The Columbia Journalism Review Slimes Israel

In November 2011, Justin D. Martin published an article in the Columbia Journalism Review entitled "Speech in Israel Is Not Free" (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/speech_in_israel_is_not_free.php) in the Columbia Journalism Review), in which he stated:

"Palestinians rights to assemble, to visit family and friends, and to access institutions are crippled by an Israeli police presence that would’ve made Mao giddy and George Orwell vomit. This is in addition to a twenty-five-foot-high wall that is over 400 miles long, equipped with electrical fencing, sniper towers, and razor wire that keeps Palestinians where the Israeli military wants them."

Martin failed to mention that over the past three years the number of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank was reduced from 41 to 15, through which traffic flows freely. Moreover, as Palestinian President Abbas indicated in May 2009 to Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

People in the West Bank are living a "normal life"? Peculiar, that's not what Martin would have us believe.

But what about Martin's twenty-five-foot-high, 400-mile-long "wall"? In fact, the Israeli West Bank separation barrier is some 470 miles long, but only 10% of the barrier consists of a concrete wall; the remainder is a fence.

Martin didn't know this? The Columbia Journalism Review didn't conduct a fact check? Anyone traveling along Israel's Route 6 can see this for himself or herself.

More to the point, who is Martin? Beside his article there is an "About the Author" blurb stating:

"Justin D. Martin , Ph.D., is the CLAS-Honors Preceptor of Journalism at the University of Maine and authors the Borders & Bylines column for CJR."

But now do a Google search using his name. Surprise: The American University of Cairo tells us (http://www.aucegypt.edu/fac/Profiles/Pages/JustinMartin.aspx):

"Justin D. Martin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication.

. . . .

His research and writing have appeared in . . . Columbia Journalism Review . . . ."

So why does the Columbia Journalism Review only refer to Martin's association with the University of Maine? When writing a scathing article about Israeli journalism, his association with a university in Egypt is irrelevant?

Martin has just written another Columbia Journalism Review article entitled "Which Countries Jail the Most Journalists Per Capita?" (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/which_countries_jail_the_most.php), condemning - you'll never guess in a million years - Israel. In his article dated April 2, 2012, Martin writes:

"By far the country that jails the most journalists per capita is Eritrea; Israel is a distant second. The CPJ report was quick to list Iran as the world’s premier jailor of journalists, and the Islamic Republic is up there, but clearly Eritrea and Israel also need to do some explaining. Israel jails more journalists than either the Palestinian Authority (zero) or militant group Hamas (three), both of which it criticizes for human rights miscarriages."

Martin's article notes that four journalists have been jailed in Israel, which has a population of seven million. However, as observed in the Elder of Ziyon blog (see: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-misuse-statistics-israel-accused.html) and by Omri Ceren in Commentary (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/03/academic-attack-on-israel-press-freedoms/#more-789797), Martin's article fails to consider the extremely high number of journalists working in Israel, the numbers of arrested journalists cited by Martin are incorrect (e.g., in Turkey), and at least one of the four journalists detained by Israel engaged in terrorist activity.

I would only add that Martin might want to consider reading David Keyes April 5 opinion piece in The Washington Post, entitled "Where’s the outcry over Palestinian censorship?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/silence-on-palestinian-censorship/2012/04/05/gIQAZ3khxS_story.html). Keyes, who is executive director of the New York based organization Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, writes:

"A university lecturer and single mother of two, Ismat Abdul-Khaleq, was arrested in the West Bank last week for criticizing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Facebook.

. . . .

In recent months, Hamas has cracked down on dissidents, women and online activists. It has arrested journalists, banned a social media conference and jailed several bloggers.

. . . .

Under Abbas, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has replicated Hamas’s brutality.

. . . .

George Canawati, director of Radio Bethlehem 2000, was arrested in September over a Facebook post that criticized Bethlehem’s health department.

Mamdouh Hamamreh, an employee of al-Quds TV, was detained last fall and charged with libel and slander against Abbas for allegedly posting on Facebook a picture of Abbas standing next to a photo of an actor who plays a traitor on a Syrian soap opera.

Journalist Rami Samara was held in February after criticizing Palestinian leaders on Facebook. And Palestinian journalist Youssef al-Shayeb was jailed last month on allegations of defaming public officials after he reported on corruption among Palestinian diplomats.

