The New York Times And Itamar

The murders of the Fogel family, including three children stabbed to death in their beds, obviously posed a dilemma for the New York Times. 

Fixated as it is on a story line in which Israel, and especially Israeli settlers, bear central responsibility for ongoing tensions with the Arabs, the Times covered the killings with the strained circumlocutions, omissions and colored language typical for the paper's editors and reporters when addressing peril to Jews and the Jewish state.

The first major account of the carnage by reporter Isabel Kershner appeared on March 13 -- on page 16 with no photo. A day later, updates on the story appeared closer to the front of the paper, on page 4, as the focus turned to Israel's announcement of renewed construction in several settlements. Two photos ran that day of the Fogel funerals. A telling caption read: "About 20,000 attended the funerals for the Fogels, whose deaths outraged settlers."

Did the Times think only "settlers" were outraged over slitting the throats of children in their beds? Israel's leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, who's not a settler, had written:

 "The murder in Itamar is so shocking, so horrible, that it makes the debate over settlements irrelevant. Against the murderer, who pulls out a knife and butchers in cold blood three children in their sleep, the difference between Tel Aviv and Itamar is erased."

The Fogel horror had to be reported, of course. But what to call the killings and how much to communicate about their instigation rooted in relentless dehumanizing of Jews throughout Palestinian culture -- in media, mosques, schools and political discourse -- were the question.

Alterations in wording of the Times account on its Web site over the first hours after the event suggest editorial interventions to mute even minimal references to the Israeli Prime Minister's strong language denouncing Palestinian demonizing of Israel and to the appalling terrorist attack.

A version posted at 23:02 GMT included Benjamin Netanyahu's statement: "A society that permits such wild incitement is one that eventually brings about the murder of children."

That charge, expressing the core of Israel's belief about the consequences of the pervasive, bigoted assault on Jews by Palestinian leaders and their social, religious and political institutions, was excised. What remained was language that reverted to the paper's characteristic distancing from the realities of anti-Jewish incitement. The final text read:

 "Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pointed a finger at the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, blaming it for what he described as incitement in the schools, the mosques and the news media it controls."

Omitted is the strong connective tie between anti-Jewish propaganda and killing children and inserted is the reference to the Palestinian Authority as "Western-backed." The message shifts; a finger-wagging leader of Israel, seemingly out of step with the West, is "blaming" the PA leadership - not for demonstrably instilling Jew-hatred, which is a moral outrage - but only for what the Israeli leader "described as incitement."

On March 15, the Times was seemingly compelled to touch fleetingly on the issue, as Israeli leaders pressed their denunciations of the Palestinian Authority's incitement to violence and muted condemnations of the murders. Once again, though, the information was minimal and colorless, subsumed in a story strenuously emphasizing and repeating that PA leaders condemned the Fogel atrocity.

Moreover, the reporter hastened to interject what is likely a partial underpinning of the Times agenda in whitewashing Palestinian incitement:

 "The new focus on incitement against Israel, together with Israeli dissatisfaction over the Palestinian response to the brutal attack, seemed to pose a question about the Israeli government's readiness to deal with Mr. Abbas as a serious peace partner - even though Mr. Abbas and Mr. Fayyad are widely considered moderates who have repeatedly said they would never resort to violence."

That is, if Israel insists on drawing attention to the demonization of its people by its peace partner, what might this portend for their "readiness to deal with Mr. Abbas," who is, after all, "moderate" and "would never resort to violence"?

More here