To silence violations to not feed hatred?

Great uproar among the readers of The New York Times over a column by Nicholas Kristof that talks about sexual abuse committed against Palestinians by Israelis, including cases of inciting dogs to penetrate victims. The noise has been significant enough for the newspaper to publish a piece in which the author and the head of Opinion responded to some of the most frequent questions the piece generated. It was questioned, for example, whether the sources were reliable, and both the newspaper and the journalist detailed why they considered them to be. Here, the applied criterion was interesting: the political support that an entity may give does not automatically disqualify it. That said, I add, ways must be found to contrast it with independent sources (as Kristof has done, speaking directly with some of the victims).

One of the moral dilemmas raised by readers was whether it had been considered that revealing these degrading practices, especially in the case of bestiality rapes, could fuel anti-Semitism. The journalist admitted to having hesitated, but recalled that when he covered the genocide in Darfur, committed by Arabs against different African ethnic groups, he knew that this would fuel prejudice against Arabs. “But the solution is not to look the other way,” he explained. And he added: “When you have interviewed rape survivors and seen their trauma and the courage it takes to speak about it in public, you want to let everyone know, whether you are in Sudan or the West Bank.” That's the key: the journalist does not judge. He only illuminates what others, generally those in power, would like to keep hidden. And the primary responsibility is towards concrete individuals. In this era of constant clashes of macro narratives, journalism must maintain its roots at street level and talk about people. The war is also against the aseptic abstraction that those who decree it try to impose.