ARCHIVE
NOV 06 TO JUNE 07
Thursday,
June 21, 2007
The "T"
Word
The Post Won't Use It In Describing Palestinian Terrorists,
But They Will Quote A Palestinian Terrorist Calling A
Palestinian Terrorist A Terrorist
Who could fail to see the humor
and irony of the Post's unwillingness to use the "T"
word in describing Palestinian terrorists (as opposed to their
willingness to use it in describing terrorists in other
regions of the world) juxtaposed against one of the financers
of the Munich Massacre using it to describe his brethren?
"Abbas harshly criticized Hamas in a speech Wednesday, saying that
'there was no dialogue with those murderous terrorists.'"
(Israel Allows Some Palestinians to Leave Gaza,
Military Battles Gunmen In Strip and West Bank, 6-
21-07, A12)
Saturday,
June 16, 2007
Credit Where Credit is Due,
But Hamas's Violent Nature Shouldn't Have Been Airbrushed For
So Long
For a very long time our letters and Alerts have noted that
Washington Post Middle East correspondent, Scott Wilson, tells only 1/2 and 1/4 truths when he describes Hamas as simply an Islamic group that doesn't recognize Israel or an Islamic group that advocates a Palestinian state on land that includes Israel. We've pointed out that Mr. Wilson's choice of terminology eliminates all suggestion or hint of Hamas's daily advocacy and incitement of the use of violence to destroy Israel.
For whatever reason, Scott Wilson has just decided to tell 3/4 of the truth, rather than only 1/2 or 1/4. Perhaps in the face of Hamas's violent elimination of Fatah from Gaza he has come to the realization that the Hamas he felt was not so bad is actually.... so bad.
The following are examples of Mr. Wilson's improved terminology
in three different reports over the past week. Note the difference:
"Their broader ideological differences have made their struggle irreconcilable so far: Fatah, a secular movement that recognizes Israel, favors negotiations to achieve a Palestinian state; Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization,
advocates Israel's destruction." (Hamas Bolsters Its Hold In Gaza, Fatah Is Pressed To Abandon Posts, Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page
A01)
"The two parties have different visions of a future Palestinian state, with Fatah favoring peace with Israel and Hamas
advocating its eradication...." (Palestinian Battles Raise Fears of Coup And Civil War, Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Page
A01)
"Hamas, an armed Islamic movement that does not recognize Israel, and Fatah, a secular party that does, have fought periodically since Hamas defeated Fatah in January 2006 parliamentary elections. .... Ideological differences have also proved intractable .... Abbas has called for peace talks with Israel,
while the Hamas charter calls for the Jewish state's
destruction." (Abbas Dissolves Government As Hamas Takes Control of Gaza, Friday, June 15, 2007; Page
A01)
Why did it take a violent coup by Hamas against Fatah to shake Mr. Wilson into reporting the truth about the violence that suffuses all of Hamas's activities. Why did Mr. Wilson for so long sanitize his treatment of Hamas in his reports? Regardless of the reasons, he should be commended for finally reporting more accurately on the parties involved in the Arab Israeli conflict.
Also of interest is Wilson's reporting of Iranian backing of
Hamas, a fact that Wilson has previously withheld and is now reporting, however briefly, for the very first time on the pages of the Washington Post:
"The conflict is complicated by U.S. and Israeli efforts to help Fatah contain Hamas,
which is supported by Iran." (Palestinian Battles Raise Fears of Coup And Civil War, Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Page
A01)
Would it be too much to ask Mr. Wilson, or if he's not willing,
another reporter at the Washington Post, to provide more information on the Iranian backing of Hamas? Isn't this something readers are entitled to know?
Monday,
May 28, 2007
To The Post Israeli Deaths
By Hamas Rockets Not Worth Much Attention
The deaths of Palestinians at
the hands of Israelis get headline attention at the Post, but
the deaths of Israelis by Hamas rockets (rockets that the Post
loves to depict as not much of a threat and not worthy of an
Israeli military response) are worth about.... 2 sentences. On
Sunday an Israeli in Sderot was killed by a Hamas rocket, the
second Israeli to die in the past week as a result of the
Hamas bombardment of Sderot with over 200 rockets during the
same period. In Monday's paper the Post relegated the Israeli
death to the "World
in Brief" section, giving it only these few words:
A Hamas rocket fired from the Gaza Strip killed an Israeli, the second to die in fighting in a week. Oshri Oz, 35, was killed while driving in
Sderot.
Of course, Mr. Oz was not involved in "fighting."
