New York Times on the Israeli Gaza Flotilla Attack Investigation: ‘He proves’ vs ‘She alleges’

From today’s NYT, about the Israeli “investigation” of the Gaza aid flotilla massacre:

General Eiland’s report finds that there was at least one gun on board because an Israeli soldier took a bullet in the knee that was not from an Israeli weapon. It also contends that Israeli soldiers most likely fired only after having been fired upon first.

“All the shooting was either when the soldiers were in immediate danger of their lives or when they had to rescue fellow soldiers,” a senior official involved in the investigation said, speaking under military rules of anonymity. He added that there were between four and six events in which Israeli soldiers were fired upon with live fire by those on board.

Passengers aboard the flotilla have mostly told a very different story, with some witnesses accusing the commandos of shooting randomly as they came aboard.

Ah Israeli lies. Not exactly an uncommon occurrence and most reasonably intelligent people are aware that you’re more likely to milk Scotch from a rock than get any kind of honesty from an Israeli official. But it’s the enablers of the lies and propaganda that are more troubling.

In this NYT excerpt, the writer, and guessing by the name, a Jewish one, claims the
Israeli official “finds“. This word implies a definitive conclusion, as if there was definitieve proof of a gun being on board the Mavi Marmara, despite all previous indications to the contrary. But of course, if an Israeli military official says so, it’s go to be true, right Ethan Bronner?

Compare that with aid activist witnesses, who “accuse“. This implies it is merely an allegation until proven true. Which is curious considering this wasn’t the same treatment given to the Israeli defense official. So what we have here is the NYT taking words of one side of the issue at face value, while treating the other with a healthy dose of skepticism. At no point are facts brought in to shed light on who may be telling the truth.

But the pièce de résistance is this:

The scuffles that ensued led to Israeli commandos shooting the nine Turks, including one with dual Turkish-American citizenship.

First of all, it is unclear whether the “scuffles” lead to the shootings, or if the shootings lead to the scuffles. Only a mainstream media reader wouldn’t pause to think critically, EG why would a bunch of aid activists attack armed naval commandos if they weren’t violently provoked/fearing for their lives? Maybe them saying they were shot upon prior to boarding isn’t the lie the MSM tries to portray it as?

Second of all: 9 people were killed. Many dozens more were shot, suffering minor to severe injuries. But if you didn’t know anything of this incident you would presume only 9 people were shot and probably all survived with minor injuries. If a suicide bomb goes off in Israel or anywhere else in the world, does the NYT refer to the victims killed as merely being “bombed”? This is truly deceitful language deliberately crafted to misinform its readers to craft an artificial narrative to counter the truth of the massacre.

When the NYT goes belly up, it can look to shysty articles that this and the editors who facilitate this propaganda as the reason no one who seeks unbiased and accurate reporting respects the NYT.

This entry was posted in International Relations, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s