THE SPINE MAY 31, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When you don't know history or forget it you confabulate the past.
Sometimes in grand dimensions. And sometimes in smaller ones. But
even small distortions tell big lies. And that's what, I regret to
say, is what The New York Times has done... again.
On May 28, the Times published an obit for Indar Jit Rikhye, a former
general in the Indian Army and a decorated officer in the British
military during World War II, who died at 86 a week earlier in
Charlottesville, Virginia. The real reason for the paper's substantial
necrologue for Rikhye was that he had been for more than a decade a commander of U.N. peacekeeping
forces on four continents. That's why I recognized his name. He was on
the spot when the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF), which had
been placed in the Sinai as a buffer between Israel and Egypt as part
of the settlement of the 1956 Suez crisis, withdrew from the area on
demand from Gamal Abdel Nasser who was mobilizing for war and
desperately wanted UNEF out of his way. Alas, for Nasser and the whole
portentous Nasserist ideology, the war turned out to be the Six Day War.
Here's is how the Times' obituarist, Warren Hoge, describes the
situation: "(Rikhye) oversaw the withdrawal of the United Nations
Emergency Force in Gaza and the Sinai in June 1967, when it found
itself in the path of the advancing Israel Defense Forces and had all
its vehicles wrecked, its communications knocked out and three of its
soldiers killed."
Actually, by the time the war began on June 5, all but perhaps a
hundred hapless Indians in UNEF were still at headquarters. Three
weeks earlier there had been 6,000 men in the Force. One UNEF base and
then another were deserted until there were none. On May 14 and 15,
the Canadian detachments left... on specific demand of Nasser, who seemed
to have had a special peculiar for them. Around the same time, even
the non-aligned Yugoslavs also left. There was frantic diplomatic
activity at the U.N. in New York, Washington and other world capitals,
in all of which Rikhye was a major participant. None of this appears in Hoge's "newspaper of record"
account.
Please look back again to the paragraph in which I quote Hoge. Is
there anything in his article that even vaguely suggests that the
withdrawal of UNEF was part and parcel of Egypt's war plans? No. Is
there anything to suggest that there had been an orderly, albeit
cowardly desertion begun three weeks before the war and virtually
completed by the time armed hostilities began? No. In fact, what Hoge
and the Times do is to completely distort the narrative, as if the 1967
war was fought at Israel's initiative and the brave U.N. was caught in
its offensive. "All its vehicles wrecked." What fantasy.
Believe me, this perverted reading will enter the footnotes of
scholarly works. After all, the Times is the Times. And Warren Hoge is Warren Hoge or, at least, Jim Hoge's brother.
I am sure that there will be a finicky little correction in tomorrow's New York Times parsing the gross distortion into some minor blur.
21 comments
and will run it below the tide schedule on page A28... Marty, silly you for believing the mainstream US media is interested in anything approaching accuracy on anything, especially when it comes to Israel. Anti-Israelism has something to do with this, but I think that the decline of the news media in general is more to blame. To be accurate about history would require the media to, well, do some hard work and research. You know, actual journalism, and no one, even in the print news, does that anymore. No doubt Hoge lifted the part about "wrecked vehicles" from some anti-Israel history of the Six Day War. But the point is he lifted it, period, from one source, instead of spending a couple of hours researching the UNEF role in the days leading up to the conflict.
- Claudiusmarcellus
May 31, 2007 at 4:31pm
Necrologue?
- ratnerstar
May 31, 2007 at 4:47pm
Okay, I was just going to make fun of your word choice, but a quick glance at the article in question leads me to believe there are bigger issues here. First off, by my count there are three paragraphs (out of seventeen total) that mention Israel. One of those three is about how Israel provided buses for the troops to leave. None of them imply anything about Israel's moral culpability. They merely state that the UN forces were caught in a crossfire. Now you say that only 300 UN personnel were left. That may be true. So what? That means the events didn't happen? To be more specific, do you deny that Rikhye was there, that all the vehicles were wrecked, and/or that three soldiers died from being caught in the crossfire? Those are the substantive claims being made. Maybe those events didn't happen; I honestly don't know. What I do know is that you provided no evidence to the contrary. What you did supply, in ample amounts, was your usual moral indignation over triviality. You're right, the obituary didn't mention the events leading up the war. You want to know why? Because it's a dang obituary! Call me when Warren Hoge writes a history of Israel.
