In the wake of NY Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman’s call today for terrorism against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, a new FAIR Action Alert is calling on the Times to clarify whether this column meets the paper’s standards.
You can post copies of your letters to the New York Times in the comments section below. Please remember that letters that maintain a civil tone are most effective.
My letter, to the New York Times, is copied below:
I read, with considerable horror and utter disgust, Mr Friedman’s
column dated January 14, entitled “Israel’s Goals in Gaza”. The
following paragraph irked me most:
Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah
and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom
Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and
collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it
was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate
actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of
deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians â┚¬” the families
and employers of the militants â┚¬” to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
The way that business in the Middle East is done is the same as the
way it is done anywhere else. Is Mr. Friedman so utterly contemptuous
as to think that Arabs cannot be reasoned with?
Perhaps a history lesson is in order, but this is neither the time nor
the place nor the method by which to deliver a history lecture to Mr
Friedman. So, I’ll request the times, in the future, as the paper of
record in the United States, to ensure its columnists are committed to
the high standards of truth and excellency that they ought to be. All
the best!
Another glaring example of liberal media bias at the NYT.
And by “civil tone”, do you mean matching that of someone who advocates mass murder as “education”?
The tone’s irrelevant … there is no “most effective” here, is there? You’ll be listened to if you’re “respectful”?
The facts don’t bear that out on my planet.
This is not a reply to Doug, but a posting of my letter to the Times. If I should put that somewhere else, I failed to find the correct place.
Dear Editors,
I want to ask about editorials by Thomas Friedman in which he discusses Israel’s attacks on civilians in Gaza in terms of â┚¬Ã…“educatingâ┚¬Ã‚ Hamas, and said that Israel’s aim was to â┚¬Ã…“inflict enough pain on civiliansâ┚¬Ã‚ to cause them to restrain or abandon Hamas, which he said was â┚¬Ã…“logical.â┚¬Ã‚Â. Regardless of what you think of Hamas, these references are to a policy which fits the standard definition of terrorism, at least when the actor is not a state, and Friedman speaks of this quite approvingly. I ask therefore:
â┚¬Ã‚¢ Is an act which would be called terrorism if done by a small and weak group, not terrorism when performed by a government?
â┚¬Ã‚¢ Is it then acceptable?
â┚¬Ã‚¢ Or does it depend on which groupâ┚¬”Âokay if done by Jews or Americans, evil if done by Muslims or Iranians or Chinese?
â┚¬Ã‚¢ Considering that ordinary people in Gaza have no power to stop the rockets, is it acceptable to kill or maim them as â┚¬Ã…“collateral damageâ┚¬Ã‚ in the interest of â┚¬Ã…“inflicting enough painâ┚¬Ã‚ to possibly achieve political goals?
â┚¬Ã‚¢ If you accept that Friedman is in fact endorsing terrorism, does this imply that the New York Times does so as well?
Thank you,
Mary Wildfire
West Virginia
It’s always educational to see the imperialist slant of The NYT now and again to remind patriotic Americans that the enemy comes from within. Thanks to terror-meister Tom, we are treated to the hypocritical example of the bombing and slaughtering of civilians in Gaza as some sort of response other than the immoral one that it really is. No wonder this paper is held in such low regard for those of us who value objective media.
my letter:
I submitted the following letter:
Dear Clark Hoyt and Andrew Rosenthal,
I was taken aback by Mr. Friedman’s Op-Ed about Israel’s goals in Gaza. I’m used to disagreeing with editorials on matters of interpretation or factual accuracy, but that’s what makes Op-Eds interesting. But I’m not used to reading this kind of praise for destroying civilian infrastructure and life:
“In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to ‘educate’ Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.”
Can someone please explain to me how this reasoning is different from a full endorsement of terrorism – teaching ruling power (in this case Hamas) a lesson by inflicting death and violence on the civilian population under it? Does the New York Times have any policy about explicitly endorsing attacks on civilians? If not, I really think that would be a good idea. If it does have such guidelines, then Mr. Friedman should be sanctioned and owes the public an apology.
