clarity of thought, and are without any unfounded personal bias...
3
Waiting for the op-ed from Dylan Roof about his hunger strike due to the corrupt American judicial system. Oh wait, we already know he's a racist and a murderer. Never mind.
31
It just doesn't matter. If prison conditions are bad, then any prisoner has a right to call that to the attention of the public. Does it make those prison conditions any better to say that "Prisoner Doe is in prison for speaking out against the president" Conditions will remain bad despite that information.
Does any prisoner -- Jewish or otherwise -- get the privilege of writing a letter to the editor from a Palestinian jail? I don't recall the Times publishing one.
68
The Public Editor states with pride, “I’m pleased to see the editors responding to the complaints, and moving to correct the issue rather than resist it.” Yet the headline on the website reads, “The Public Editor: An Op-Ed Author Omits His Crimes.” The Times does not seem here to be taking responsibility for its act.
And then there is the decision to legitimize Barghouti for Americans, who typically lack the historical knowledge responsible journalists are presumed to possess. Would the Times have run an op-ed by Timothy McVeigh, a mass murderer motivated by hateful political allegiances? I doubt it.
And then there is the decision to legitimize Barghouti for Americans, who typically lack the historical knowledge responsible journalists are presumed to possess. Would the Times have run an op-ed by Timothy McVeigh, a mass murderer motivated by hateful political allegiances? I doubt it.
65
.
.
When the Public Editor wrote about (non-)revelations of heinous crimes committed by NYT contributors ( on April 11 of this year - yes, one week ago), many Comments ridiculed her for caring about the issue.
With columns by Barghouti (or, in 2013, an Op-Ed piece by Vladimir Putin), we see exactly what happens when NYT personnel decide not to mention a writer's criminal history. Readers are misled, for what? So that a criminal doesn't have to read about the crimes he committed?
Barghouti, Putin, and Lonnie Burton (see April 11 Public Editor post) committed crimes. I don't think they would take offense if an editor's note mentioned their crimes each time they wrote something for nytimes.com.
.
When the Public Editor wrote about (non-)revelations of heinous crimes committed by NYT contributors ( on April 11 of this year - yes, one week ago), many Comments ridiculed her for caring about the issue.
With columns by Barghouti (or, in 2013, an Op-Ed piece by Vladimir Putin), we see exactly what happens when NYT personnel decide not to mention a writer's criminal history. Readers are misled, for what? So that a criminal doesn't have to read about the crimes he committed?
Barghouti, Putin, and Lonnie Burton (see April 11 Public Editor post) committed crimes. I don't think they would take offense if an editor's note mentioned their crimes each time they wrote something for nytimes.com.
12
"Marwan Barghouti is an unusually popular political figure among Palestinians." Why? Because he led a gang of terrorists who murdered Israeli Jews. Why did the NYTimes publish a piece by that criminal terrorist. I guess for the NYTimes, killing Jews is not so bad.
56
And obviously even less so for Palestinians. Look what happened to Fayad Saad. The first decent Palestinian politician without Jewish blood on his hands nor his hand in the public or foreign aid till. He never had a chance.
6
The American Council for Judaism (one of its founding members was Arthur Hays Sulzberger) was formed in 1942 to fight against the creation of a Jewish state where Jews could escape to—while 20,000 Jews were being cremated every day in Germany.
Matt Seaton, Times editor said he will not scrutinize Palestinian racism “until Palestinians have a sovereign state of their own.” (Algemeiner, Oct 30, 2014)
The Times animus to Israel was there long before it became a state.
4
The paper "neglected" to provide "sufficient context" and is "moving to correct the issue." George Orwell would feast on the Times.
61
Typical Public Editor comment. What's needed is comment from Times shareholders to the Arthur Sulzberger ([email protected]). As for Barghouti's hunger strike. Give him food and let him decide whether or not to eat it.
18
Now that you mention it, there is a difference between a parliamentarian and a multi-murderer. And maybe more than a few of the other hunger-strikers are lucky the Israelis are willing to feed them at all.
23
Presumably you are familiar with Menachem Begin's activities before he became a member of parliament and later Prime Minister, right?
2
I am. Menachem Begin attacked British military positions -- not old men, discos, restaurants, or tried to kill a Greek Orthodox priest thinking he was a Muslim imam (Barghouti tried the same thinking the priest was a rabbi). When the Irgun famously blew up a wing of the King David Hotel -- serving as British military HQ -- the Irgun gave the British a 48-hour warning, which the British ignored. How many hours notice did Barghouti or any of them for the matter give the families of every innocent person they murdered?
Nor did the Jewish Agency pay out stipends and pensions to the families of terrorists -- the more Jewish blood on their hands the higher the pension. Oh, and the mainstream Zionist movement under Ben Gurion and the Hagana was opposed to Begin's tactics and there was actually a shoot-out to costing the lives of several Irgun members trying to unload weapons from a ship called the Altelena to put the Irgun to heel. Compare that to Barghouti lionized by Fatah.
This tired canard you use trying to compare Begin to every Fatah and Hamas terrorist with innocent blood on his or her hands is the usual tactic of Israel haters trying to whitewash Fatah and Hamas crimes. Ain't gonna fly.