He was minding his own business, driving in Sderot, when he
was hit by the Hamas rocket. Much more could have been said
about him. He was the father
of two, the husband of a pregnant wife (who learned of his
death on the internet) and a friend to many. None of it
was important to the Post, whose correspondent doesn't visit
Sderot and who has no stringers on the ground in Sderot, as it
does in Gaza. And most importantly, Oz was a civilian
deliberately targeted by Hamas rockets. How much space and
attention would the Post give it if Israel started
deliberately trying to kill Palestinian civilians in
Gaza?
Sunday,
May 27, 2007
Scott Wilson Deserves Slight Credit Where Credit Is
Due - Still Not Enough
We've criticized Scott Wilson and the Post in the past for:
-
using terminology to describe Hamas with the violence stripped out of it, i.e.,
"an extremist Islamic movement" that "does not recognize Israel's right to exist" or a group
"whose charter calls for the creation of a future Islamic state across territory that now includes the Jewish state."
-
refusing to use the words terrorists or terrorism where they are applicable, and, instead, euphemizing them by referring to terrorists as
"gunmen," even (absurdly) when no guns at all are involved.
-
Deliberately burying Hamas's rocketing of the Israeli town of Sderot toward the end of his articles, while giving early and prominent placement
to Israeli airstrikes, thereby giving the erroneous impression that Israel's airstrikes against Hamas are aggressive, belligerent and unprovoked, rather than a response to more than 100 Hamas rockets launched at Israel during a period of time in which Israel refrained from responding.
Perhaps someone is starting to get the point, and we should give some credit where credit is due. In Sunday's report by Wilson he added the word "armed" to his description of Hamas as an "armed group that denies Israel's right to exist."
(Israeli Airstrike Kills Five Hamas Gunmen, 2nd Palestinian Cabinet Minister Seized, 5-27-07, A22) This half-hearted improvement still doesn't tell the whole truth by noting that Hamas advocates and actively incites Palestinian men, women and children to violently seek the destruction of Israel. However, it's a slight
improvement and, hopefully, a beginning.
In this report Mr. Wilson for the first time clearly described Hamas's rocketing of Sderot as the provocation and motivation for Israel's airstrikes, noted that it
"terrorized residents of several border towns" and elevated Hamas's rocketing to paragraph two:
"A 10th day of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza and the arrest of Wasfi Kabha, the Palestinian minister of state, underscored Israel's determination to end Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorized residents of several border towns in southern Israel."
It's unfortunate that the Post's headline writer doesn't also desist from depicting Israel's military response in isolation and out of context from the rocketing that provoked it. A more appropriate headline would have been "Hamas Rockets Continue, Israel Kills Five Hamas
Militants, Seizes Cabinet Minister."
In addition, it shouldn't be much of a logical jump for Mr. Wilson, who described the Israeli civilian victims as having been
"terrorized," to understand that deliberately terrorizing a civilian population solely for the sake of political aims is "terrorism" and the folks that launch the rockets are "terrorists."
However, this was a more balanced report by
Mr.Wilson, and we hope it continues.
Sunday,
May 20, 2007
The Post Continues To Employ Language Casting Israel As The Aggressor In
Responding With Airstrikes To Hamas's Round The Clock Rocketing
This was the Washington Post's headline of a Sunday article
on the continuing Hamas rocketing of Israel and Israel's
response:
Israeli Airstrikes Leave 7 Palestinians Dead
Couldn't the Post have just as easily written the headline
as follows?
Hamas Rocketing and
Israeli Response Leave 7 Palestinian Suspects Dead
And this was the opening sentence of the Post
article:
"Israel killed four Palestinians Saturday in airstrikes targeting Hamas fighters as it tried to stop makeshift missiles being fired from the Gaza Strip. On Sunday, Israel killed three suspected Hamas fighters in one of four pre-dawn airstrikes in Gaza."
Couldn't the opening sentence have just as easily been written:
"Hamas fighters continued to launch rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip on Saturday, resulting in Israeli airstrikes that killed 4 suspected Hamas fighters on Saturday and three on
Sunday in one of four pre-dawn airstrikes in Gaza."
Why do Post headlines and articles always cast Israel as the aggressor?
Saturday,
May 19, 2007
To The Washington Post and Scott Wilson, It's Always About Israel -
Even As Palestinian On Palestinian Violence Rages Out Of Control,
They Continue To Blame Israel,
Soften Hamas's Image, Focus Spotlight On Israel's Air Strikes In Gaza,
And Downplay Hamas's Rocketing As The Provocation For Israel's
Response
It's always about Israel. The story this week was internecine fighting among Palestinians in Gaza, with Israel only a marginal participant after it was
forced by Hamas's incessant rocketing to launch defensive air strikes.