Appalled in Urbana, IL.,
Matthew Murrey
NPR Check
To the Public Editor, New York Times,
Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece in today’s (January 14) Times, purporting to show how primitively prejudiced Hamas leaders are, presents itself as a behind the scenes look at the Gaza crisis. But it just avoids the issue while offering readers another prop in their contempt for Hamas. So far there has been little reporting and no emphasis on the primary issue in the Gaza war, which is that Israel has been effectively operating a vast concentration camp in Gaza, with borders sealed off, utilities cut, along with food and medical supplies. Its ships have rammed boats from Cypress trying to make it in with relief. Parallels with the Ghetto of Warsaw are appropriate. And now the Israelis, since their invasion, have tried to prevent Western reporters from being on the scene.
Questions of who broke the cease-fire first, of bombing innocent civilians (were there “innocent” Germans during the Holocaust?), of the disproportionality of the response, while relevant, are really secondary to the ongoing and now worsening predicament of the residents of Gaza.
The word for it is Oppression, of a particularly brutalâ┚¬”Âand it turns out cynical and short-sightedâ┚¬”Âkind. But no one at the Times seems to be able to pronounce it, not even the house humanitarians Nicholas Kristoff or Bob Herbert. Is the simple humanitarian truth just too hot, too offensive to too many of its readers for the paper of record to handle?
Dear Editors Hoyt and Rosenthal,
There is no evidence for Thomas Friedman’s contention that after
Israel’s 2006 war with Hizballah, “Lebanese civilians, in anguish,
said to Hezbollah: ‘What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?'” In fact, in the month following the war, a public opinion poll conducted in Lebanon confirmed the opposite: that Lebanese public opinion strongly favored Hizballah.
According to a poll conducted by Information International from Aug.
22 to Aug. 27, 2006, 57% of respondents “supported” Hizballah’s
kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, which initiated the conflict.
According to the same poll, 79% of respondents rated the performance of Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah as “good/great.” These numbers are noteworthy not only because they disprove Friedman’s claim, but because they also represent a relative uniformity of opinion across Lebanon’s notoriously divided populace.
Furthermore, even in mid-October 2006, months after the war’s end, a poll conducted in Lebanon by the Center for Strategic Studies found that 78% of respondents believed that Israel would have attacked Lebanon “whether Hizbollah captured the Israeli soldiers or not,” thus signifying that a large majority of Lebanese were unwilling to place blame on Hizballah.
Based on these numbers, it is easy to see that Thomas Friedman is
rewriting history in order to justify his current support of Israel’s
war on Palestinian civilians. It is remarkable that he seems to have
assumed that his claims could not be fact-checked in this age of
ubiquitous polling.
Best,
[redacted]
Candidate for M.A. in international relations, [redacted] University
Dear Mr. Rosenthal,
I am writing to you, as a concerned American, to express my displeasure with the contents of Tom Friedman’s column, “Israel’s Goals in Gaza?,” on Jan. 13. In this column, Friedman says the following:
“Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians â┚¬” the families and employers of the militants â┚¬” to restrain Hezbollah in the future”…..That was the education of Hezbollah.”
“In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to â┚¬Ã…“educateâ┚¬Ã‚ Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?”
If I read this column correctly, Friedman would appear to be, with obvious glee, embracing a purported Israeli policy of deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza in order to undermine Hamas’s support. Under international humanitarian law, deliberately killing civilians is clearly a war crime, as can be seen here:
“The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” (Geneva Conventions; Protocol I: Part IV; Chapter. II; Article 51)
To permit one of your columnists to openly advocate war crimes against civilians in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times is a black mark upon your widely read newspaper. I am sure that many others are outraged at Mr. Friedman’s comments and I would like to ask you if his shocking comments meet the standards of your very prestigious newspaper. Thank you for listening to my complaints.
Best Regards,
Alex Zaimi
my letter:
To the editor
I am concerned that your correspondent Thomas Friedman is advocating terrorism in his 14 January column, “Israel’s Goals in Gaza?”.
Mr Friedman states that “Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians â┚¬” the families and employers of the militants â┚¬” to restrain Hezbollah in the future.” He goes on: “That was the education of Hezbollah.” And: “In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to ‘educate’ Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.”