- ratnerstar
May 31, 2007 at 5:00pm
great insight...as I read the post, I tried to decipher the reasons for the lede... On another issue - but somehow related - I read a fascinating article in last week's NYorker about the revisionism that is surrounding 6 Day War. Now, I know that this probably isn't something that Marty approves of but I would be interested in reading his take on either the article or the revision. I think i know exactly what he may say but still, reading Marty on these topics is always interesting and entertaining.
- MrCookie1
May 31, 2007 at 5:09pm
Here are the three paragraphs in question: "He oversaw the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force in Gaza and the Sinai in June 1967, when it found itself in the path of the advancing Israel Defense Forces and had all its vehicles wrecked, its communications knocked out and three of its soldiers killed." This first paragraph which sets the tone of what follows does make it seem as if the Israelis out of nowhere mounted an attack on the UN force. A little more historical context would have helped. "General Rikhye (pronounced RICK-ey) and his staff fled the destroyed headquarters and drove to a nearby beach in four trucks with their tires flattened. He established a link with Cyprus, which relayed messages to New York to "hasten evacuation because we are not fighting anybody, but are under fire." Here again it makes it seem as if the Israelis were at fault. Egypt and its demand that the UN leave the Sinai isn't even mentioned in the dispatch. "They succeeded in getting to safety when Maj. Gen. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister, flew in and provided buses for them to the port of Ashdod." This last paragraph solidifies the impression that Israel and only Israel was responsible for the attack.
- jacksondyer
May 31, 2007 at 6:58pm
Glad to see that McCookie is continuing his troll work.
- jacksondyer
May 31, 2007 at 6:59pm
did you read that article? What is your take on it? Hard as it may be for you and Marty to believe, i am very interested in what you or Marty have to say about this trend. You two are, if nothing else, incredibly dedicated and informed Israel students. I am sincere in wondering what you two think about this...
- MrCookie1
May 31, 2007 at 7:24pm
just to let you know how much you have infiltrated my consciousness, as I read this article, I immediately thought...oh...I wonder what jackson and marty will have to say about this.... really....
- MrCookie1
May 31, 2007 at 7:29pm
i know that i am a sick puppy but really...that's what I thought...take it as a compliment...
- MrCookie1
May 31, 2007 at 7:30pm
In that case you might be interested in my own comments on the New Yorker piece on the Six Day War. I posted it on the Spine a few days ago but I can't remember where. If I find it I'll let you know. btw: I don't usually read the obit pages so I didn't know about this article till Marty posted a link. Even then I wasn't that interested in it till I read Ratner's misreading. You guys are keeping me busy too.
- jacksondyer
May 31, 2007 at 7:36pm
- MrCookie1
May 31, 2007 at 7:48pm
Well, jackson, you get from an article what you take into it, I suppose. I didn't see any of those implications. If somebody told me that Israel sent in buses to remove a helpless UN force from a war zone, I would take that as good deed on Israel's part. I'm willing to concede that this may be a matter of opinion. But the fact remains that we're talking about an obituary. Like MrCookie, I have a certain respect for your (and Peretz's) obviously comprehensive study of Israel and everything connected to it. But I believe both of you have become so close to your subject that you have lost all perspective on it. You see shadows behind every door, a knife in every hand, a conspiracy in every basement. In becoming an anti-antisemite, you seem to have adopted some of the intellectual habits of your enemies.