Nor did the Jewish Agency pay out stipends and pensions to the families of terrorists -- the more Jewish blood on their hands the higher the pension. Oh, and the mainstream Zionist movement under Ben Gurion and the Hagana was opposed to Begin's tactics and there was actually a shoot-out to costing the lives of several Irgun members trying to unload weapons from a ship called the Altelena to put the Irgun to heel. Compare that to Barghouti lionized by Fatah.
This tired canard you use trying to compare Begin to every Fatah and Hamas terrorist with innocent blood on his or her hands is the usual tactic of Israel haters trying to whitewash Fatah and Hamas crimes. Ain't gonna fly.
2
But why was it published in the first place? Did the Times in its time publish chapters of Mein Kampf?
32
It's not enough that Spayd has asked Dao about the decision and that there's now a note attached to the piece. She needed to ask him WHY the original decision was made. This goes for every other issue Spayd has brought up, and will bring up, with editors. To get better decision making out of editors and reporters going forward, it will be necessary for the PE to make them justify their bad decisions when she questions them. And if they won't or can't justify the decision, their responses should be related to the reader.
This "OK, we've fixed it now, nothing more to see here" has to stop.
This "OK, we've fixed it now, nothing more to see here" has to stop.
58
You've raised some really good points.
Perhaps Ms. Spayd is too timid for her current job. The more of the comments I read, the more upset I am. Plus I am beginning to question her independence. Somebody higher up the Times food chain needs to take a look at what happened because it sure as heck shouldn't happen again.
Perhaps Ms. Spayd is too timid for her current job. The more of the comments I read, the more upset I am. Plus I am beginning to question her independence. Somebody higher up the Times food chain needs to take a look at what happened because it sure as heck shouldn't happen again.
3
"Somebody higher up the Times food chain needs to take a look at what happened ..."
Let's not be naïve. How likely is it that the higher ranks of the editorial hierarchy were unfamiliar with this op-ed before it was published?
Let's not be naïve. How likely is it that the higher ranks of the editorial hierarchy were unfamiliar with this op-ed before it was published?
2
There is a partial antidote to outrageous articles like that of the murderer Barghouti: fact checks, prominently displayed alongside the op-ed. Whoever wrote that fawning bio fragment is obviously in thrall to the Palestinians' well-tuned victimhood machine, so the fact checkers will need to be chosen carefully.
28
The piece was about Isreali policy toward imprisonment of Palestinians. While a fuller exposition of the author's "credentials" provides context, the author's point is still valid whether his crime was multiple murders or disobedience of the Isreali militarists authoritarian subjugation of Palestinians. Many of the comments here implicitly dispute that in humane treatment of prisoners is wrong if the crime for which they are incarcerated is sufficiently repugnant.
What the man said was:
“Israel’s inhumane system of colonial and military occupation aims to break the spirit of prisoners and the nation to which they belong, by inflicting suffering on their bodies, separating them from their families and communities, using humiliating measures to compel subjugation,” he wrote. “In spite of such treatment, we will not surrender to it.”
To the extent his assertion is accurate - and many non-criminal observers have over the years concluded it is - the shame is on Isreal and Isrealis regardless of the author's documented misdeeds (this,of course leaves aside the question of whether Palestinians are fairly treated in Isreali courts). The point is that prisoners deserve humane treatment without regard to the crime committed. Anything else stains the authority of the government and the society it represents.
What the man said was:
“Israel’s inhumane system of colonial and military occupation aims to break the spirit of prisoners and the nation to which they belong, by inflicting suffering on their bodies, separating them from their families and communities, using humiliating measures to compel subjugation,” he wrote. “In spite of such treatment, we will not surrender to it.”
To the extent his assertion is accurate - and many non-criminal observers have over the years concluded it is - the shame is on Isreal and Isrealis regardless of the author's documented misdeeds (this,of course leaves aside the question of whether Palestinians are fairly treated in Isreali courts). The point is that prisoners deserve humane treatment without regard to the crime committed. Anything else stains the authority of the government and the society it represents.
11
You"re correct that prisoners deserve humane treatment. However, even if that is the case, why, once again, is Israel singled out when there are probably dozens of countries that are worse offenders? One possibility, prisoners in these other countries are not even able to communicate with the outside.
12
Israel is singled out every day by you, and the U.S. government -- for support. My tax money does not go to pay for the bullets Assad uses to kill his own people. It does go to pay to kill children in Gaza.
Yes, I am entitled to "single out" Israel. When the money, and, more importantly, the mortal sanction my country affords Israel, stops, I will stop.
Yes, I am entitled to "single out" Israel. When the money, and, more importantly, the mortal sanction my country affords Israel, stops, I will stop.
6
Rick: Gee, I wonder why Palestinian prisoners rotting in inhumane Israeli jails after conviction by a kangaroo Israeli court with a 99.8% conviction rate "single out" Israel. Perhaps for the same reason that Tibetans "single out" China or why black Southerners "singled out" the American South or why black South Africans "singled out" South Africa.
