The New York Times published a serious accusation on Thursday: that David Milstein, a senior adviser to US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, suppressed or altered diplomatic reporting to make Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government appear more favorable to Washington, The Jerusalem Post reports.
Such an allegation deserves scrutiny, as does the way a newspaper presents the evidence and the response of those it accuses.
The Times reported that Milstein had delayed, blocked, or rewritten embassy communications about Israeli settlements, settler violence, and humanitarian conditions in Gaza. It said its investigation drew on interviews with 15 US officials and dozens of internal documents.
These are substantial claims that should be examined on their evidence rather than accepted or rejected because of the politics surrounding them.
Huckabee disputed the account. According to coverage of the investigation, the ambassador categorically rejected the allegations and challenged their factual basis. In his public response, he criticized the newspaper’s handling of his comments.
That complaint raises a question distinct from the accuracy of the investigation itself: Did readers receive the substance of the ambassador’s response, or only excerpts that left important elements out?
When a report makes consequential allegations about officials representing the United States, selected quotations should accurately convey the substance of their replies. Readers need to understand what was denied, what explanation was offered, and whether reporters sought to test that explanation against the documents and accounts on which they relied. Publishing a rebuttal is not merely a formality to be completed before returning to the accusation.