The Post, however, sought to focus readers' attention on Israel. This effort was taken to a ridiculous extreme on Thursday with a photograph accompanying an article written by the Post's correspondent in Israel, Scott Wilson. Wilson's article dealt exclusively with the fighting in Gaza. Nothing at all about the West Bank was even mentioned, because it was, essentially, quiet.
(Gaza Fighting Intensifies, Leaving at Least 21 Dead,
Israel Attacks Hamas After Rocket Strikes, 5-17-07, A10)
Yet the Post accompanied this article with a close up, front view photograph of a Palestinian mother and her two children cowering in fear as they peered around a corner at
something not in the picture. For all the reader knows it could have been Palestinians in the streets of Gaza fighting each other. Yet, despite the absence of any mention at all of the West Bank in the article, and despite the absence of any news at all from the West Bank, the caption stated:
"Palestinians watch Israeli soldiers carry out operations in the West Bank."
Wilson continues to deliberately soften the image of Hamas by describing the group in euphemistic terms that hide its dedication to the violent elimination of Israel. To Wilson Hamas is nothing more than
"an extremist Islamic movement" that "does not recognize Israel's right to exist" or a group
"whose charter calls for the creation of a future Islamic state across territory that now includes the Jewish state." It's bad enough that the Post and Wilson will not use the word "terrorist" to describe what these people really are. However, note the absence of any suggestion of violence in Wilson's descriptions of the terrorists. Wilson actively
hides Hamas's advocacy and incitement of violence; incitement that appears in its charter, in the every day speeches of its leaders, and in the education of its children.
Furthermore, with Wilson depicting Hamas as the party of the poor and
downtrodden, it has little need for its own propagandist. This is how Wilson describes Hamas:
"Hamas's militant brand of Islam has given it dominant political standing in impoverished Gaza, where many of its leaders were born or arrived as refugees, while Fatah remains strong in the wealthier and more secular West Bank."
Again trying to make Israel the lead story and insinuate Israel into the fighting between Hamas and Fatah, the Post on Friday featured a front page Scott Wilson article trumpeting Israel as having
"allowed" Fatah fighters to pass from Egypt into Gaza.
(Fatah Troops Enter Gaza With Israeli Assent, Hundreds Were Trained in Egypt Under U.S.-Backed Program to Counter Hamas, 5-18-07, Page A01) He complains about the
"increasingly partisan role that Israel and the Bush administration are taking in the volatile Palestinian political situation." In the fourth paragraph of this article Wilson reports Thursday's Israeli
air strikes and resulting Palestinian deaths as if they were unprovoked, conveniently forgetting
at this early point in the article to mention the week during which Hamas ratcheted up its rocketing of Israel:
"Israel on Thursday also carried out a series of airstrikes against Hamas targets across Gaza, killing at least six gunmen. [Additional airstrikes early Friday killed four people, doctors in Gaza told the Associated Press.]"
It isn't until well off the front page and into the interior of the paper that Wilson remembers the Hamas rocketing and Israeli injuries that spurred the Israeli response.
And again on Saturday Israel was the focus of the Post's reporting, with Palestinian factional fighting depicted as of secondary importance and Israeli strikes against Palestinians, without any mention of the provocation, being featured by the Washington Post in its headline.
(Israel Hits Gaza as Factions Battle, Hamas Accuses Fatah of Collusion, 5-19-07, A13) The headline, however, wasn't the only distortion. Scott Wilson's report itself was skewed. This was his opening sentence:
"Israeli aircraft pounded border posts, headquarters buildings and cars across the northern Gaza Strip on Friday, killing at least seven Hamas gunmen as they confronted their armed rivals from the Fatah party in the streets."
We can give Wilson the benefit of the doubt on the ambiguity in that sentence that makes it appear that Israeli forces are fighting Palestinians in the streets of
Gaza. However, note the absence of any mention of Hamas rocketing as the provocation for the Israeli air strikes. Why the silence in the opening paragraph Scott?
Again, in paragraph five Wilson reports that "at least 19 Palestinians, all of them apparently Hamas gunmen, have been killed in Israeli airstrikes" without mentioning anything about the provocation for the air strikes. Why the silence here Scott?
