An example of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I mentioned in my last post that I would try to find some articles of Bronner's that I think equated the Israeli suffering with that of the Gazans. This post was to have references to several articles, but I had too much criticism of just one of his articles that it filled up a whole post. If there is more, I will post more.

This article on January 5th is my most memorable article. It had some things beyond just the equating of suffering that bothered me about it. First, Bronner writes in the second paragraph "On the 10th day of Israel’s war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza, ...". Well, that's exactly the way that Israel would like you to view it, that this is a war on Hamas, not on the Palestinians. The problem with that is that Israel's massive retaliation for the Hamas rockets can't help but destroy many Palestinian lives. The Israelis know that. The Palestinians know that. NY Times readers know that. The world knows that. If the war were actually to be on the Islamic rulers (Hamas), Israel would have been much particular about its targets and would have not tried to wreck practically the whole Gazan infrastructure. To describe the conflict as a war on the Islamic rulers of Gaza totally misrepresents what is going on.

The 4th paragraph says this: "Intense battles continued into the late night, with early reports of rising casualties on both sides." Rising casualties on both sides? As if it's an equal amount of rising casualties! As Bronner himself reports just a few paragraphs later, the Palestinian death toll had risen to 550, a quarter of those civilians. Hamas had killed 5 Israelis since the conflict began. Again, rising casualties on both sides??!! It is ludicrous to write such a statement when the figures are so disparate. One ponders at how Bronner undercuts his own writing.

Bronner spends much of the rest of this article regurgitating what each side's leaders are saying without writing himself that Israel's response is disproportionate. He writes that the French, the UN, Arab states are working on a deal to bring an immediate though maybe temporary end to the hostilities. Does Bronner ever state why they are doing this? Does he not want to print the reason?

Granted, Bronner reports all the facts for which he deserves credit, but from those facts can't he see the justification for an immediate ceasefire?