The New Yorker magazine is worth reading for several reasons (e.g. the cartoons) but don’t expect that Israel will get a sympathetic nod. Instead, be very surprised if Israel is not portrayed in an aggressive negative way.
So, true to form, I opened my New Yorker to read “Lydda, 1948” by Ari Shavit .. filled with such “niceties” as “Lydda is the black box of Zionism. The truth is that Zionism could not bear the Arab city of Lydda… If Zionism was to exist, Lydda could not exist” …. (and continuing ad nauseum). (see here)
It is pathetic how this anti-Israel stuff gets dished out.
Alex Safian’s CAMERA has done an excellent fisking of the article – see here
Safian begins his CAMERA article with the words “Israeli wrongdoing, whether real or imagined, holds a special fascination for certain media outlets, which seem to get a particular thrill from putting Israel under the microscope. Writing about genuine bloodletting in other parts of the world just isn’t as much fun as indicting Israelis for supposed massacres, and thereby once again putting Zionism – and therefore the Jews – on trial.”
He concludes with the thought that you would be influenced by the anti-Israel article ” Except if you know the facts – that the town surrendered, went back on its word, massacred and mutilated Israeli soldiers, and then despite all this the residents were allowed to leave unharmed – the picture looks very different. It’s a picture that the New Yorker doesn’t want its readers to see – their long record of anti-Israel agit-prop makes that clear. What is not clear is why Ari Shavit played along.”
…. why indeed did Ari Shavit not only play along but write the article? For a start, it’s a way to get published in the New Yorker, and get positive recognition from the crowd. A more relevant question is “Does Shavit care if his distortions have been identified?