In fact, it isn't until the closing paragraphs of the article that there is any mention at all of the Hamas rocketing of Israel that preceded Israel's air strikes this
week. When Mr. Wilson finally gets around to mentioning those rockets - over 100 of
which were fired during a five day period of time - he strips his comments of any suggestion that Hamas's rocketing provoked the Israeli response.
What is the matter with a reporter who reports in the opening paragraph of his article that Israel attacked and killed Palestinians but waits until the very end of the article to say why?
Monday,
May 14, 2007
Post Continues Its Agenda to Downplay and Minimize Threat of
Middle East Islamicization
It is no wonder Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid would be honored by an Arab American propaganda group and
would attend and address such a group.
Mr. Shadid traveled the countryside in South Lebanon throughout the Israel-Hezbollah war last year filing slanted report after slanted report depicting Israel harshly and Hezbollah and its extremist Shiite civilian support infrastructure in South Lebanon in sympathetic terms.
He downplayed Iranian backing for Hezbollah and Hezbollah's provocative and warlike conduct toward Israel. Now he has been sent by the Washington Post to Turkey to file one-sided, glowing, front page analyses (not labeled as such) of the Islamicization of the Turkish government and questioning the wisdom of the popular demonstrations of recent times by millions of Turks opposed to desecularization.
(Ruling Party Charms a Turkish City With New Take on Secular Heritage, 5-12-07, A01) At the same time, the Post is downplaying the sheer magnitude of those demonstrations by relegating reports of 1.5 million poster and flag carrying protestors to
tiny blurbs in the World in Brief
section of the paper. One need only read Mr. Shadid's report about Turkish desecularization
to see an agenda at play. He would appear to be an excellent choice for the role of the Post's roving ambassador to Islam.
Sunday,
April 22, 2007
Post Ignores Incessant Palestinian Rocket Attacks On Israel -
Issues Reports Only When Israel Retaliates - Headline and Lead Paragraph Refer to Palestinian Terrorists Targeted By Israel As Only Palestinians - Downplays Impact of
Terrorist Rocketing On Israelis - Accepts Without Question Palestinian Witness Accounts and Downplays Israel's Account
From: Leo Rennert
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007
To: Washington Post Executives and Ombudsman
Subject: Washington Post's Skewed Reporting Overlooks Palestinian Violence -- Against Israelis and Palestinians
After ignoring for the last several months an almost daily barrage of Qassam rockets fired from Gaza against southern Israeli communities, the
Washington Post suddenly woke up in its Sunday, April 22, editions to report, you might have guessed it, a rare counter-strike by Israel.
(At Least 6 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Strikes, World In Brief, 4-22-07, A21)
Putting as usual the monkey on Israel's back, the Post reported that Israeli forces killed
"at least six Palestinians, including one in an airstrike in the Gaza Strip, IN THE WORST FLARE-UP IN ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN FIGHTING IN MONTHS."
Never mind that the worst flare-up, unbeknownst to Post readers, has occurred without let-up since last November -- with ceaseless Palestinian cross-border attacks against Israel. Back in November, you may recall, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, in return for an Israeli cease-fire on the Gaza front, pledged that ALL Palestinian factions would desist from Gaza-based attacks on Israel. Since then, while Israel has continued to show great restraint, SEVERAL HUNDRED QASSAMS have been fired from Gaza at Sderot, Ashkelon and other southern Israeli targets -- a pattern of Palestinian aggression missing from the Post's daily coverage.
The Post's blindness to the Qassam war against Israel has taken place despite the fact that these rockets, cavalierly dismissed by Post correspondent Scott Wilson as
"crude" and "inaccurate," have in fact become increasingly accurate. Sderot residents have been killed and wounded; schoolyards have been hit; Ashkelon industrial areas have borne the brunt of some of the Qassams; kibbutzim in the Negev have been struck. In Sderot especially, because of its proximity to Gaza, the constant blaring of sirens which give residents only seconds to take cover have inflicted incalculable traumas, notably on children.
Wilson, however, consistently has refused to embed himself for several days in Sderot to report on what life is really like there. His agenda is finding news that puts Israel in a bad light.
In Sunday's incident, the Post merely reported that "makeshift" rockets were fired at Sderot,
"hitting a house." The Post did not, however, report that six civilians were treated for shock; the NY Times did. The effect of Qassam strikes on real people doesn't interest the Post.
Just think for a moment how the Post would report daily rocket barrages fired by a renegade group from Tijuana at San Diego and its environs, killing and wounding Americans, especially after the president of Mexico
("unoccupied," as is Gaza) had pledged a total cease-fire but did nothing to stop the attacks emanating
from his territory. Would the Post not send reporters to San Diego? Would the Post wait for a U.S. counter-strike before surfacing with some coverage? Would the Post commiserate with the president of Mexico and give him the benefit of the doubt? I don't think so.
