To beat a (perhaps) dead horse

Perhaps?? The horse died a long time ago. I don’t have the interest or energy to reply to your repetition compulsion regarding prettying up Bronner. Pls. stop posting about him till I publish another attack on his work & then you can attempt to explain or defend him once again.

The fuller quote from Ethan Bronner’s review of two books that make a case for Israel ( “The New New Historians”), one of which is the Dershowitz book:

“Dershowitz, one of the nation’s most accomplished litigators and the author of numerous books on both law and the Jews, knows how to construct an argument. He helps himself here by choosing accusers and accusations that are extreme — Noam Chomsky, who claims that the United States and Israel are the prime sources of evil in today’s world, is a favorite.”

I dislike Dershowitz, maybe intensely, for many reasons which I have posted here more than once. But he knows how to argue… that I grant him. So I don’t think Bronner is wrong. The feud between Finkelstein and Dershowitz is beyond juvenile and bordering on the sick. I do listen to and read Finkelstein btw. I did listen to their go around on “Democracy Now” and it practically made me ill.

As for the hypocrisy remark:

the fuller quote:

Dershowitz is especially effective at pointing to the hypocrisy of many of Israel’s critics. For example, nearly every Arab state relegates Jews to a far inferior position than that of non-Jews in Israel (Jordan explicitly bars Jews from citizenship), yet no criticism of those practices is ever heard. China’s occupation of Tibet has been longer, more brutal and less justified than Israel’s of the West Bank and Gaza, yet the United Nations has never condemned China or recognized the Tibetans’ right to self-determination. There are many such well-argued points made in this book.

When we criticize Israel, I think this is true b/c we are more involved in criticizing Israel not Arab countries or Arabs. Right wingers will say this is a “double standard” (of which they are just as guilty).

I don’t think Dershowitz is right but he argues well. He presents a challenge and should be answered point for point. Bronner does not take this on and I don’t fault him on that. Not his job.

BTW this was a book review from 2003 when Bronner was not reporting from the ME yet. I don’t know if that matters. But I am sure his personal views are evolving, especially in the midst of it all.

More recently Bronner wrote reviews of Tom Segev’s book on the 67 war, of Jimmy Carter’s, of Dennis Ross’s, of Robert Fisk’s etc. In these, Bronner seems fair to both sides, his criticisms reasonable.

If his writing style is not your cup of tea that is a different matter. I have preferred others in that job- Serge Schmemann even Steven Erlanger as far as writing goes. I don’t remember if John Burns ever had this beat but I like his writing very much.

Re the 2nd- He may be too close right now to feel any other way. Many do feel this hopelessness- on both sides.

3rd para- No he is not a neutral observer but he is trying to be in his reporting; he says that is what he strives for. I read the note in the Finkelstein and will read the whole NYT review now- as well as his other reviews ( of Jimmy Carter’s, Amos Oz, Hass,Indyk) to try to get more of a feeling for his bias.

Your 4th para- I agree.

BTW- thanks for the prod on that subject. I did take a deep detour into the details of this episode of history which unsurprisingly is very controversial between the sides . Speaking of different narratives and differing propensities to stress one factor or another- they abound on that subject alone. But the narratives do exist and coexist. They are very important when they are first hand or close to first hand accounts. And it is very important also in the news stories. I read from both sides and from good historians and try to use some “common sense” in making judgements. For me, to come upon a piece that considers the material equitably, compassionately and non-polemically is very gratifying.

On the other thread it seemed that you drew conclusions based on what seemed to be your preferred narrative. It seemed that you wanted the main cause for Iraqi Jews leaving to be the bombing which you were sure or sure enough was caused by Zionists of the time and perhaps officially sanctioned. And that conclusion had implications: the Iraqi Jews were not expelled by the Arabs but forced to emigrate- and it suited your narrative. And then Richard said there were no Arab expulsions. Correct me if I got that wrong. I did not find that to be quite so true. This a big topic and I don’t mean to discuss it here suffice it to say I believe it is important to bust myths, but not at the expense of the whole story or to build other myths. The story may be much more unsatisfyingly grey in color.

I think we are complaining about the same thing here ultimately. We can look too hard for preferred narratives in the news or in our arguments pick or cherry pick authorities and then call it the real truth by our approved authorities. Digging further I find that there is a lot of repetition of assumptions or opinions. Some sources are not really the sources they seem or are what they are claimed to be either. And I don’t want to be too anxious or be gleeful about to finding nuggets that may break the now harmful myths that may have or have been created when they may add another piece to the larger picture.

Regarding Bronner, I don’t look to the terms he uses for clues but to the stories themselves he chooses to tell. I think we are all beyond ( or maybe should be) being fooled by the words used. It’s the choice of stories that matter and the best imo are the ones that incorporate the first hand accounts. In this last Gaza war, I was not unhappy in general with his reporting or that of his colleagues at the NYTimes.

Bronner is caught in a hard place trying not to offend either narrative, trying not to show his own feelings. We have the luxury here he does not. Maybe it’s a game then to keep up the complaints from this side to equal the complaints from the other side. Okay fine. Maybe the griping will make him a better reporter ( if he takes it on board) or maybe it will just scare him and he will be waiting for the day his assignment changes.

Regarding you last para I believe Bronner did keep reporting the numbers or the NYT did. What he does do in a situation where a word like massacre is loaded he will get a quote from someone on the scene that uses the word.

I do not find it going back a reasonable amount of time to matter. “Officially” means to me Hamas documents say as much though they say otherwise at times and then go back and forth with words like “never”. I agree that there is plenty of opening for discussion with Hamas.

I have no problem with Bronner. The NYT correspondents in Israel over the years have had a very difficult assignment and no-one is ever happy with them. This has been the case for years. I am frankly sick of all the complaints I read and hear on all sides. My own family calls the NYT anti-semitic and does not ever expect that a report would ever favor Israel.

Bronner may not be their best reporter ever, but I don’t look to the NYT and Bronner’s reports for all of my information either. I do appreciate the interview Bronner gave to Terri Gross especially his description of the difficult work their other reporter in Gaza was doing (Taghreed El-Khodary) at the time. Bronner does impress me as young and trying to please. His articles very subtley do, in my opinion, show what/how he thinks- but as I have said before I don’t think it’s his job to offer his opinion, not forcefully anyway.