Where Max Blumenthal and CAMERA Disagree

Max Blumenthal doesn’t seem to care too much about the facts.

The anti-Israel blogger flatly lied to the readers of his blog when, in a headline, he announced that Benjamin Netanyahu called the September 11 attacks a “very good” thing. And today he lies again, writing that “CAMERA claimed … all media reports suggesting that the Border Police killed [Abir Aramin] were categorically false.”

On what basis does Blumenthal rest his allegation that we called the reports “categorically false”? An article in which we wrote that “the Israeli border police are not necessarily to blame,” and that Palestinian stone throwers “may very well have been responsible for the death of Aramin.”

Blumenthal is a writer. He knows that his term — “categorical” — and our phrasing — “not necessarily” and “may very well have been” — have completely opposite meanings. That is, anyone who hears “not necessarily true” but reports instead “categorically false” is being flagrantly dishonest.

On one narrow point, Blumenthal is right. Our piece about the death of Abir Aramin, written over five years ago, needed an update. It’s been updated.

On the larger point, he’s well off the mark. He apparently thinks news reporters in a fog should report what they want to believe, as opposed to what the available information allows them to conclude. If there is an incomplete picture, the journalist gets to complete it based on their own partisan leanings.

Our piece, which Blumenthal so hysterically attacked, argued the opposite: If information is hazy and contradictory, then reporters should tell their readers that information is hazy and contradictory, and explain why. Only when the fog lifts should news reports relay categorical information.

In the Aramin case, the fog has lifted. Israeli courts accepted the results of an autopsy that concluded she was indeed struck by a rubber bullet. That much is clear today. But based on what was known (and not known) at the time, reporters were unable to reach that conclusion, and so should not have done so in their news copy.

Blumenthal disagrees. But what else would you expect from someone who tries to sell the idea that Netanyahu supported the 9/11 attacks, and who claims that “not necessarily” means the same as “categorically not”?