Yet, in Sunday's editions, this is exactly what the Post has done with regard to Mahmoud Abbas and the incessant Qassam attacks from Gaza. Turning the culprit into a victim, the Post reported that a top Abbas aide, speaking on his behalf,
criticized the ISRAELI ACTIONS for jeopardizing "Abbas's efforts to expand the FRAGILE TRUCE from Gaza to the occupied West Bank as part of a U.S.-led peace push." FRAGILE TRUCE? Tell that to the folks in Sderot and Ashkelon. And Abbas, the Post's peacemaker, who has tens of thousands of security personnel under his
command but fails to take any steps against Palestinian terrorists? Far be it from the Post to reveal the real Abbas to its readers.
As for the remaining five Palestinians killed on Saturday, the Post reported that 3 were
"armed fighters" driving in the West Bank city of Jenin. What the Post DID NOT REPORT, and the NY Times did, is that the 3 men fired first and that 2 rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade were found in their car.
As for another of the Palestinian casualties, the Post said a Palestinian policeman
"was shot and killed by Israeli forces, Palestinian witnesses said." Further exculpating the
"policeman," the Post said said these same unidentified witnesses claimed that he was not involved in any way in the fighting but was shot when he just
"peered out his window." Only then, as an afterthought, the Post adds that, according to the Israeli army, this same "policeman" was an
"armed militant firing from the top of a building." The Post, of course, failed to mention, that Palestinian police and security services are riddled with members who moonlight as terrorists. Instead, the Post puts its credence in the words of anonymous Palestinian witnesses.
By now you get the drift of the Post's typical coverage -- portray Israel as a brutal aggressor, while ignoring or minimizing Palestinian terrorism against Israel.
But that's only the half of it when it comes to the Post's selective coverage with a glaring anti-Israel agenda. The other half consists of the Post's consistent downplaying and/or ignoring of Palestinian on Palestinian violence.
To wit: During the same news cycle covered by the Post's Sunday editions, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Palestinians bombing and torching the American International School south of Gaza City. This was a private school, run entirely by Palestinians, which received $160,000 this year from the State Department for scholarships for needy students. The masked gunmen who overwhelmed the school's two guards told them,
"We are Al-Qaeda in Palestine and our swords will be directed at the throats of the infidels."
Nor was this an isolated incident in "unoccupied" Gaza, where Palestinian security services have free rein to enforce law and order. In recent months, there's been a wave of bombings against Internet cafes, music stores and other recreational centers. The attacks have all the earmarks of a Taliban-style war to enforce a medieval sort of Islamic rule, determined to wipe out all signs of modernity.
You would think that the Post might pay some attention to this worrisome development in Palestinian society and the emergence of Al-Qaeda-type terrorists alongside more traditional Palestinian terrorists. But you would be wrong. Oh yes, the NY Times covered the attack on the American International School in full detail. The Post's coverage was ZILCH.
Leo Rennert
[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]
Tuesday,
March 27, 2007
Washington Post Depicts Israel As Recalcitrant on Peace Talks
For No Apparent Reason - Eliminates Any Mention of Israel's Objection
To Recent Formation of Palestinian Unity
Government Led By Hamas
It's difficult to understand how the Post could justify the complete failure to provide any context or background for a major part of Glenn Kessler's report yesterday on the Middle East peace efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
(Arab Ministers Agree To Revive Initiative For Mideast Peace, March 27, 2007, A07) The second half of Mr. Kessler's article consisted of six paragraphs
depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as resisting
peace talks. Mr. Kessler employed terminology that
effectively portrayed Israel as obstructing Secretary
Rice's mission. He noted Olmert's "refusal to negotiate on core issues of the conflict, such as borders, control of Jerusalem and the settlement of
refugees" and that Olmert was "balking at the 'parallel' format and at the scope of the issues Rice wanted to raise." Mr. Kessler commented on Olmert being
"noticeably cool to the notion of a new approach," and he even noted that Olmert seemed to be trying to distance himself from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while relying on President Bush as an active participant in the process. Yet the article said nothing at all about
the reasoning behind the policy of Olmert and the Israeli government.
The article didn't mention Israel's objection to the recent formation of the Palestinian Unity government with Hamas, the terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, at its helm.