Now will you put the 'qualification' of Climate Change Denier into your newly hired columnist Bret Stephen's byline? Or will you serve him up on the platter of credibility by excluding that?
12
The NYT knew exactly what it was omitting and was using Barghouti to present a false narrative the paper espouses.
How many times have we seen the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons looking well fed, healthy, and well cared for while prisoners in Palestinians jails are gaunt and sickly.
How many times have we seen the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons looking well fed, healthy, and well cared for while prisoners in Palestinians jails are gaunt and sickly.
32
In the United States, civilian, not military, courts convicted people of the crime of sitting on a public bus. Numerous cases come to light regularly with evidence proving U.S. cops and DA railroaded innocent "convicted murderers." Israel's civilian and military courts lack credibility. That's why the Op-Ed writer did not contest the charges, and why "context" supplies irrelevancies and I applaud the Editor's decision to advance the man's voice without sullying it with irrelevant words.
5
Boughati was convicted in a civilian court.
13
I couldn't agree more. There is NOTHING more irrelevant than the murder of five civilians.
4
So, it's another case of those lying Jews, eh?
4
I eagerly await the Times' upcoming opinion piece from Dylan Roof. Or, perhaps they will publish Timothy McVeigh's musings posthumously and identify McVeigh as a political prisoner.
18
This important statement was not in today's print eidtion, although the original column has. Will It appear in tomorrow's edition, or is this the sum total of The NY Times' response?
Only in parsing the accompanying news article does not actually see what Barghouti is fasting for: greater access to cell-phones and ability to get advanced degrees while in prison, along with more family visits (which have been cut off by the International Committee of the Red Cross, not Israel, for budgetary reasons). We also learn that this "strike" is part of an intra-Palestinian political struggle. As always, it seems that Israel is the recipient of abuse but not the intended target of the message.
The NY Times owes it to its readers to put these propaganda pieces in some larger framework. Perhaps an investigative report comparing life in the "occupied territories" for Palestinian Arab Muslims and for Christians, with that in Israel. Maybe an examination of Palestinian prisons. Maybe the reporters can clarify that since the Oslo Accords over 98% of Palestinian Arabs are ruled by either the PA or Hamas and not Israel. Maybe remind its readers that the entirety of the Palestinian Arab University system is a creation of the dreaded "Occupation" which also saw the near doubling of Arab life-expectancy and the highest standard of living for any non-oil producing Arab country. That would be instructive for the mass of readers who simply want to know the facts and judge things for themselves.
Only in parsing the accompanying news article does not actually see what Barghouti is fasting for: greater access to cell-phones and ability to get advanced degrees while in prison, along with more family visits (which have been cut off by the International Committee of the Red Cross, not Israel, for budgetary reasons). We also learn that this "strike" is part of an intra-Palestinian political struggle. As always, it seems that Israel is the recipient of abuse but not the intended target of the message.
The NY Times owes it to its readers to put these propaganda pieces in some larger framework. Perhaps an investigative report comparing life in the "occupied territories" for Palestinian Arab Muslims and for Christians, with that in Israel. Maybe an examination of Palestinian prisons. Maybe the reporters can clarify that since the Oslo Accords over 98% of Palestinian Arabs are ruled by either the PA or Hamas and not Israel. Maybe remind its readers that the entirety of the Palestinian Arab University system is a creation of the dreaded "Occupation" which also saw the near doubling of Arab life-expectancy and the highest standard of living for any non-oil producing Arab country. That would be instructive for the mass of readers who simply want to know the facts and judge things for themselves.
52
Ms. Boyd you have your work cut out for you with this stubborn group at the Times. Also when are you going to deal with the Times labeling bias? They always find "conservative" Republicans or "far right" Republicans but they can never identify "far left" or "liberal" Democrats. Steinhauer is one of the worst offenders although she pretty arrogantly tries to deny it.
14
They also use "anti-abortion" but never "pro-abortion", despite the fact that many public figures are openly pro-abortion, speaking quite positively about it.
2
Public Editor Liz Spayd should also have taken Editor James Dao to task for refusing to permit comments to Barghouti's oped. It seems clear that Dao knew how controversial the oped would be, and also perhaps wanted to protect himself from criticism for his obviously whitewashed bio of Barghouti by refusing to permit comments to be published.
Many Times readers have urged Liz Spayd to reform the comment section, making more opeds and articles subject to comments. But she has failed to do so.
Perhaps this is should be the catalyst for actual reform of The Times' comment practices.
Many Times readers have urged Liz Spayd to reform the comment section, making more opeds and articles subject to comments. But she has failed to do so.
Perhaps this is should be the catalyst for actual reform of The Times' comment practices.
37
Certainly there are other commentators of equal rank and insight who could be approached for an op-ed piece.
6
Loads of potential contributors like Barghouti can be found wherever terrorist cells exist...
2
Yet another whitewash from The Times' Public Editor. Liz Spayd writes, well down in the column, that "a rash of readers have objected..."
In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel's ambassador to the United States, former Bush official Elliot Abrams, and others around the globe erupted in outrage at The Times' decision not just to publish Barghouti's oped, not just to cover up his crimes, but to publish that oped during Passover. Spayd's contention that it was a "rash of readers" who objected dramatically understates the real global outrage.
