Controversial New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner spoke at Brandeis University last week. According to a report in the student newspaper, The Justice, he said some pretty shocking stuff. If there was any doubt about his lack of objectivity that should now be set aside.
Apparently, he blames Palestinians in Gaza for their own deaths:
Once allowed to enter Gaza, he [Bronner] said he gained the impression that Israel had had a mistaken assumption that once it instructed residents to leave their houses, only Palestinian fighters would remain. He stated that it turned out that many Gazans did not want to leave and did not expect the Israelis to be very violent, since many had lived with Israelis or worked in Israel, a miscalculation he suggested led to destruction of property and inadvertent injuries and deaths among civilians.
At Brandeis, here is how Bronner reportedly described the history of Palestine/Israel:
"You have [the Jewish people] ... nearly decimated by the worst genocide in human history; they emerge from the ashes of it and going back to this land that they say they're from. ... They go and build this incredibly successful society in a very short time. That's what we call a good story," he stated. "Then in the process of building their very successful society, it gets a little harsh," he went on to say. "And there's an occupation, ... and the people who all those years were seen as victims are now victimizing others. That's what we call a good story."
So for Bronner the Nakba -- the wholesale ethnic cleansing and near destruction of the existing Palestinian society is not worth a mention. It is, at best a footnote a little "harshness" in what is primarily an Israeli "success" story.
And then, showing just how lacking in credibility this man's judgment and how serious his unacknowledged conflict of interest are, he denies being "emotionally involved" in the conflict despite the fact that his son has just volunteered for the Israeli army and he himself identifies with many of Israel's ideological and political claims. (For more on this see Mondoweiss's analysis of Bronner's recent appearance at Vassar). Here's what he said on the subject at Brandeis:
Debby Frisch '10 asked how Bronner felt he could cover the Middle East objectively with his son having joined the Israeli military. "I'm not very emotionally involved in this conflict. "I feel that people who are natural advocates shouldn't go into doing what I do," he said. His son's independent choice, he added, "doesn't affect my sense of what I do." In a Feb. 6 column by Clark Hoyt in The New York Times, Hoyt advocates Bronner's removal from reporting on the conflict, while New York Times executive editor Bill Keller is quoted as saying that Bronner's son's decision should not affect his father's position at the newspaper.
Since The Electronic Intifada revealed the Israeli army service of Bronner's son on 25 January, a storm has been growing around Bronner. Citing The Electronic Intifada's scoop, The Public Editor of the New York Times confirmed that Bronner's continued role as Jerusalem bureau chief while his son serves in the Israeli army creates an untenable conflict of interest and recommended he be reassigned, advice that the newspaper's Executive Editor Bill Keller publicly rejected.
Today, "Angry Arab" based on a tip revealed that when reporting in Gaza soon after last winter's Israeli attack, Bronner was "utterly indifferent to accounts of the hardships endured by the people of Gaza during the war" and literally "turned his back" on Palestinians who tried to speak to him.
Yesterday, I also commented further on this matter at Mondoweiss.
Please note this posting was updated since first published.