According to one US Government definition of terrorism*:
“(d) the term â┚¬Ã…“terrorismâ┚¬Ã‚ means an activity that â┚¬”Â
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended â┚¬”Â
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.” (my emphasis)
It is clear that Mr Friedman is arguing for terrorism as a form of “education”, in which the “long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians” – clearly, this is advocating terrorism. Does this fit within the guidelines of the New York Times?
Or is it that for the NYT there are “worthy” and “unworthy” victims? Are there people – men, women and children – who are fir to be “pummelled”, bombed, terrorised? If so I would like to know.
I would appreciate a prompt response to my enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Don MacKeen
* http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/terror/terror.pdf
Editor:
Friedman’s 1/14 column suggested the ongoing slaughter of civilians in the Gaza strip was an “education” for the Hamas political leadership.
Someone at your organization might train Mr. Friedman on the topic of war crimes so he will never commit such an egregious error again and especially not in public and especially not using your editorial pages as his forum.
Tom Friedman essentially gives his stamp of approval to Israel’s actions in Gaza that “inflict heavy pain” upon civilians as part of a campaign to “educate” Hamas. This can only be described as endorsing terrorism. With the death toll in Gaza well over 1,000, and more than 300 of those children, I am sickened by Friedman’s logic–and by the Times for running a column advocating terrorism against a trapped, impoverished and basically defenseless population.
Nancy Kricorian
CODEPINK Women for Peace
Mr. Hoyt & Mr. Rosenthal,
Let me get this straight. Criticism of other journalists or columnists by name is against the rules for your opinion columnists. Endorsing political candidates is equally taboo, and as the Washington Post reported on 1/22/03, even pointing out the obvious obfuscations and deliberate distortions of those who would inherit power is frowned upon. It is terribly difficult to comprehend how Paul Krugman pointing out the lies of George W. Bush could possibly be seen as more offensive to your readers, or your staff, than Thomas Friedman’s support for terrorism. However, this appears to be the case. This advocate of the collective punishment of innocents for the acts of their government is no different than the logic used by Al-Qaeda on September 11th, 2001, or Timothy McVeigh on April 19th, 1995. What sort of odd journalistic standards do you adhere to at the New York Times when the lies and crimes of the powerful become sacrosanct, while petty nonsense like name-calling is forbidden? When the killing of civilians becomes “education,” how much longer do we wait for freedom to become slavery, ignorance to become strength and war to become peace? Is it possible that Friedman’s column is up to snuff for the NYT’s standards, or was this merely an editorial error?
Carl Root
Sirs:
In yesterday’s Times, Thomas Friedman appears to be advocating the commission of war crimes by apparently endorsing the killing of civilians, even if inadvertently, in order to accomplish political goals.
Is this in keeping with the editorial policy of the Times and of its editorial page?
What is more, much of what he asserts about the behavior of Hizbullah in its confrontation with Israel in 2006 is wrong, I mention specifically his assertion (or more precisely, his implication) that Hizbullah was concealing fighters and weapons amongst the civilian population of Lebanon. It has been well documented by among others journalist Jonathan Cook that this was not the case.
So too is Mr Friedman wrong in implying that the barbarous practice of targeting fighters in such a way that civilian deaths are likely to result (which is not the same as targeting civilians, but it is equally reprehensible and also contrary to international law) has led to a weakened Hizbullah. The party is in fact stronger since its 2006 war.
He is even wrong in implying that Hamas was unwilling to deal with Israel diplomatically or to consider a long-term truce. That they are has been reported in the pages of this very newspaper.
Is it because he is writing opinions and not reporting that Mr Friedman is allowed to play so loosely with the facts and to advocate horrid crimes?
I would like to ask if Thomas Friedman’s column advocating terrorism against civilians in Gaza meets your paper’s standards for its opinion columns…does it?
by the way, have you people any idea who Menachem Begin was? In 1947 , would he not have been thought of as a ‘so called terrorist’ too, rather then being called a guerilla fighter as it was termed back then? he and his group were treated like a real governing body and the U.N. dealt with him. If pundits like you were reporting the news then, he would not have been thought of as anything more than a thug.
i can’t believe you people are not more well informed then you are.