Then Liz Spayd does what she always does: instead of condemning The Times for that coverup of who Barghouti really was, she simply asks a Times editor for comment, then concludes by complementing Times management: "I'm pleased to see the editors responding to the complaints and moving to correct the issue rather than resist it."
The public editor is failing to carry out her mission of holding Times management accountable for ethical failings. A responsible public editor would have slammed The Times for covering up Barghouti's real background, for publishing it during Passover, and, indeed, should have questioned whether The Times should have published this at all.
Time for a change.
In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel's ambassador to the United States, former Bush official Elliot Abrams, and others around the globe erupted in outrage at The Times' decision not just to publish Barghouti's oped, not just to cover up his crimes, but to publish that oped during Passover. Spayd's contention that it was a "rash of readers" who objected dramatically understates the real global outrage.
Then Liz Spayd does what she always does: instead of condemning The Times for that coverup of who Barghouti really was, she simply asks a Times editor for comment, then concludes by complementing Times management: "I'm pleased to see the editors responding to the complaints and moving to correct the issue rather than resist it."
The public editor is failing to carry out her mission of holding Times management accountable for ethical failings. A responsible public editor would have slammed The Times for covering up Barghouti's real background, for publishing it during Passover, and, indeed, should have questioned whether The Times should have published this at all.
Time for a change.
33
Exactly. So far, the NYT's new interest in "Truth" has entirely a re-branding exercise, not the necessary improvement of publishing standards.
1
Elliott Abrams? Not just a Bush functionary, but the Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs under Ronald Reagan? The guy who was hip deep in Iran Contra? The one who organized support for Central American death squads who killed priests and raped nuns? THAT Elliott Abrams? That guy?
You might not want to cite HIS biography, much as the Times elided Barghouti's...
You might not want to cite HIS biography, much as the Times elided Barghouti's...
3
The real question is why did the NY Times even allow such a reprehensible figure the free-publicity & airtime in the first place? Will they also be giving airtime to Nazis, pedophiles, rapists, skinheads, racists, other terrorists and all manner of varying types of criminals and true 'deplorables' to argue their case? A new low...
26
The headline should read "The Times Omits Op-Ed Author's Crimes." And, "Barghouti is not "an unusually popular figure among Palestinians, especially for a man behind bars." He is "an unusually popular figure" BECAUSE he is "a man behind bars," celebrated for his murders.
26
Would the Times have appended an “explantation” to an op-ed by Nelson Mandela, were it printed while he was in a South African prison, giving “conflict of interest” context to his piece by noting that Mandela was convicted of murder and membership in a terrorist organization? How about Alexander Solzenhitysn's or Andei Sakarov’s crimes?
Mr. Dao’s (and your) “context” is shameless groveling before the pro-Israel lobby, whose objection is not to the lack of context, but to the fact that you printed something critical of Israel.
Mr. Dao’s (and your) “context” is shameless groveling before the pro-Israel lobby, whose objection is not to the lack of context, but to the fact that you printed something critical of Israel.
12
Mandela, Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov were never charged with murder, let alone convicted of murder.
15
The charges included: "recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage conspiring to commit the aforementioned acts...." [i.e. "terrorism"].
The munitions Mandela and his co-conspirators produced were sufficient, the prosecutor Percy Yutar said in his opening address, "to blow up a city the size of Johannesburg."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial#Charges
The ANC was, in fact, every much a "terrorist" organization in that it advocated violent resistance. And when Israel uses the epithet "terrorist," that is what it means. Israel makes no distinction between those who kill Israeli soldiers and those who kill civilians. They are all "terrorists" in Israel's eyes. Mandela supported the Palestinian armed resistance.
Still not convinced? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk
(You have a point on the other two. That was an inept analogy on my part.)
The munitions Mandela and his co-conspirators produced were sufficient, the prosecutor Percy Yutar said in his opening address, "to blow up a city the size of Johannesburg."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial#Charges
The ANC was, in fact, every much a "terrorist" organization in that it advocated violent resistance. And when Israel uses the epithet "terrorist," that is what it means. Israel makes no distinction between those who kill Israeli soldiers and those who kill civilians. They are all "terrorists" in Israel's eyes. Mandela supported the Palestinian armed resistance.
Still not convinced? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk
(You have a point on the other two. That was an inept analogy on my part.)
5
The charges against Mandela were: “recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare [i.e. killing people] and for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage”, and conspiracy to commit said acts of violence.
The apartheid regime claimed (accurately) that the ANC planned to stockpile munitions sufficient, the prosecutor Percy Yutar said in his opening address, to blow up a city the size of Johannesburg. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial#Charges
Solzenitsyn and Sakarov are an inept analogy, I concede, since they were jailed for advocating nonviolent resistance. But Israel seeks to suppress any Palestinian resistance, violent or nonviolent. Witness their latest bill that criminalizes advocacy of the boycott against Israel.
