Other basic counterpoints to the story line were also simply omitted. For example, no hint was given that there might not be any impediment to a future Palestinian state if the Palestinians did not insist that their state be Judenrein but rather were open to including Jews and their communities the way Israel includes one and a half million Arabs – over 20 percent of its population.
Pro forma references to international “ire” regarding Jewish settlements were cited but there was no exploration of the contending positions. In 3,000 words there was no mention of any of the core legal issues. There are obviously differing views about the political advisability and future of settlement development, but there are also basic facts that can aid in understanding the merit of each side.
For example, as literally hundreds of international jurists have attested, the right of Jews to live in these areas was clearly established by the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922), which called for “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands” of the Mandate. This Jewish right was reaffirmed by Article 80 of the United Nations charter, which preserved the application of the League of Nations Mandate’s stipulations.
The contending argument is that Israeli settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the transfer of populations. Israel disputes the relevance here, arguing the Convention is not applicable because there is no forcible transfer; Jews have moved voluntarily to the disputed areas to establish communities.
In a few sentences, the Times could have added to reader awareness about the differing views on this contentious subject. But the thrust of this story was to tar Netanyahu as a settlement zealot, an effort that’s actually made difficult when even the Times’s own charts show the prime minister doing about the same – or sometimes less – than previous Israeli leaders in housing starts in settlements.
In a nod to the obvious reality that statistics regarding settlement building don’t set Netanyahu notably apart from his fellow prime ministers, especially during his second administration, the reporters inject other negative innuendo, charging: “He has taken more heat over settlements than his predecessors, analysts said, in part because of his broader intransigence on the Palestinian issue and the use of construction as a retaliatory tool.”
Which “analysts” are leveling these charges? What is their expertise on the topic? What exactly was the “broader intransigence on the Palestinian issue”? What and when was the “use of construction as a retaliatory tool?”
This is insinuation and editorializing. The Times’s own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, has deplored reliance on anonymous sources such as the unnamed “analysts” who assail Netanyahu as intransigent.
Similarly problematic, the reporters rely almost entirely on the anti-settlement group Peace Now for statistics, charts, aerial photos, and quotes. The Times does so despite the fact that several years ago the paper was burned when it published grossly false information by the group claiming that Maale Adumim, the largest West Bank settlement, was built on land that was 86.4 percent private Palestinian property. In fact, less than 1 percent, or only .54 percent, was private, a discrepancy of 15,900 percent.
Peace Now has been prone to such false charges. In 2008, the settlement of Revava won a court case against the organization because of its false allegation the community was built on 71.15 percent private Palestinian land. Revava representatives insisted there was no private land at all involved and won a court case and damages against Peace Now affirming their position that the community was not built on private land.
These are not small matters. What the examples and others underscore is that the organization is driven by ideology and Peace Now data are questionable. Yet the Times, despite being a news organization, is evidently so aligned with Peace Now’s political viewpoint it is prepared to ignore the group’s record of prior false claims.
