POST EARNS PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS

Friend of blog, Leo Rennert rates comPost propaganda ...gives three stars.

A WASHINGTON POST REPORTER EARNS THREE PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS IN A SINGLE STORY

John Ward Anderson's Oct. 25 report from Jerusalem deserves at least three stars for its pro-Palestinian slant. Let Leo enumerate:

1. Anderson writes that, as the Knesset opened debate on Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, "16 Palestinians were killed and almost 100 wounded by the Israeli military in the Southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis." No further details about the casualties. According to Haaretz, a left-wing, anti-Sharon newspaper, 11 of the 16 were armed men, according to Palestinian sources. In failing, as usual, to distinguished between combatant and non-combatant casualties, the Post leaves the impression that Israeli attacks are directed at Palestinians in general -- something Palestinian propagandists would like the world to believe, but something that is demonstrably untrue. Haaretz also reported, based on Palestinian figures, that there were 60 wounded -- not 100. But rounding it to 100 makes a more dramatic impact. So why not?

2. In the same paragraph, Anderson earns his second pro-Palestinian star. Having given the Palestinians a new reason for grievance with the operation in Khan Younis, he goes on to quote an Israeli spokeswoman as saying that the attack responded to the firing of more than 28 mortar shells at Jewish settlements. Fair enough. So up to this point, we have Palestinians attacked by Israelis and Israelis attacked by Palestinians. But Anderson isn't content to leave it at that. So he adds that those Palestinian mortar attacks were in retaliation for Israel's killing of a top Hamas leaders a few days earlier. And then he stops. But having reported three different attacks, why not go to the fourth and tell readers why Israel assassinated this Hamas leader, whom the Post as usual does not identify as a terrorist? Why not mention how many Israelis died as a result of this Hamas leader's violent forays. No, to give his paragraph a distinct pro-Palestinian spin, Anderson tells readers about TWO ISRAELI ATTACKS BUT ONLY ONE PALESTINIAN ATTACK. So, in terms of suffering and grievances, Palestinians are given TWO BITES of the apple, and the Israelis only ONE. The sequence he describes starts and ends with Israeli attacks -- exactly the impression Palestinians seek to convey that they're the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors. Never mind that there would be no bloodshed on either side if the intifada came to a halt.

3. To earn his third pro-Palestinian star, Anderson ends his story by reporting that doctors had performed a diagnostic endoscopy on Arafat in his "battered Ramallah headquarters, where he has been confined by Israel for more than two years." And that's it. So here we have an ailing Arafat having to undergo a procedure in his devastated HQ. Another victim of those callous Israelis, one is meant to think. But, what Anderson conveniently omits, is that Israel earlier offered to let Arafat leave his headquarters and move to a Ramallah hospital so he could be treated in more satisfactory fashion, but that the offer was rejected by Arafat's own people! But if Anderson had mentioned that, Israel might have been seen by Post readers in a more positive light. And we can't have that. Incidentally, the New York Times devoted a separate story to Arafat's health problems, with prominent mention of Israel's offer at the top of its story.

THREE PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS FOR ONE STORY. NOT BAD. BUT NOT A POST RECORD EITHER.

LEO RENNERT