The apartheid regime claimed (accurately) that the ANC planned to stockpile munitions sufficient, the prosecutor Percy Yutar said in his opening address, to blow up a city the size of Johannesburg. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial#Charges
Solzenitsyn and Sakarov are an inept analogy, I concede, since they were jailed for advocating nonviolent resistance. But Israel seeks to suppress any Palestinian resistance, violent or nonviolent. Witness their latest bill that criminalizes advocacy of the boycott against Israel.
2
So if Menachem Begin or Yitzakh Shamir and published an op-ed, the Times would have identified them as admitted terrorists?
13
Did they target civilians, including women and children like bargouti? No they did not, they targeted soldiers.
Or do you have a different standard for jews?
Or do you have a different standard for jews?
23
Yes Bob Rivers they did target civilians. Menachem Begin was the leader of Irgun, a group whose infamous deeds included throwing sticks of dynamite into crowded Arab marketplaces. Israelis decided that didnt bother them when they voted that terrorist and his party into power. Yitzakh Shamir was a member of a kill squad that murdered UN diplomat Count Bernadotte, who was a civlians. Israelis decided they were OK with that murderer running their country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassination
6
Oh, but they most certainly did target civilians. Try reading The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Israeli historian Illan Pappe, and other Israeli historians such as Benny Morris.
Per Morris, here are some example of Zionist terror in the war they started in 1948--
Saliha: 60 to 70 Palestinians killed;
Deir Yassin: 112 Palestinians killed:
Lydda: 250 Palestinians killed;
Abu Shusha: 60-70 Palestinians killed; and
Al-Dawayima: "hundreds" of Palestinians killed.
And that's not nearly all the Zionist massacres of Palestinians during the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
My standard is facts and history. Do you have a different standard for Palestinians? Do their lives count for less than those of Jews?
It's hard to have a rational debate when one side relies of fake facts and fake arguments.
Per Morris, here are some example of Zionist terror in the war they started in 1948--
Saliha: 60 to 70 Palestinians killed;
Deir Yassin: 112 Palestinians killed:
Lydda: 250 Palestinians killed;
Abu Shusha: 60-70 Palestinians killed; and
Al-Dawayima: "hundreds" of Palestinians killed.
And that's not nearly all the Zionist massacres of Palestinians during the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
My standard is facts and history. Do you have a different standard for Palestinians? Do their lives count for less than those of Jews?
It's hard to have a rational debate when one side relies of fake facts and fake arguments.
5
The Editor's Note stating "Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy." clearly implies the Note itself was forced on the editors and issued reluctantly as it demeans the convictions. Maybe you should add another note stating the evidence was overwhelming.
54
I agree.
7
Disagree. The note goes to whether the prior "bad acts" are more probative in determining whether Barghouti is telling the truth in his current article than prejudicial in making it likely that people reading about them will discount what may be otherwise useful information. Had Barghouti previously committed perjury (he didn't, since he didn't testify), then that fact would have weighed heavily in favor of including the "bad fact".
This is all well and good. And I am glad you corrected the problem.
But the larger question is, how did this happen in the first place? My God. High school journalism students probably would not have been caught in situation. What were these adults at the New York Times thinking?
But the larger question is, how did this happen in the first place? My God. High school journalism students probably would not have been caught in situation. What were these adults at the New York Times thinking?
46
"What were these adults at the New York Times thinking?"
That they could get by with it. That only a relative handful of readers would care enough to complain... Ho, hum...
That they could get by with it. That only a relative handful of readers would care enough to complain... Ho, hum...
Talk about Fake News! Another NYT hit piece on Israel following their usual strategy of leaving out the most salient facts.
34
"risks the credibility of the author"
The "author" is a terrorist! The "author" is a murderer!
Why, why the NYT printed that column?
What other terrorist was ever given a column in the NYT?
The "author" is a terrorist! The "author" is a murderer!
Why, why the NYT printed that column?
What other terrorist was ever given a column in the NYT?
45
The times gave Arafat an Op-Ed piece in 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/opinion/the-palestinian-vision-of-peac...
2
The Times has published Op Ed pieces by Gerry Adams and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Menachem Begin was never given an op-ed but he was an admitted terrorist who killed hundreds of civilians and his political movement was described by Albert Einstein in a letter to the Times as "similar to the Nazis". Similarly, Rabin was responsible for hundreds for civilian deaths long before he assumed moral responsibility for the outrages of the occupation, as Prime Minister. And of course Sharon, with the civilian refugee camp massacres, which even Israel ruled was his responsibility, but with no legal consequences, since the victims were Arabs.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger won't travel abroad, out of fear of arrest for genocide and war crimes, but he's an honored guest on the op-ed page, as is Elliot Abrams, promoter of Latin American terrorism against civilians.
Need more examples? --even without the obvious one of Benjamin Netanyahu, whose crimes, under international law, are legion?
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger won't travel abroad, out of fear of arrest for genocide and war crimes, but he's an honored guest on the op-ed page, as is Elliot Abrams, promoter of Latin American terrorism against civilians.
Need more examples? --even without the obvious one of Benjamin Netanyahu, whose crimes, under international law, are legion?
