It took nearly 15 months to nail it, but The New York Times has finally happened upon a truth that it never really wanted to publish. It’s always encouraging to realize that acts that have been visible to most direct observers for more than a year are now being belatedly acknowledged.

In an article titled, “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians,” the newspaper of record provides what some may deem honest “reporting” — albeit more than a year late — illuminating the logic of a long-running genocidal campaign.

“An investigation by The New York Times found that Israel severely weakened its system of safeguards meant to protect civilians; adopted flawed methods to find targets and assess the risk of civilian casualties; routinely failed to conduct post-strike reviews of civilian harm or punish officers for wrongdoing; and ignored warnings from within its own ranks and from senior U.S. military officials about these failings.

The Times reviewed dozens of military records and interviewed more than 100 soldiers and officials, including more than 25 people who helped vet, approve or strike targets. Collectively, their accounts provide an unparalleled understanding of how Israel mounted one of the deadliest air wars of this century. Most of the soldiers and officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were barred from speaking publicly on a subject of such sensitivity. The Times verified the military orders with officers familiar with their content.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Investigation:

A procedure relied on by some governments to obscure and delay the discovery and description of obvious facts.

Contextual note

To make sure the reader’s attention is engaged, the author boasts of the “unparalleled understanding” the journal is providing. What some people understand in the space of a few weeks, the Gray Lady needs 15 months to assess. But even when revealing what can honestly be described as “unparalleled” war crimes, she hedges her bets on the big question in the background: Does her reporting support the case of genocide? True to the paper’s patented style, the article restricts its analysis to the rules applied in an air campaign and avoids making any connection with the overall strategy of Israel.

We learn that Israel “routinely failed to conduct post-strike reviews of civilian harm or punish officers for wrongdoing.” The crew of reporters present at the State Department’s daily press briefings will be intrigued by the NYT’s contribution. After months of questioning spokesperson Matthew Miller about how potential war crimes were being investigated, they can discover what Miller so carefully concealed when, week after week, he promised that the United States would await the findings of Israel and then launch its own investigation. After all, Israel was a trusted ally, a rules-based democracy committed to human rights that would infallibly get to the bottom of the truth and punish all potentially guilty parties. Why the hurry to find out the truth?

The publication of this article offers an important lesson for the reporters present at the briefings. In cases where genocide is a plausible description of an endlessly repeated series of atrocities, they can definitively conclude that neither the Israelis nor the Americans can be counted on to express the truth. All that’s required is patience and trust in The New York Times, even if it takes 15 months or so for the revelation.

Might we wonder why the famous newspaper’s journalists and editors failed for so long to see the light? Independent commentators and even the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) all managed to cotton on. But, for a quality newspaper like NYT, some real news sometimes takes more than a year to digest and report. Acting too soon to report war crimes may remove the certainty of their existence that is gained by watching them continue month after month.

The NYT did, of course, cover the the ICJ’s finding of “plausible genocide” in January 2024. But its reporting emphasized the potential for ambiguity in the court’s assessment. The article gave the final word in its concluding paragraph to none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“On the other hand, Israel’s reaction to the court’s decision pointed to an alternative perspective. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court order had upheld Israel’s right to protect itself. ‘Like any state, Israel has the basic right of self-defense. The court justly rejected the disgraceful demand to nullify that right,’ he said.”

The belated publication of an “unparalleled” investigation also hedges its bets. At one point, the article recounts that the air force “was running low on the guidance kits that transform unguided weapons, or ‘dumb bombs,’ into precision-guided munitions.” It then explains: “This forced pilots to rely on unguided and less accurate bombs, the officers said.” Did it really “force” them to violate the laws of wars they were claiming to respect? Or did it conveniently provide an excuse for carrying out what the article later describes as “the prevalent mood inside the military: ‘harbu darbu?’ This is an expression derived from Arabic and widely used in Hebrew to mean attacking an enemy without restraint.”

If the NYT is so enamored with investigations, why, in its December 25 article about a Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), does it appear to legitimize the Joe Biden administration’s refusal to accept that organization’s findings? For the paper, what matters is that the official critique “raises questions,” casting doubt on the veracity of the report. But the NYT hides a key fact reported by Al Jazeera that “FEWS NET is funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).” USAID, as many have noticed, is closely linked to the CIA.

In other words, the most credible explanation of what the NYT calls the “U.S. rebuke” is that the political side of the administration rejects and calls into doubt the work of intelligence professionals. This is a well-established pattern, demonstrated most dramatically by the George W. Bush administration’s adamant insistence that the non-existence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction should not be taken seriously to the point of cancelling a planned invasion.

Historical note

On one side, it’s always good to plant lies. On the other, to affirm doubt about objective expression of truth. Lies, such as “forty beheaded babies” may be circulated and will definitely be remembered, but if a truth is too obvious, it must be either “rebuked” or the investigation into it delayed.

In a post on Christmas Eve, noted international relations expert John Mearsheimer offers a slightly more direct assessment of the “truth” revealed by the NYT in its latest investigation.

“Given the West’s presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks.

Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel’s unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide.”

Without mentioning the Gray Lady specifically, he notes: “The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel’s actions.”

The NYT is obviously not alone. Not noticing genocide and claiming that there is insufficient evidence to confirm its existence has become standard operating procedure for Western media. Mearsheimer’s reference to Britain and Germany could have included the European Union, whose hypocrisy is even more evident. Back in January, in its account of the ICJ’s ruling that deemed plausible the accusation of genocide, the NYT reported: “On Friday the European Union said it expected the ‘full, immediate and effective implementation’ of the I.C.J.’s orders, noting that such orders ‘are binding on the Parties and they must comply with them.’”

Since then, the EU has continued to do everything in its bureaucratic power to avoid any action that might be interpreted as implementing the court’s ruling. Some will say the devil’s in the details, but the devil to whom this dictionary is dedicated has from the beginning acknowledged his handiwork.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.