Ken Berwitz

The New York Times, in keeping with what appears to be a tradition for this once-great "newspaper", has again rushed to print lies about the actions of Israeli soldiers and then - in far less conspicuous fashion - printed a retraction.

The folks at www.camera.org explain:

March 29, 2009

NY Times Backpedals on Gaza Atrocities Story

The New York Times has now run a follow-up article on the Gaza atrocities reports that, while far from perfect, corrects and rebuts many of the false charges that spread from Ha'aretz to news outlets around the world.

The article, which was on the Times website on Friday, was published in the Saturday paper (which has the lowest circulation of the week) on page four, not on page one above the fold like the Times' first article on the subject. Still the article admits that the alleged killing by an Israeli sniper of the mother and her two daughters was an "urban myth" that almost certainly did not occur, and quotes Israeli soldiers including Yishai Goldflam on how they tried to avoid harming innocent Palestinians and their property.

The article also quotes an Israeli academic who has studied the impact of the growing proportion of religious soldiers in the IDF and the influence of rabbis on the conduct of these soldiers. According to the professor the rabbis have had a moderating impact on the soldiers, contradicting claims in the Times ("A Religious War in Israel’s Army") and elsewhere that rabbis had called for a religious or "holy war" against the Arabs and specificaly in Gaza.

For accounts from more IDF soldiers which contradict the rumors published earlier in Ha'aretz and the New York Times, see the new Web site, "Soldiers Speak Out."

Just like with the "mohammad al-dura" story (that kid who was supposedly shot by Israelis while helpless up against a wall, hiding behind his father) in 2000....

...and just like with the "Jenin massacre" story in 2002...

...and just like with the "Israel bombed a school" story from this past December...

...we first have a rush to publish the condemnatory articles about Israel. 

And just like all three of those stories (among others), subsequently there is a "welllllllll, maybe we weren't right about that" retraction (sort of) later on, after all the damage has been done.

You would think that the New York Times must have learned from these hoaxes, all of which were created by Palestinian Arabs for propaganda purposes.  But, just like Charlie Brown with the football, it buys into every subsequent hoax from the same source;  hook, line and sphincter.

Why do you suppose?