The Daily: The World's Court vs. Israel's Leaders
I found the May 23 episode of The Daily: The World's Court vs. Israel's Leaders to be truly astounding ... not for the subject, but for the quality of the journalism - or, more properly, the lack of journalism involved, to the point of journalistic malpractice.
Aside from the basic, fatal flaw of treating Karim Khan's seeking arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and defense minister as if they were serious legal actions rather than stunts in the service of the perverse demonization of Israel, Sabrina Tavernise and Patrick Kingsley appeared oblivious to the way what even what they reported was repeatedly contradictory.
They also showed no traces of either curiosity or skepticism, which are basic requirements for serious journalists.
There was no skepticism expressed about the claims of starvation in Gaza, even though there is none.
There was no mention that there have been warnings of impending famine in Gaza for seven months, while no famine exists.
There was no mention that Israel, even if it wanted to, could not have imposed "a total siege on Gaza" in October, since it didn't even enter Rafah and had no control over any part of Gaza's border with Egypt until a few weeks ago. Even if Yoav Gallant said "“he was imposing a total siege on Gaza,” he obviously did not have the ability to do so.
I'll express some of the type of curiosity so lacking in your "journalists" by asking the question: Why, when The New York Times so often calls out Israeli officials for making statements it finds incorrect (even when they are correct!), it didn't question Gallant's making this statement about doing something that was obviously beyond his power?
Why was no skepticism expressed about the motivation for trying to charge Israeli officials with using starvation as a method of warfare when (a) it clearly is not being used by Israel, (b) Israel is assisting with the transfer of massive amounts of food into Gaza, (c) more food is actually being sent to Gaza now than before October 7, (d) sieges are a traditional form of warfare - indeed, it was used by the Arabs against the Jews living in Jerusalem in 1948 - why was that not mentioned?, and (e) similar charges have never been brought in the past, even when warranted. I could greatly expand that list and I find it astounding (sorry for the repetition of that word) that none of these relevant fact, none of that relevant background, was mentioned at all.
Picking a paragraph in the transcript almost at random (it happened to be on my screen at the moment), I found this one rather curious:
"Karim Khan does not explain why he focuses on starvation rather than Israel's military tactics, which he mentions only in passing. But legal experts have said that it's easier to prove that starvation was used as a method of warfare than it is to prove that there have been any specific crimes involved in any specific airstrikes. And that's because under the rules of war and international law, it's not necessarily illegal in and of itself to kill civilians during wartime."
If it's so much "easier to prove that starvation was used as a method of warfare ...," why hasn't it been done before? Why start with this case, where the people being accused have actually worked to avoid starvation within the enemy's population? Why did your journalists not ask that question?
The reference to civilians being killed during wartime falsely implied that civilians aren't usually killed during wartime. Why, if civilian deaths were mentioned, was it not also mentioned that in typical wars, most casualties are civilians, with the United Nations Security Council considering nearly 90% of casualties being non-combatants being the norm and the proportion of civilian casualties in Gaza being far below the norm?
If one actually pays attention to the explanation in that paragraph, it certainly sounds as if Khan first decided he wanted to arrest Netanyahu for something and looked for an excuse, any excuse, for doing so, rather than responding to a crime and looking for the perpetrator. Indeed, that obviously was the case, since no crime was committed, at least by Netanyahu or Gallant. (Crimes clearly were committed by Sinwar, Deif and Haniyeh, but nobody takes the request for warrants to arrest those terrorists to be serious.)
There are times when a straight news story can reasonably be reported without the journalist needing to use his or her skepticism or curiosity. However, this was not news; this was supposedly analysis, an attempt to give the listeners context and help them understand, and the lack of skepticism and curiosity was evident throughout the podcast.
I'll just mention one last item, not directly about Khan's vendetta against Israel but about the Palestinian Arabs. Consider one of the last paragraphs in the transcript:
"On Wednesday, the leaders of Spain, Norway, and Ireland announced that they would recognize an independent Palestinian state. The move was largely symbolic, but raised the concern that if neighboring countries followed their lead, Europe could become a counterweight to the American position that statehood for Palestinians should come only from a negotiated settlement with Israel."
This contains two blatantly contradictory implications.
The announcement of by Spain, Norway and Ireland clearly implies there is an independent Palestinian state in existence. The reference to the American position clearly implies no such state exists.
Now, perhaps The New York Times believes its readers and the listeners to its podcasts are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know that those implications are contradictory and the implication of the American position is the correct one.
If so, it must also believe those same people are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to recognize Khan's actions are totally unjustified and are really part of a vendetta against the world's only Jewish state, the only real democracy in the Middle East and one which has arguably been more scrupulous about observing international law than any other in the world. Of course, if that was the case, The New York Times wouldn't waste more than a half hour of their time with that podcast.