Did Thomas Friedman’s Jan. 14 article really rationalize terrorism? Yes, it clearly did. So you must be inundated with complaints; here’s one more. What is worse, this is not the first time Friedman has tried to appear world-savvy by justifying the murder of non-combatants. Will you once again turn a blind eye? This is not world-wise, as Friedman may suppose, it is a rationalization of terror tactics and as such an incitement to violence.
Please print a clarification of the NYTimes editorial policy regarding rationalization of terror teactics and/or incitement to violence with a specific explanation of how Thomas Friedman’s article meets the policy.
Don’t miss Glenn Greenwald’s response to Friedman’s bloodthirst here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/index.html
“…can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as “terrorism”? I doubt anyone can. Isn’t Friedman’s “logic” exactly the rationale used by Al Qaeda: we’re going to inflict “civilian pain” on Americans so that they stop supporting their government’s domination of our land and so their government thinks twice about bombing more Muslim countries? It’s also exactly the same “logic” that fuels the rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas into Israel.”
Letter to NYT Editor
Two reasons why I don’t subscribe to the NY Times:
First, in 2002 & 2003, the Times allowed its front page to be used as a platform for the dissemination of Vice President’s Office false intelligence about Iraq. The Times played the role of “useful idiot” to the current Administration and bears partial responsibility for getting the US into this unnecessary and counterproductive war in Iraq.
Second, Thomas Friedman, who has a history of writing hateful columns towards Arabs after the publication of his excellent book “From Beirut to Jerusalem”, is back at it again. Besides having been a strong advocate for “regime change” in the Middle East [except Israel of course] and for invading Iraq, he now seems to have become an open racist with his advocacy of bombing civilians in order to “educate” the Palestinians by inflicting “pain”. In other words, collective punishment against the Palestinians for supporting Hamas -which is I believe a war crime under the UN Charter and Article IV of the Geneva Conventions.
Military coercion directed at civilians “to change minds” is immoral and repugnant- especially when practiced by the Israel “Defense Force” (IDF) -which Thomas Friedman well knows.
White phosphorous shells, which the Israelis are using now in Gaza, and millions of cluster bombs, which the Israelis used in Southern Lebanon in 2006, are nice instruments of that policy -and whose use against civilians are, of course, war crimes and illegal under US weapons transfer laws.
Afterwards, Thomas Friedman and the NY Times will accuse the Palestinians of “Anti-Semiticism” for failing to lean their lessons after receiving their collective “pain”.
Didn’t the United States prosecute people after WWII for advocating war crimes against civilians? What has happened to this country since 9/11? Is illegal and immoral behavoir the norm now: torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, warrentless wiretapping, and advocacy of war crimes against Arabs? And we tell the rest of the world they should be like us?
No wonder why the United States is held in such low regard today.
Why is it terrorism when other countries and groups engage in military action against civilians, but when Israel does it, it is somehow justified. We like it. We applaud it. We cheer them on. They deserve it for not “recognizing Israel”.
It seems that the Times has a problem. Hypocrisy, double standards, racism, and advocacy of war crimes on its op-ed page for starters. Hypocrisy and double standards are mostly the norm for the Middle East, but maybe, just maybe, do you think you’ve crossed the line now with Thomas Friedman’s open racism against Palestinians?
In Judith Miller’s case, the Times sort of claimed, because of its lax standards, that it was duped by the Vice President’s Office. With regards to Thomas Friedman, is it lax standards again or something else?
Letter I wrote below:
Hello,
I am writing with great concern in regards to a column written in a NY Times January 14th opionion column. You should be aware of the contents of this article as it is quite disturbing and actually an insult to your readers. The article to which I am refering was titled “What is the goal?” By Thomas Friedman. In this piece, Mr. Friedman implies that the prefered method of education which one country should use to iterate their desires towards another country is bombing civilians. Now, although in a sick, destructive and uterly evil way, this “logic” is entirely successfull in accomplishing the short term goal (to scare the hell out of everyone into irrationally alienating anyone affiliated with the targetted militant group), this “logic” is: in no way effective in the long run, is ignorant of human rights and life itself, and most importantly it is entirely illegal. Now, I do not know the policies at the New York Times. However, I do know that your organization is known throughout the world as one of the best. The New York Times wouldn’t want to be affiliated with promoting this illegal activity any more than say promoting a thug murdering a store clerk to scare the rest of the town into submission. This type of street thug “logic” is exactly the type discussed and endorsed by Mr. Friedman in your publishment. I am sure that upon further review of this article by Mr. Friedman your establishment will issue some sort of apology and resinding of this hateful endorsement of terrorism and mass murder. After all, these are not times people wish to hear more ignorant war mongering rhetoric.