3
More than an editor's note is called for. You ran a story on the hunger strike that could have gone into more detail about Barghouti's crimes and those of others in Israeli prisons. It could also have provided context -- are most of the long-term prisoners there for committing violent crime? To what extent are there prisoners who are truly political, imprisoned for civil disobedience? How many prisoners are in Hamas jails for opposing that regime?
None of these questions take away from the tragedy that neither Israeli or Palestinian leaders have been able to make the concessions to conclude a treaty. But before we get on our high horses about Israel, just look at the daily death toll elsewhere in the Middle East.
None of these questions take away from the tragedy that neither Israeli or Palestinian leaders have been able to make the concessions to conclude a treaty. But before we get on our high horses about Israel, just look at the daily death toll elsewhere in the Middle East.
20
It is nothing short of astounding that the Times could make this kind of blunder. I would expect better of a high school newspaper. What does someone have to do to get fired at the Times? Or is that impossible because every reporter is married to an editor?
28
"What does someone have to do to get fired at the Times?"
Disclose that he or she is a registered Republican, maybe...
Disclose that he or she is a registered Republican, maybe...
1
Although I have great admiration for the NY Times and read it daily I have concluded that this publication has "problem" with Israel and Zionism. I am not sure why this is the case but the double standards utilized are simply and continuously mind boggling.
I observed this phenomenon during the second Intifada when buses and restaurants were blowing up all around us here in Israel and I also saw it when I was running a medical school under rocket fire in Beer sheva during the last Gaza War.
I guess it has something to do with a post modern inability to "judge" the "other" and an unwillingness to hold them to universal standards of truth and decency but this is especially egregious when it comes to things Jewish and Zionist.
Our own present right wing leaders here in Israel often don't help with their own overblown hype but I think the big elephant in the room is that so many of the people who own, work for and write for the Times are nominally Jewish.
God forbid if they should appear too pro Israel, or at least understanding of the complex reality we live in here. This might compromise their position with their politically correct colleagues and friends.
To the Times credit , their ombudsman has come out to express the obvious error in what was left out of this ridiculous "oped".
Might it be too much to expect the newspaper to think twice or perhaps even thrice next time they think of giving valuable editorial space to a terrorist.
I observed this phenomenon during the second Intifada when buses and restaurants were blowing up all around us here in Israel and I also saw it when I was running a medical school under rocket fire in Beer sheva during the last Gaza War.
I guess it has something to do with a post modern inability to "judge" the "other" and an unwillingness to hold them to universal standards of truth and decency but this is especially egregious when it comes to things Jewish and Zionist.
Our own present right wing leaders here in Israel often don't help with their own overblown hype but I think the big elephant in the room is that so many of the people who own, work for and write for the Times are nominally Jewish.
God forbid if they should appear too pro Israel, or at least understanding of the complex reality we live in here. This might compromise their position with their politically correct colleagues and friends.
To the Times credit , their ombudsman has come out to express the obvious error in what was left out of this ridiculous "oped".
Might it be too much to expect the newspaper to think twice or perhaps even thrice next time they think of giving valuable editorial space to a terrorist.
24
Considering The Times' bias against republicans, Christians, essentially all groups on the right, it appears that the problem is its liberal orthodoxy. Israel's crime may be that she has the wrong type of people supporting her.
1
I think it has to do with the perceived underdog and the bigotry of low expectations -- both left-ish inclinations.
The Palestinians have cast themselves as the victims. Weaker, oppressed, brutalized, and passive in all of it. They seem to be winning the public relations war.
From that, as the weak, hapless lot we are convinced they are, we believe they are not able to address their situation in ways other than with violence. After all, we tell ourselves, it's all they know, it's all they're capable of. We forgive and understand their teaching their children to hate Jews. We forgive and understand the kleptocracy they've created, enriching just a few at the top. We forgive and understand their using funds for progress instead to create rockets to try to kill Jews.
And being the kind, understanding, enlightened liberal and progressive souls we are, we feel good about ourselves. Superior, even.
The Palestinians have cast themselves as the victims. Weaker, oppressed, brutalized, and passive in all of it. They seem to be winning the public relations war.
From that, as the weak, hapless lot we are convinced they are, we believe they are not able to address their situation in ways other than with violence. After all, we tell ourselves, it's all they know, it's all they're capable of. We forgive and understand their teaching their children to hate Jews. We forgive and understand the kleptocracy they've created, enriching just a few at the top. We forgive and understand their using funds for progress instead to create rockets to try to kill Jews.
And being the kind, understanding, enlightened liberal and progressive souls we are, we feel good about ourselves. Superior, even.
2
Too little too late. The NYT has become a mouthpiece for the far Left. This is no longer a newspaper. All readers should become former readers. Clean up your act. ......as nothing is fit to print here.
27
Only when viewed from a particular location is NYT "far" left.
5
Why on earth would you think a "far left" person would support giving a respected platform and voice to a terrorist and murderer? I am left, and I absolutely think the NYT got this one wrong. Please speak for yourself only and don't presume to know what a large diverse group you don't belong to thinks.
9
True. From Havana and Pyongyang, it's still considered a capitalist Right newspaper.
3
Strange, that it takes a Palestinian commentator to get the Public Editor to address NYT coverage of Israel.