Even if Mr. Kessler
doesn't agree with Israel, he should report Israel's reasons. The phrase "unity government" wasn't mentioned. There wasn't even a reference to Hamas.
The result was the depiction of Israel as recalcitrant in the peace process for no apparent reason. The failure to address the question "why" was certainly poor journalism.
The Post has been repeatedly faulted for this failure to provide background or context that would enable readers to understand Israeli policy and actions.
This is a continuation of the same pattern of one sided
journalism on subjects relating to Israel.
Thursday,
March 15, 2007
The Washington Post Uses Its World In Brief Section As A
Pretext to Publish Distortions and Half Truths About Israel
"A half truth is a whole lie." ~
Yiddish Proverb
"Beware of the half truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half."
~ Author Unknown
Post editors have become adept at taking jabs at Israel by the use of half truths in their
"World in Brief" section. They use that section to distort news about Israel by eliminating facts that explain or even work in Israel's favor, while at the same time maintaining the cover that this section is intended for only snippets of news. They publish a few sentences from wire service reports depicting Israel negatively and trim anything positive, explanatory or contextual from the remainder of the report. However, the World in Brief section has never been limited to tiny scraps of news. The same editors never fail to use the same section to publish two or more column inches of news on a particular subject - even the column
we're writing about today led with a somewhat larger piece - so the one or two sentence half truths and distortions noted below by Leo Rennert from the
March 15, 2007 print edition
cannot be justified.
From: Leo Rennert
To: Editors and Publisher of the Washington Post
Date: March 15, 2007
Subject: Washington Post Moves From Spin To Glaring Bias Against Israel
The days when the Washington Post spun or slanted news about Israel are long gone. They've been followed by outright distortion and bias that make a mockery of fair, even-handed journalism. In recent days, the Post's anti-Israel animus has reached new peaks that jump out at you in not just one, not just two, but as many as THREE stories in the same edition. Here are THREE EXHIBITS from the Post's supposed
"news" pages in the March 15 edition:
1. In a Jerusalem dateline story, the Post reports that a team of U.N. experts called on Israel to halt excavations near Temple Mount --
"Jerusalem's most sacred site to Muslims" -- and proceed only under international supervision. Israel's
archeological excavations, the story adds, "have sparked protests across the Muslim world."
AND THAT'S ALL THE POST TELLS ITS READERS, WHO ARE FED A BALD LIE ABOUT THE ACTUAL U.N. REPORT.
THE REAL STORY AS REPORTED EXTENSIVELY IN OTHER MEDIA: A team of UNESCO experts, after inspecting the dig outside Temple Mount that is part of construction of a replacement ramp to reach the plateau, concluded that the excavation work DID NOT THREATEN NOR POSE ANY HARM TO AL-AQSA MOSQUE ATOP THE TEMPLE MOUNT. The UNESCO team lauded Israel for the transparency of its work (a webcast of the dig is available on the Internet) and said the work was properly documented and in compliance with international standards. In view of the inciteful lies spread throughout the Muslim world that have already caused a riot and set off a wave of new jihad threats against Israel, the UNESCO findings obviously would be the lead any story written by a reputable newspaper. BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT THE POST, WHICH TOTALLY OMITTED THE FINDINGS OF THE UNESCO INVESTIGATION. And, remember, UNESCO isn't noted for taking pro-Israel positions. So why did the UNESCO team also call for a suspension (not a
"halt") of excavation, followed by resumption of the work with international monitors. Two reasons: In true bureaucratic fashion, UNESCO wanted to cut itself in on the project, but also it seems to believe that international supervision might counter incendiary Muslim fabrications that Al-Aqsa is in any way being threatened. On the other hand, by ERASING THE REAL LEAD OF THE STORY, the Post makes it appear that the call for international supervision suggests that the excavation work may not be on the up-and-up -- THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE REPORT'S FINDINGS. THE POST'S
INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR ISRAEL BASHING COMPLETELY TWISTS THE UNESCO REPORT.