I thank you for reading this message and do expect to hear a response from someone at The New York Times in response to my concern.
I apologize for any typos as I am wrting from my handheld.
Best Regards,
Christopher Hemenway
Boston, MA
email I sent:
Dear Clark Hoyt:
In Thomas Friedman’s article on January 13, 2009, he wrote: â┚¬Ã…“What
Hezbollah did in 2006 â┚¬” in launching an unprovoked war across the
U.N.-recognized Israel-Lebanon border, after Israel had unilaterally
withdrawn from Lebanon â┚¬” was to both upend Israel’s longstanding peace
strategy and to unveil a new phase in the Hezbollah-Iran war strategy
against Israel.â┚¬Ã‚Â
According to Noam Chomsky, on July 12, 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli
soldiers, killed three others, and the reason of the capture was prisoner
exchange, as a hostage-taking operation.
The background was that unknown numbers of Lebanese were in Israeli prison
as a result of regular kidnapping.
And what Israel did to the capture and death of several soldiers was killing
more than 1000 civilians in Lebanon, saturating southern Lebanon with one
million cluster bombs “after” the ceasefire agreement.
Friedman says it was â┚¬Ã…“unprovokedâ┚¬Ã‚ but the fact is that in the three weeks
prior to Hezbollah’s capturing Israeli soldiers on July 12, Israel was
killing hundreds of Gazans saying Hamas had captured an Israeli soldier
Gilad Shalit
on June 25th, 2006.
But, again, the fact of the matter was that one day before the capture of
Gilad Shalit, Israel had kidnapped two â┚¬Ã…“civiliansâ┚¬Ã‚ in Gaza, a doctor and
his brother on June 24, 2006 violating the Geneva Conventions.
Now, I think, if capturing and killing several soldiers across the border is
â┚¬Ã…“launching a war,â┚¬Ã‚ kidnapping civilians in Gaza and Lebanon by Israel is
also â┚¬Ã…“launching a war.”
So, lsrael has launched numerous wars before they reacted to one of those,
once there was a reaction, Israel massively bombed them, as it is doing
right now in Gaza.
To the New York Times:
Thomas Friedman has again advocated the punishing of civilian populations through violence as a way of achieving political goals, this time in his January 14, 2009 column on the siege of Gaza.
This is the definition of terrorism according to Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d).
Not only has the New York Times been criminally silent on issues of international law when it comes to US foreign policy, the paper is now acting as a proponent of terrorism. If the paper wishes not to be complicit in these atrocities, it should adopt standards for Op-Ed columnists prohibiting the promotion of violence against civilian populations.
David Van Horn
Northeastern University
College of Computer and Information Science
Boston, Massachusetts
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dvanhorn/
I was really disappointed to read Thomas Friedman’s 1/14 opinion piece about the “education” of Hamas. There is no possible way that bombing people–your neighbors included–can be a method of “educating.”
Is he somehow hinting that it’s okay to be a terrorist, as long as you succeed in teaching your victims a lesson?
I hope that the Times will maintain their high standards of accurate reporting even in their op-ed column and make sure that it is not allowing messages that contain even small traces of hate to be published.
What standard does the New York Times hold in relation to publication
of terrorism or intentional violence upon civilians in order to
“educate” the remaining peoples? Thomas Friedman has twice published
his support for the logic of terrorism.
At the very least, your paper threatens to disrupt the entire
war-on-terror strategy of the American government by revealing our own
government officials to be aligned with the terrorists we believe
ourselves to pursue. You also ensure that peaceful non-radicals, the
majority of whom are your readers, never read another New York Times
article again.
Best Wishes