. . . .

On Sunday, yet another journalist, Tarek Khamis, was arrested by Palestinian forces after he posted criticism on Facebook of the recent Palestinian Authority crackdown."

Yet according to Martin's article, "Israel jails more journalists than either the Palestinian Authority (zero) or militant group Hamas (three), both of which it criticizes for human rights miscarriages." Zero arrested by the Palestinian Authority? What's wrong with Martin's math? The Columbia Journalism Review, published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, needs to seriously examine the kind of "journalism" it is fostering.

New York Times Editorial "Palestinian Statehood": Despicable

An abbreviated inoffensive version of the following blog entry was sent online in response to The Times editorial. It was . . . you guessed right . . . censored.

In knee-jerk fashion, The New York Times , in an editorial entitled "Palestinian Statehood" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?hp), is again quick to blame Netanyahu for thwarting peace negotiations. The editorial observes:

"Since President Obama took office, the only direct negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mr. Abbas lasted a mere two weeks in September 2010."

The editorial board of The New York Times does not bother telling us that in 2010 Netanyahu honored Obama's request for a 10-month freeze in settlement constuction, but that the Palestinian Authority delayed beginning talks with Israel until the last month of the moratorium. A mere trifling detail? What does this say about the desire of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate a peaceful settlement?

No mention by The Times editorial board that although the Palestinian Authority will not brook the presence of a single Jew in their new state, they have gone on record as saying that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Again, just a trivial issue?

The Times editorial board also forgets to mention that when Palestinian terrorists attacked Israeli buses carrying civilians on August 18, 2011 from across the Egyptian border, the Palestinian Authority never forthrightly denounced the terror attack, which killed 8 and wounded 20. Apparently, The Times editorial board also believes that this conduct on the part of the Palestinian Authority has no bearing on their purported desire for peace.

What does this all say about the leanings and objectivity of the New York Times? In the past, I evidenced the past willingess of this newspaper to brook the vilest expressions of anti-Semitism in their online readers' comments. Why, of all minorities, could only the Jews be targeted?

Actually, this most recent depraved distortion of the facts by The New York Times should come as no surprise. Observe a recent tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT) by New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal:

"Perry announce speech. Did he miss a GOP cliche? One fave: Isreal [sic] won't have to worry about him. As if it ever has to worry about a US prez."

Apart from misspelling "Israel," Rosenthal displayed appalling ignorance concerning Israel's relationships with past US presidents. As observed in an earlier blog entry, Israel's relationships with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama have often been less than amicable (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/compare-max-frankel-with-andrew.html).

Omri Ceren of Commentary recently wrote in "Contentions" in a post entitled "The Times' Spectacular Bias Against Israel" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/08/ny-times-bias-israel/):

"I was hoping I could begin this post with an opening like 'Day 2 of this nonsense.' But I checked, and technically this is only the second time in three days that the New York Times has displayed spectacular bias against Israel, borne of something between poor judgment and a wholly absent sensitivity to Jewish sensibilities. Again it involves a spy case, again Scott Shane is the author, and again there are brief but pointed insinuations of American-Jewish collusion with Israel.

In contrast to Tuesday’s nonsense, though, there’s nothing particularly subtle about the bias on display. It’s simply a case of the Times throwing around an anti-Semitic dual loyalty accusation – which is also becoming kind of a thing in certain corners of the public sphere – with quite literally no justification. A White House scientist tried to sell classified data to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli spy, and he was arrested and duly convicted.

But the case as such never involved Israel, and the way you tell that is because it says so right there in the story.

. . . .

Now it’s true the convicted spy himself had once worked as a totally legal consultant for an Israeli firm until 2008. But that had precisely as much to do with the spy case as the fact he once attended MIT. And yet the Times’ headline didn’t say the spy case was tied to MIT, because that aspect of his past life wasn’t relevant to the spy case.

Of course, linking the case to MIT wouldn’t have injected a sensationalist century-old anti-Jewish canard – and an ever-popular anti-Israel theme – into public discourse. So that wouldn’t have been as exciting.

Honestly, what the hell is going on over there?"

What the hell is going on over at The Times? Sadly, nothing new. A mere lack of objectivity, or something far more malicious? You decide.