2. In a second Jerusalem-dateline piece, the Post reports that ONE THIRD of Israeli settlements in the
"occupied" West Bank are built on land privately owned by Palestinians, according to a report by Peace Now. AND THAT'S ALL THIS REPORT TELLS READERS. There is no attempt
to provide rebuttal from officials from either Jewish
community in Judea and Samaria or from Israeli government spokesmen or from media monitoring groups that provide ample documentation about the political agenda of anti-Israel NGOs masquerading as
"human rights" organizations. Claims of widespread "settlement" occupancy of privately owned Palestinian land, as regularly issued by organizations with headings like Peace Now or B'tselem, have been consistently disproved as wild exaggerations and distortions of what are lands in public or private ownerships. For example, the Associated Press just reported that B'Tselem charged last November that 86 PERCENT OF
MA'ALE ADUMIM, a Jerusalem suburb of 30,000 inhabitants -- one of the largest in the West Bank -- was built on privately owned Palestinian land (based on a supposed leak from a government data base) BUT, ACCORDING TO THE AP, IT NOW TURNS OUT THAT THE DATA BASE SHOWS ONLY ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF
MA'ALE ADUMIM IS BUILT ON PRIVATE PALESTINIAN LAND. Just think: whether it goes under the title of Peace Now in Israel or B'tselem, either way such outfits are in the business of ginning up big headlines against "land-grabbing" Israelis -- EVEN IF THE REAL FIGURE OF ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT IS MAGNIFIED INTO A FICTITIOUS 86 PERCENT! It's bad enough when the Post gives such "human rights" NGOs a false aura of dispensing unassailable gospel truth instead of probing the real agenda of these groups, which turn out to be heavily subsidized by European governments that are not particularly fond of Israel; it's even worse, much worse, when the Post turns its back completely on any data -- whether from the Israel government or from NGO critics -- that show Israel in a better light and raise some questions about the reliability and accuracy of these NGOs. Whatever happened to reporting both sides of a story?
3. Bear with me: We're still examining the March 15 Post edition. On the top of the front page, the paper has a lengthy story about confessions by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, during
interrogations at Guantanamo. If you read the entire story, you will find that the Post referred not once but SIX TIMES to his kind of actions as the work of TERRORISTS.
Yes, the Post on its own, not in quotes attributed to someone else, actually uses the 'T" word half a dozen times in this article. And the Post is absolutely right in using the T word when it comes to 9/11 and other Al Qaeda attacks. As Mohammed himself admits, he knew he would kill innocent kids, but what the hell it was in a good political cause -- the exact dictionary
definition of terrorism. WHAT MAKES THE REPEATED USE OF THE 'T' WORD IN THIS CONTEXT SO NOTABLE IS THAT THE POST WILL NEVER -- BUT NEVER -- USE THE 'T' WORD IN REPORTING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON ISRAEL. When it comes to Israel, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups are MILITANTS, GUERRILLAS, FIGHTERS, ETC. BUT NEVER TERRORISTS. Palestinian terrorists, when they kill children and other innocent civilians, are treated with special kid gloves by the Post and euphemistically transformed into more acceptable members of society. Yet, when you stack up the lethal blows sustained by the U.S. from 9/11 and by Israel from Palestinian terrorism over the last six years -- as measured by the size of their respective populations -- Israel has been hit much harder by terrorism. On a population per capita scale, 9/11 killed ONE OUT OF EVERY 100,000 AMERICANS. THE LATEST PALESTINIAN INTIFADA HAS KILLED ONE OUT OF EVERY 7,000 ISRAELIS. Yet, even so, at the Post, a terrorist individual or group that strikes at the World Trade Center, is a terrorist, but terrorist groups that fire rockets into Israeli schoolyards and playgrounds or
set off bombs in discos, pizza parlors and school buses are NEVER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. At the Post,
innocent Israeli blood, it seems, doesn't count as much as innocent American blood.
Leo Rennert
[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]
Tuesday,
March 13, 2007
Washington Post Publishes
Full Wire Service Article In Its World News Section About Sexual Conduct of Israeli Ambassador to El Salvador
- Makes Observation That This Is Only One of Several Embarrassing Incidents Involving Israeli Diplomats
What is one to say about a newspaper that often
deliberately fails to publish vitally important hard news involving Israel and the Palestinians but goes out of its way to publish a full wire service article about the Israeli ambassador to El Salvador being recalled due to an embarrassing sexual incident?
(Israeli Envoy Recalled Over Nude Exploit in El Salvador, 3-13-07, A13) Note the use of the word
"Nude" and "Israeli Envoy" in the headline.
Wouldn't want to risk not grabbing the attention of all readers to this important news, would we? This was an article that went on to observe and list several other
embarrassing incidents involving Israeli diplomats ... an article that specifically commented:
"The embarrassing incident was one of several involving Israeli diplomats in recent years."
Does the Post publish full articles in its World News section about embarrassing sexual incidents involving other nations' heads of state, officials, or diplomats? Of course not. What is one to say about such a newspaper as the Washington Post? No laws were broken. It was simply embarrassing to Israel.
