The NYT outdoes even itself this morning in the anonymous sources department – is this what they learn for fifty grand a year at J school? – with Steven Erlanger’s U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster. It’s hard to count the unnamed sources in the article, who are listed variously as Israeli, US and “Western” officials. [Arnold Schwarzenegger?-ed. Who knows?] No one speaks for attribution, other than a Hamas spokesman.
The piece, which, needless to say, is not listed in the paper as opinion, is much talked about in the blogosphere this morning, but it’s hard to say why. Besides it’s meretricious journalistic techniques, it has nothing to add that has not been written about a hundred times. Everyone knows it’s being debated how much aid money to pass to Hamas. Everyone knows it’s being linked to Hamas’ behavior. So nothing is new in this article other than the usual anonymous sources (hello, State Department!) grinding their usual axes in the pages of the ever cooperative New York Times. [That's not new either.-ed. No it's not.]
UPDATE: Far more interestingly (and factually) MEMRI has published a new full translation of the Hamas Convenant. Here’s an excerpt:
The Islamic Resistance Movement maintains that the land of Palestine is Waqf land given as endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. One should not neglect it or [even] a part of it, nor should one relinquish it or [even] a part of it. No Arab state, or [even] all of the Arab states [together], have [the right] to do this; no king or president has this right nor all the kings and presidents together; no organization, or all the organizations together – be they Palestinian or Arab – [have the right to do this] because Palestine is Islamic Waqf land given to all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.
This is the legal status of the land of Palestine according to Islamic law. In this respect, it is like any other land that the Muslims have conquered by force, because the Muslims consecrated it at the time of the conquest as religious endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection…
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Alexandra von Maltzan:All Things Beautiful TrackBack Islam’s Heart On St.Valentine’s Day:
Feb 14, 2006 - 9:24 am 2. ajveros:U.S., Israeli Officials Deny New York Times Story on Hamas
Feb 14, 2006 - 9:30 am 3. Bruce Wechsler:When I saw the words “Are Said” in the headline, I knew it was gonna be just another round of “Who Said/You said?”.
Writers for NYT are said to be reporters.
Feb 14, 2006 - 10:10 am 4. mrp:Roger typed -
The NYT outdoes even itself this morning in the anonymous sources department
LOL! I read that headline, too, and the first thought that came to mind was: Who said? The article referred to unnamed Israeli “officials” and “Western diplomats”
“Western” diplomats? In my book, that is a NYT euphemism for persons of interest in “France”.
The couldn’t even get a Foggy Bottom leaker this time. The time for cookie-pushing appears to be over.
Feb 14, 2006 - 10:11 am 5. Korla Pundit:“Western” officials…
Could be John Wayne.
Feb 14, 2006 - 10:41 am 6. exmaple:“It will blame Israel and the United States for its troubles, appeal to the world not to punish the Palestinian people for their free democratic choice, point to the real hardship that a lack of cash will produce and may very well resort to an open military confrontation with Israel, in a sense beginning a third intifada.”
You see, if they don’t get the cash, the “third” intifada will start. “In a sense”. Here is the beginning of the hard-Left line to absolve Palestinian intentionality behind future violence. This article will be quoted in the future as “proof” supporting reflexive anti-American interpretations of Palestinian actions. Not unlike those who “explain” the intfada as resulting from Sharon’s trip to the Mount, absolving any intention, purpose or interest on the part of Arafat in fanning the revolt. We’re watching history in the making.
Feb 14, 2006 - 10:59 am 7. Davod:So anywhere tne Mohammedums have been is consecrated ground. No wonder Zapetaro is friendly with those in the Middle East. Itally had better get on the bandwagon.
Feb 14, 2006 - 2:07 pm 8. Kathy - At the Zoo:Yes, “Western diplomats.” And guess what they have become at Reuters when this NYT article is cited there? “US diplomats,” of course.
That’s how NYT tells a lie without actually stating it. It just counts on people to misread. In this case it counted on people assuming that the source would be US diplomats for a story about what the US State Department is up to and then failing to notice that it wasn’t.
Feb 14, 2006 - 2:34 pm 9. Kevin Peters:Roger:
I especially love the line in the Hamas charter that tells of the day when all trees, except,of course, the Jewish tree, will call out to all Muslims to kill the jew that is hiding behind it. Of course we are not going to give insane people money unless they renounce this homicidal attitude.
Can you imagine if the people of Israel voted in a party that called, in explicit terms, for the killing of all Palestinians. No one in the West would complain that any attempt to cut all foreign aid to such a racist worldview is somehow some sort of slap to the idea of Democracy. You can vote for any party that you like. But if you vote for someone who is calling for the mass extermination of a people because of their religon there are going to be reprecussions. If David Duke was voted in as the President of Bulgaria on a platform of “let’s finish the job that Hitler started” do you think there might be calls to cut off U.S. aid? God, I hope so. I dare anyone to go to Memri, read the entire charter, and then say we should send these lunatics money if they won’t at least renounce these murderous proclamations.
Feb 14, 2006 - 2:57 pm 10. Cynic:“… point to the real hardship that a lack of cash will produce and may very well resort to an open military confrontation with Israel, in a sense beginning a third intifada.”
The lack of Western cash will be a hardship for the Swiss Banks. The Intifada type confrontation is bankrolled By Iran and Saudi Arabia with Syria and Egypt taking their cut as middle men.
Feb 15, 2006 - 6:36 am 11. MarkD:It is seriously time to consider making all government jobs political again. The party that wins the White House should be able to staff all the Federal Bureaucracies, including the State Department and the CIA.
Then maybe we could just possibly have a government that serves the American people, instead of itself.
Why, exactly, do we send money to the Middle East? It’s not exactly getting us respect, or cooperation. Cut them off and kick them out.
Feb 15, 2006 - 7:20 am