SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly. The NYT wants to give some sort of face-saving excuse for this and all they can come up with is this subtle endorsement of the slander about her lack of innocence," Johnson, North, and Weiss write. (Photo: Twitter/Screengrab)
New York Times Teams Up With Israel to Smear Slain Medic Razzan al-Najjar as 'Complex,' Not Innocent
"Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives."
Jun 10, 2018
The New York Times on Thursday printed a long article giving credence to Israeli claims that Razzan al-Najjar, the young medic killed by an Israeli sniper a week ago, was not innocent. The article takes at face value Israel's desperate efforts to taint the young woman, whom the army has previously maintained it killed by accident.
The first paragraph announces the Times's service to Israel:
The Israeli military published a brief video on Thursday aimed at showing that a Palestinian medic killed by Israeli forces last week was not the neutral health care worker she has been portrayed as.
The article parrots Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, about al-Najjar: that in a video interview of the medic that the Israelis passed along she described herself as a "human shield."
Not till paragraph 20 of 22, does the Times state what Jonathan Ofir reported yesterday, the Israeli video cut short al-Najjar's actual statement in an effort to misrepresent her.
In the longer video, the comment that the military translated as "I act as a human shield" was part of a sentence in which Ms. Najjar said, "I'm acting as a human rescue shield to protect the injured inside the armistice line."
Nonetheless, Times author Herbert Buchsbaum, a desk editor in New York, chimes in: al-Najjar "may have been a more complex person than either side is making her out to be."
What can the Times mean by "more complex"? That is, she was not only saving lives, but was part of the protest. Apparently there is something "complex" about this and therefore Israel isn't really guilty of lying, just oversimplifying.
That is obfuscation. Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives. Calling this "complex" is just the NY Times saying she wasn't really sweet and innocent. If Russia did this the Times would call it the cynical slander and lie that it is. But since it is Israel they have to make this into a he said/she said debate. There is a "battle" of narratives about al-Najjar, the Times says.
There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly. The NYT wants to give some sort of face-saving excuse for this and all they can come up with is this subtle endorsement of the slander about her lack of innocence. The video, Buchsbaum writes, is "an effort to chip away at Ms. Najjar's image of fresh-faced innocence."
If the Times really wanted to find out more about Najjar, it would not ape propaganda. It would send out reporters to interview her family and friends. Or they could call B'Tselem to ask its opinion. No, the Times has a deskbound New York man parroting Israeli talking points.
Calling al-Najjar a human shield is a serious charge. Shouldn't they have asked her mother for a reaction? The family would surely tell you: This is despicable.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Mondoweiss
James North
James North is an independent writer, who has reported from Africa, Latin America and Asia for 43 years. Author of Freedom Rising, a first-hand look at apartheid South Africa.
Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
The New York Times on Thursday printed a long article giving credence to Israeli claims that Razzan al-Najjar, the young medic killed by an Israeli sniper a week ago, was not innocent. The article takes at face value Israel's desperate efforts to taint the young woman, whom the army has previously maintained it killed by accident.
The first paragraph announces the Times's service to Israel:
The Israeli military published a brief video on Thursday aimed at showing that a Palestinian medic killed by Israeli forces last week was not the neutral health care worker she has been portrayed as.
The article parrots Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, about al-Najjar: that in a video interview of the medic that the Israelis passed along she described herself as a "human shield."
Not till paragraph 20 of 22, does the Times state what Jonathan Ofir reported yesterday, the Israeli video cut short al-Najjar's actual statement in an effort to misrepresent her.
In the longer video, the comment that the military translated as "I act as a human shield" was part of a sentence in which Ms. Najjar said, "I'm acting as a human rescue shield to protect the injured inside the armistice line."
Nonetheless, Times author Herbert Buchsbaum, a desk editor in New York, chimes in: al-Najjar "may have been a more complex person than either side is making her out to be."
What can the Times mean by "more complex"? That is, she was not only saving lives, but was part of the protest. Apparently there is something "complex" about this and therefore Israel isn't really guilty of lying, just oversimplifying.
That is obfuscation. Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives. Calling this "complex" is just the NY Times saying she wasn't really sweet and innocent. If Russia did this the Times would call it the cynical slander and lie that it is. But since it is Israel they have to make this into a he said/she said debate. There is a "battle" of narratives about al-Najjar, the Times says.
There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly. The NYT wants to give some sort of face-saving excuse for this and all they can come up with is this subtle endorsement of the slander about her lack of innocence. The video, Buchsbaum writes, is "an effort to chip away at Ms. Najjar's image of fresh-faced innocence."
If the Times really wanted to find out more about Najjar, it would not ape propaganda. It would send out reporters to interview her family and friends. Or they could call B'Tselem to ask its opinion. No, the Times has a deskbound New York man parroting Israeli talking points.
Calling al-Najjar a human shield is a serious charge. Shouldn't they have asked her mother for a reaction? The family would surely tell you: This is despicable.
James North
James North is an independent writer, who has reported from Africa, Latin America and Asia for 43 years. Author of Freedom Rising, a first-hand look at apartheid South Africa.
Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
The New York Times on Thursday printed a long article giving credence to Israeli claims that Razzan al-Najjar, the young medic killed by an Israeli sniper a week ago, was not innocent. The article takes at face value Israel's desperate efforts to taint the young woman, whom the army has previously maintained it killed by accident.
The first paragraph announces the Times's service to Israel:
The Israeli military published a brief video on Thursday aimed at showing that a Palestinian medic killed by Israeli forces last week was not the neutral health care worker she has been portrayed as.
The article parrots Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, about al-Najjar: that in a video interview of the medic that the Israelis passed along she described herself as a "human shield."
Not till paragraph 20 of 22, does the Times state what Jonathan Ofir reported yesterday, the Israeli video cut short al-Najjar's actual statement in an effort to misrepresent her.
In the longer video, the comment that the military translated as "I act as a human shield" was part of a sentence in which Ms. Najjar said, "I'm acting as a human rescue shield to protect the injured inside the armistice line."
Nonetheless, Times author Herbert Buchsbaum, a desk editor in New York, chimes in: al-Najjar "may have been a more complex person than either side is making her out to be."
What can the Times mean by "more complex"? That is, she was not only saving lives, but was part of the protest. Apparently there is something "complex" about this and therefore Israel isn't really guilty of lying, just oversimplifying.
That is obfuscation. Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives. Calling this "complex" is just the NY Times saying she wasn't really sweet and innocent. If Russia did this the Times would call it the cynical slander and lie that it is. But since it is Israel they have to make this into a he said/she said debate. There is a "battle" of narratives about al-Najjar, the Times says.
There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly. The NYT wants to give some sort of face-saving excuse for this and all they can come up with is this subtle endorsement of the slander about her lack of innocence. The video, Buchsbaum writes, is "an effort to chip away at Ms. Najjar's image of fresh-faced innocence."
If the Times really wanted to find out more about Najjar, it would not ape propaganda. It would send out reporters to interview her family and friends. Or they could call B'Tselem to ask its opinion. No, the Times has a deskbound New York man parroting Israeli talking points.
Calling al-Najjar a human shield is a serious charge. Shouldn't they have asked her mother for a reaction? The family would surely tell you: This is despicable.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.