NYT Responds to Reports That it Rejected Goldstone Op-Ed
Israeli media outlets reported yesterday that sources close to Judge Richard Goldstone said that the author of the infamous U.N. report on Gaza first turned to the New York Times with his mea culpa, but that the paper of record rejected his turnaround column.
Yediot Achronot (available in Hebrew in print) follows up today that both the New York Times and Goldstone himself confirm that Goldstone submitted an Op-Ed to the New York Times on March 22, but not the Op-Ed that ran last week in the Washington Post. The New York Times and Goldstone did not divulge the content of the March 22 submission, which raises the question: Did it go even further than the Washington Post piece in rejecting his earlier conclusions concerning alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza?
More from SNAPSHOTS
CNN’s Amanpour Condemns “power grab” By Israel’s Prime Minister and Others
April 1, 2020
We’ve said it often, but it’s worth repeating: Anyone interested in reasonably unbiased information about Israel (at least) should avoid the broadcasts of CNN’s Chief International Correspondent and Anchor, Christiane Amanpour. In characterizing responses to [...]
Seattle Media Oblivious To Imam’s Hateful Indoctrination Condemning Jews
January 7, 2020
The Masjid Ar-Rahmah mosque teaching – that Allah transformed Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying him – delivered by Imam (prayer leader) Mohamad Joban – was posted online by mosque personnel. This December 2019 [...]
AP Distorts: Bethlehem ‘Almost Completely Surrounded’
December 10, 2019
Over two years after improving inaccurate language falsely citing Israel's security "barrier surrounding the biblical city" of Bethlehem, the Associated Press once again misrepresents. AP's Joseph Krauss and Mohammad Daraghmeh wrote yesterday ("Palestinians in Bethlehem [...]
Reuters Errs on Administrative Detention For ‘Anti-Israel Activity’
November 5, 2019
The Ofer Prison, near Ramallah (Photo by Tamar Sternthal) A Reuters article today egregiously misrepresents administrative detention, erroneously asserting that it is mainly applied to "Palestinians suspected of anti-Israeli activities," when in fact the Israeli [...]