Times reporters in Israel invariably have deep personal links to the country, both direct and indirect. And the Times routinely fails to point out that Israel has been engaged in a brutal and illegal occupation since 1967, when discussing Palestinian protests (and yes, violence--though it's the kind we often support, when we don't like the offending government).
In this case, the Public Editor expresses no skepticism about the way the Israeli justice system treats Palestinians, including Marwan Bareghouti. Would that system, based in martial law, be deemed fair and impartial, if Israel happened to be an enemy, rather than ally, of the U.S.? Anyone remember that the U.S. government used to consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist? And that some of the foreign policy establishment still does?
Times reporters in Israel invariably have deep personal links to the country, both direct and indirect. And the Times routinely fails to point out that Israel has been engaged in a brutal and illegal occupation since 1967, when discussing Palestinian protests (and yes, violence--though it's the kind we often support, when we don't like the offending government).
In this case, the Public Editor expresses no skepticism about the way the Israeli justice system treats Palestinians, including Marwan Bareghouti. Would that system, based in martial law, be deemed fair and impartial, if Israel happened to be an enemy, rather than ally, of the U.S.? Anyone remember that the U.S. government used to consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist? And that some of the foreign policy establishment still does?
7
Boughati was convicted in a Civilian Court.
4
Israel has an internationally acknowledged reputable and fair judicial system, where opinions and biases (such as yours, for example) are irrelevant.
3
If the paper is opening up the Op-Ed pages to a murderer, at least give his victims an identity. Ronen Landau, 17 was murdered in a highway ambush while traveling home with his father from Jerusalem. Yoela Hen, 45, a mother-of-two was killed en route to a family wedding. Finally, Eli Dahan, 53, Yosef Habi, 52, and Police Officer Sergeant-Major Salim Barakat, 33, were murdered in a restaurant in Tel Aviv. Who will grace the NYT opinion pages next - Bashar al-Assad?
77
.
Putin has had 2 Op-Ed columns printed.
One was in 2013, after Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. I believe the title was "We Must Act".
Putin has had 2 Op-Ed columns printed.
One was in 2013, after Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. I believe the title was "We Must Act".
"Editor's note". Too little too late! This is the consistent practice of Times editors when it comes to this subject, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most sensitive flash points in our current political discourse. The Times needs to take more responsibility for its coverage and opinions.
May we lift up Morocco to guide the future. See that the entirety of discourses about the Arab relationship to Israel--and certainly to the relationship between Muslims and Jews--should not be boiled down and confined to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is life beyond this narrow "cause celebre!"
May we lift up Morocco to guide the future. See that the entirety of discourses about the Arab relationship to Israel--and certainly to the relationship between Muslims and Jews--should not be boiled down and confined to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is life beyond this narrow "cause celebre!"
8
"I asked Jim Dao, editor of the Op-Ed pages, about the decision not to include Barghouti’s crimes."
You do not provide an answer to this most important question. Why was the information not provided??? We can only assume the worse when no answer is given.
You do not provide an answer to this most important question. Why was the information not provided??? We can only assume the worse when no answer is given.
34
The Times lost any credibility on its reporting and editorializing about Israel long ago. The failure to accurately mention Barghouti's list of terror involvement is one of a string of distortions and omissions dating back decades on its Israel reportage and editorialiazing and on only confirms this publications well-earned reputation as the mouthpiece for those who seek to delegitimize and/or erase the nation of Israel.
20
Well, that's a relief. Now we can safely ignore anything in that op-ed critical of Israel and how it treats the Palestinians -- whether imprisoned or simply dispossessed.
7
In summary: "sorry not sorry" for publishing a purposefully-misleading diatribe by a mass murderer terrorist.
The sad part is that this is what I've come to expect from the NYT, one Palestinian-terror-apologist-piece after another.
The sad part is that this is what I've come to expect from the NYT, one Palestinian-terror-apologist-piece after another.
16
Should not an opinion piece stand on its own merits? Is there concern that an author's background could distract from a valid argument put forth in an editorial?
1
I would argue that the author's crimes take away all moral authority in the piece. It was inhumane to murder five innocent people for a political cause permanently separating them from their families, and he loses all standing to argue for better treatment of political prisoners. Surely their are other voices that could argue for Palestinian people without the hypocrisy of this terrorist?
10
hazuki: "Is there concern that an author's background could distract from a valid argument put forth in an editorial?"
Apparently you didn't read Barghouti's OpEd, because Barghouti refers to his "background" throughout his OpEd, beginning with the FIRST SENTENCE.
Further, Barghouti refers to himself when he reports that "The International Campaign to Free Marwan Barghouti and All Palestinian Prisoners ... has enjoyed the support of eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates, 120 governments and hundreds of leaders, parliamentarians, artists and academics around the world."
In that sentence, Barghouti isn't presenting a "valid argument". Barghouti is committing the fallacy of appealing to popularity: A lot of people "support" me, so I must be right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strike-pri...
Apparently you didn't read Barghouti's OpEd, because Barghouti refers to his "background" throughout his OpEd, beginning with the FIRST SENTENCE.
