Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
See the Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
More About the Author
Top Customer Reviews
Meaning no country including Israel, is above what international law dictates. With that being said the authors then go on to compare how NY Times reports (from 200-2006) incidents as opposed to the actual facts that have been catalogued by various mainstream human rights organizations. What is interesting is that the authors note that Israeli and British press are a lot more honest and properly frame incidents that occur in Israel and the Occupied Territories but you see that remarkably absent in the NY times who give the Israeli perspective or slant.
The section on Detention and Torture is also enlightening. The authors, using international humanitarian law as a measuring stick, it cites reports made by international and human rights bodies on Israel's use of torture. What is more alarming is NY times ignored these findings and have left the public in the dark of the reality of torture used in Israel against the Palestinians.
Part 2 of the book features the 2006 invasion of Lebanon & Gaza and how the NY times in its stories and editorial pages absolved Israeli government of any civilian casualties it inflicted on the people of Lebanon and Gaza. The discussion of Chomsky and Dershowitz is quite interesting.Read more ›
Here, they study the USA's main liberal newspaper, the New York Times, and its editorial and news pages coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict from 2000 to 2006. They also compare this coverage to the reality.
The authors show how the USA and Israel reject the provisions of fair and equitable treatment embodied in international law because international law tends to support Palestinian claims on the issues in dispute. The NYT, reflecting US and Israeli state practices, never applies international law to US and Israeli foreign policies.
By ignoring the law's obligations, the NYT assists Israel's 40-year-long illegal belligerent occupation of Palestine's territories, the West Bank and Gaza, the world's longest occupation. The occupation inevitably produces all Israel's other illegalities, the annexation and settling of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the separation barrier on Palestinian territory, the killing of civilians, the assassinations, the detentions, the systematic abuse, the torture and atrocities, the destruction of more than 4,000 homes and of farms and orchards, the closures and curfews.
Friel and Falk show that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal.Read more ›
In this book, however, Howard Friel and Richard Falk appear to demand that the New York Times become even less honest and even more biased!
What is going on here? One possibility, of course, is that the New York Times is unfair to everyone, and has misrepresented the past and present of the region. And that is possible. While some papers may say that if those on both sides strongly criticize what it says, it must be doing something right, that's nonsense. A person who leaves two customers totally unsatisfied could well be doing everything wrong. And in some cases, I think the New York Times may have done just that. But this book does not give convincing evidence for it, and I think the whole book is simply out of line.
In the introduction, we see boasts that Israel is being given the opportunity to have its 1949 borders! It is as if those borders are manifestly too large and as if Israelis in the West Bank (and maybe within the 1949 Israeli borders as well) aren't really there legally. And it is as if the Arabs would agree to accept an Israel within even those borders rather than simply attack it and destroy it, in order to get rid of human rights for Jews in the region.
The authors complain when the New York Times calls Israeli peace offers "generous.Read more ›