I Admit It

Well, I didn't get it quite right yesterday. Today's New York Times headline was:

Brief Lull Ends In Gaza Crisis; Strikes Resume

It didn't mention Israel in the headline. It doesn't bother to mention that Israel had accepted the cease-fire. And not until the sub-headline did it note that Hamas had rejected the cease-fire. The “Lull” mentioned above was, in fact, only on the Israeli side. The “proportional” response to that moderation by Israel was rocket fire on southern Israel by Hamas. And then it tells us, “Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip resumed on Tuesday the all-too-familiar rhythm of their latest battle.” The first mention that Israel had accepted the truce came from the first person quoted in (the sixth paragraph – the last on the front page) of the article. It was by Norman Thrall, “an author of the [objective?] International Crisis Group report on the situation.”

“Egypt helped its ally, Israel, achieve a face-saving unilateral cease-fire – that's what happened. … We had an Israeli unilateral cease-fire to which Hamas never agreed and”

Continued on Page A6

“Egypt helped Israel market it.”

The Times article continues, “The lopsided battle claimed its first Israeli casualty [actually it was the first death, not the first casualty] Tuesday night” while Israeli strikes continued, “bringing the Palestinian death toll to 189 over eight days.” And later it added, “Israel had little to lose by initially approving Egypt's proposal.” That's The New York Times's version of “fair and balanced.”

CBS radio, to which I listened a few minutes ago, talked about the fact that Israel was now targeting the homes of Hamas leaders, and it reported how many Palestinians had been killed, while The Wall Street Journal's front page headline was:

Palestinians Told to Clear Out

Israel Warns Thousands to Leave Gaza as Army Readies Broader Offensive

Sure Hamas had rejected a truce, but you had to start reading the article to actually find that out.

So the message of yesterday's essay may not have been quite right in the particulars, but the overall idea was on the mark. The press underplayed any Palestinian responsibility, while emphasizing Israel's, and the suffering of the Gazans.

I'm not sure why I get upset about what is so predictable, but I do.