- ratnerstar
May 31, 2007 at 8:35pm
Rikyhe was an officer serving under UN auspices, and as such, when the Egyptians asked to the UN force to withdraw and the Secretary General concurred, Rikhye had no choice--- so I don't see why this moral fervor over a moot point. Secondly, I had the pleasure of taking a class taught by General Rikhye at the University of Virginia, and his description of the conflict is very similar to the NYtimes account--- the remaining UN forces were shot at by both the Egyptians and Israelis, with neither particularly caring that they were peacekeeping forces.
- Rhinoman64
May 31, 2007 at 9:18pm
From the this is too bizarre for words department: ""Fatwa Against Hamas for Having 'Jewish Characteristics'" 01 June 07 04:14 by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz (IsraelNN.com) "A Muslim cleric, apparently from the Palestinian Authority, has released a fatwa (religious ruling) permitting the killing of members of the Hamas terrorist organization. In support of his position, the heretofore unknown sheikh declared Hamas to have "Jewish characteristics," but added that "the Jews have more mercy" on the Arabs than Hamas. The fatwa and accompanying argumentation appeared in two articles, one in the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan and the other published on the website of the Fatah terrorist organization, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. According to a report and translation of the articles provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the Islamic cleric, identified as Sheikh Shaker Al-Hiran, labeled Hamas "Khawarij." This term is a reference to a group of Muslims that rebelled against the leadership of seventh-century Islam. %ad% Among other affronts, the Fatah-backed sheikh declared, Hamas is willing to ally itself with non-Muslims and to battle co-religionists. Al-Hiran then said that Hamas-backed scholars should be confronted about the activities of their organization. "If the scholars say that what they [Hamas members] do is prohibited, then you should kill them cold-bloodedly, [and you will] be rewarded by Allah for ridding Muslims of their influence and evil. Jews have more mercy towards our nation than [Hamas]. If the scholars say that their conduct is permitted, then kill their scholars.... They are all the same." In his article entitled "The Common Characteristics of Hamas and the Jews," Al-Hiran wrote that the Islamist group has "Jewish characteristics." For the PA sheikh, this means hypocrisy and a lack of trustworthiness, including breaking agreements reached with the Fatah leadership of the PA. MEMRI analysts noted, "The articles triggered condemnation, such as a statement by Palestinian Authority Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, who labeled Al-Hiran's articles as a clear call for fitna (civil strife)." In particular, MEMRI reported that the article comparing Hamas to the Jews "triggered harsh reactions and prompted online messages from readers." http://tinyurl.com/2l667o
- jacksondyer
May 31, 2007 at 9:19pm
"Secondly, I had the pleasure of taking a class taught by General Rikhye at the University of Virginia, and his description of the conflict is very similar to the NYtimes account--- the remaining UN forces were shot at by both the Egyptians and Israelis, with neither particularly caring that they were peacekeeping forces. " I missed this in the NY Times' account.
- jacksondyer
May 31, 2007 at 10:23pm
Doesn't confabulate refer strictly to unintentional errors? Is that what you mean? Because you seem to be implying a conscious attempt to distort history. if that's the case, what you're talking about isn't "confabulation"
- miceelf
June 1, 2007 at 12:03pm
con
- jacksondyer
June 1, 2007 at 3:26pm
Thanks, jacksondyer. That's what I thought. Again, I got the impression MP was meaning to imply dishonesty, whereas confabulate implies ignorance. WTF is your problem, man?
- miceelf
June 1, 2007 at 3:47pm
"...I got the impression MP was meaning to imply dishonesty,..." It doesn't matter, does if they meant to deceive deliberately or not? I kinda hope they did do it deliberately.
- jacksondyer
June 1, 2007 at 5:11pm
Much matters to me. I just was trying to figure out what MP was claiming. it was unclear. That's all. Possibly cavilling, as I didn't call anyone a Nazi, but not a hint of a snivel.
- miceelf
June 1, 2007 at 5:20pm
I take back the snivelling part.
- jacksondyer
June 1, 2007 at 8:39pm