Selective fact checking from the New York Times

Where is the fact-checking at the New York Times when it comes to obloquy directed at Israel?

From an Egyptian writer who accused Israel of committing a massacre and  who calls it a right of a people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation (where is the military occupation?):

The canard is here:

We expected him to address the reports that the Israeli military illegally used white phosphorus against the people of Gaza.

Cleverly phrased in a way to make it seem as if Israel was guilty of a war crime, this issue was mooted weeks ago. Even the International Red Cross -- no ally of Israel -- agreed the use of white phosphorus, was proper in the context with which it was used:
 

The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the IDF said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk.

It took this fearless fact-checker about 30 seconds to find out that this claim by the op-ed writer (along with other claims he made) was baseless.

What, the Times can’t afford to spend a few seconds to prevent the publication of a lie?

 

Where is the fact-checking at the New York Times when it comes to obloquy directed at Israel?

From an Egyptian writer who accused Israel of committing a massacre and  who calls it a right of a people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation (where is the military occupation?):

The canard is here:

We expected him to address the reports that the Israeli military illegally used white phosphorus against the people of Gaza.

Cleverly phrased in a way to make it seem as if Israel was guilty of a war crime, this issue was mooted weeks ago. Even the International Red Cross -- no ally of Israel -- agreed the use of white phosphorus, was proper in the context with which it was used:
 

The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the IDF said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk.

It took this fearless fact-checker about 30 seconds to find out that this claim by the op-ed writer (along with other claims he made) was baseless.

What, the Times can’t afford to spend a few seconds to prevent the publication of a lie?