Further, Barghouti refers to himself when he reports that "The International Campaign to Free Marwan Barghouti and All Palestinian Prisoners ... has enjoyed the support of eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates, 120 governments and hundreds of leaders, parliamentarians, artists and academics around the world."
In that sentence, Barghouti isn't presenting a "valid argument". Barghouti is committing the fallacy of appealing to popularity: A lot of people "support" me, so I must be right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strike-pri...
The New York Times and other popular and established news organizations have single-handedly given credence to every other news outlet that correctly accuses the NYT of publishing "fake news."
While president Obama originally used that term to refer to completely fabricated news stories, the NYT routinely chooses to omit crucial pieces of information from stories when that information might conflict with the political agenda of the NYT. Lying by omission is still lying. Cut it out, NYT.
While president Obama originally used that term to refer to completely fabricated news stories, the NYT routinely chooses to omit crucial pieces of information from stories when that information might conflict with the political agenda of the NYT. Lying by omission is still lying. Cut it out, NYT.
14
Why does this make me think of Thomas Klocke (who?)?
About a week before this there was what looked to my eyes a fleeting article online that essentially blamed Israel for the current impasse with regards to the Palestinians. I am not arguing about the content, but what struck me was that there was no room for comments on line and no letters followed in the print version. I find it hard to believe that there was no response. Did the editors have second thoughts and pull the piece? Similarly there was no comment section for the Barghouti piece. If you publish something controversial you should have the guts to deal with the response.
19
"... a fleeting article online ..."
The Times does not publish "fleeting articles". All of the Times's content is online, if you know enough to search for it. Unfortunately, you didn't provide enough information to search for the "article".
"... that essentially blamed Israel ..."
Times articles aren't supposed to assign "blame". Do you mean an *opinion* piece?
The Times does not publish "fleeting articles". All of the Times's content is online, if you know enough to search for it. Unfortunately, you didn't provide enough information to search for the "article".
"... that essentially blamed Israel ..."
Times articles aren't supposed to assign "blame". Do you mean an *opinion* piece?
I question why the Times published an opinion piece by a multiply-convicted murderer and terrorist much less without identifying him as such. With no fact-checking of his claims, such an individual is essentially granted license to lie his way through the piece. Any 11th hour disclosure does little for the many readers who already read the piece, which clearly feeds into the multiple libels against Israel and will be welcomed by those devoted to building a case against Israel. I'm sure Mr. B's allegations will be happily quoted and cited by those looking to delegitimize Israel.
82
When did telling the truth become a libel?
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
- Moshe Dayan, 1969.
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
- Moshe Dayan, 1969.
8
What a weaselly column! This hardly argues for full disclosure! The opinion piece positioned him as a political prisoner, and this gentle chiding indicates the Public Editor does not realize the magnitude of the problem. The omission should be noted in a full-throated yell, not a whisper.
87
.
@ Patrick:
I don't disagree with your last sentence, but ...
An Editors' Note has been appended to the online version of the column. According to interviews I have seen, former Public Editor Margaret Sullivan has said that - at NYT - an Editors' Note is a big deal. Apparently she found that it took a lot of effort to get an Editors' Note appended.
I know that seems ridiculous.
I am concerned about the print reader, besides.
However, I'm just reporting that -- in Timesspeak -- the Editors' Note may well be a full-throated yell.
Just informing you, as I said, not disagreeing.
@ Patrick:
I don't disagree with your last sentence, but ...
An Editors' Note has been appended to the online version of the column. According to interviews I have seen, former Public Editor Margaret Sullivan has said that - at NYT - an Editors' Note is a big deal. Apparently she found that it took a lot of effort to get an Editors' Note appended.
I know that seems ridiculous.
I am concerned about the print reader, besides.
However, I'm just reporting that -- in Timesspeak -- the Editors' Note may well be a full-throated yell.
Just informing you, as I said, not disagreeing.
1
Let me guess....you support the antisemitic BDS policy.
1
For anyone who believes the Times omitted Barghouti's rap sheet accidentally I have a fine bridge for sale
95
Yeah, right.
15
For several years, including during the 2014 Gaza war, Fares Akram was one of the NYT's principal reporters in Gaza. Tragically, Akram's father, an innocent civilian, was killed in an Israeli air strike. Akram wrote in the Independent, a UK newspaper, that he was "finding it hard to distinguish between what the Israelis call terrorists and the Israeli pilots and tank crews who are invading Gaza." In addition, as reported in Forbes magazine, Akram's Facebook page prominently featured a picture of Yasser Arafat. None of this was disclosed by the NYT.
Diaa Hadid was another one of the NYT's main correspondents reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously, she had written for Electronic Intifada, a virulently anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian web site. The NYT did not let its readers in on this fact.
When Margaret Sullivan, a previous public editor, criticized OPINION columnist David Brooks for not disclosing that his son had served in the Israeli army, I wrote to her pointing out the NYT's failure to disclose these pertinent facts concerning HARD NEWS reporters Akram and Hadid. As usual,the only response I received was an automated one.
I also included these facts in a comment to Sullivan's column. If memory serves, it wasn't published. So here's another chance for the NYT to allow them to be disclosed.