comedic new piece from the NYT bureau chief and prime Israeli propagandist, Jodi Rudoren, as she appears aghast that Gazans would--imagine--blame Israel for the slaughter in their neighborhoods. She practically pleads with them to, some day soon, blame Hamas, amazed that polls show that the organization has gained, not lost support--and even as they find the funds to give each family whose home was destroyed by Israel $2000 in cash. Of course, she fails--and her reporting failed--to understand the level of carnage wrought by the Israelis, and how this might effect those who may be critical of Hamas but outraged by the slaughter of innocents. Instead, wishfully, she writes, "the honeymoon may not last. The more time that passes without real change in Gaza’s conditions, analysts said, the more residents are likely to blame Hamas for the 2,100 lives lost and the vast destruction across the coastal territory."
Earlier: And today, another in a string of dozens of biased reports from the 'NYT' bureau in Israel over the past months, which for good measure appears to break the paper's rules on quoting anonymous sources on two levels--the source is the only one in the entire article, and his or her remarks are clearly "self-serving." And there's this outrageous claim, with no fact-checking or counter, referring to where Hamas rockets were aimed and landed: "The official said he believed that still others were fired intentionally
at the local Palestinian population, 'from what I saw in the systems.'”
Of course, this is latest excuse for the mass civilian casualties in Gaza. It's not enough for the Israelis to claim that schools and hospitals were often hit by misfiring Hamas rockets. Not it must be claimed that in some cases Hamas, for some reason, wanted to hit its own people. But, of course, Kershner does not probe--just, as so often, plays the stenographer.
Even her citation of photos that allegedly show possibly rocket launching sites at --in previous cases, the schools in question were abandoned, not actively sheltering refugees at the time. Perhaps in these two cases, that's different--but given Times' track record, I would doubt it.