And that is precisely why the Washington Post, shameful, anti-Israel rag that it is, published the story.
Saturday,
March 10, 2007
Front Page Post Article Blames Israel For Internecine Palestinian Fighting - Slams Israel for Isolation and Economic Decline of Gaza - Minimizes and Conceals Palestinian Aggression and Terrorism As Causes
The Post ran another one-sided slap at Israel on the front page Saturday about the widening split between the Fatah dominated West bank and the Hamas dominated Gaza Strip.
(Under Pressure, Palestinian Territories Pull Apart, Fracture Lines Are Political, Cultural, Economic,
3-10-07, A01) The headline was fair enough, and if the article had not sought to blame Israel for most of the Palestinians' problems and downplay (and conceal) Palestinian aggression and terrorism as root causes, it would have been reasonable journalism. However, it did blame Israel, and it wasn't reasonable journalism. It was just one more in a long series of Scott Wilson and Washington Post agenda driven attacks on Israel.
The surest way to get the attention of and sway the largest number of readers is with a photo and caption. This article was accompanied by a front page photo of a bus crammed full of Palestinians (with their luggage) sitting both inside and all over the top of the bus. The caption stated:
"Palestinians waited to pass from the southern Gaza strip into Egypt after the Rafah border crossing was reopened Tuesday. The crossing is mostly kept closed by Israel, whose policies are effectively isolating Gaza from the rest of the world, including the West Bank."
Nowhere was there an explanation that Israel is no longer present at the Rafah crossing or even in Gaza, and that whatever control they are permitted to exercise over the crossing is
being done from a distance as part of a procedure negotiated at the time of
withdrawal to protect Israel's security interests. Egypt, the PA and
EUBAM-R (European Union Border Assistance Mission - Rafah) are
the only ones present at the crossing, and if there were not legitimate security
concerns over specific terrorist activities or smuggling
during any given period of time, Israel would not be able to insist upon periodic closings.
Have Egypt or the European monitors raised legitimate
complaints that Israel is requesting closing of the border
crossing arbitrarily or capriciously? We certainly would have
read of such complaints in the Washington Post if they
existed, because it doesn't miss a chance to criticize Israel.
The article opens with three folksy paragraphs about Ali Hussein, a Palestinian making a lot of money from video conferencing. Then, beginning with the very first sentence on the
widening gulf between Gaza and the West Bank, this anti-Israel article lays the entire blame for the separation at the feet of Israel:
"Since withdrawing from Gaza a year and a half ago, the Israeli government has severed this coastal strip from the West Bank."
The Gaza Strip is geographically separated from the West Bank by a large expanse of Israeli land, so it is not Israel that has "severed" the coastal strip from the West Bank. This is tendentious and misleading rhetoric by its Palestinian sympathizing author. Wilson would claim he is referring to travel restrictions imposed by Israel between the two geographically separate regions, but it is clearly a deliberate effort on his part to mislead uninformed readers into thinking the two regions are physically joined but divided by some sort of Israeli barrier. In addition, Wilson's assertion is bereft of context, because nowhere in proximity to the biased statement does he even allude to the reasons for imposition of these travel restrictions. He doesn't note that the very crossing points from Gaza into Israel that Palestinians would have to use to get from Gaza to the West Bank have themselves been bombed by terrorists in Gaza. He doesn't mention the numerous foiled plots to bomb the crossing points and the numerous suicide bombers captured trying to cross into Israel from Gaza.
And in the sixth paragraph, also beginning on the front page, Wilson states:
"Long the poor provincial cousin of the West Bank, Gaza has been further impoverished in the past year by Israeli border restrictions and an international aid embargo."
Wilson conspicuously avoids mentioning the reasons for the border restrictions or the aid embargo, i.e., ongoing daily attempts by the terrorist organizations to infiltrate Israel from Gaza and a radicalized Palestinian population that elected a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel to lead it. And he fails to mention that international aid has continued to be funneled to non-Hamas controlled recipients during this same period. And of course he doesn't mention that several hundred million dollars in aid that actually went to the Hamas controlled government cannot
now be accounted for and is, for all intents and purposes, lost.
(Palestinian minister admits aid millions lost, Sunday Telegraph, 11/03/2007) While this story was just published in the Telegraph, does anyone want to bet that the factual basis for it has been known for some time to any reporter who would want to write about it and that it will never see the light of day in the Washington Post?
Wilson's accusatory comments blaming Israel for Palestinian misfortunes were injected into the lead, front page paragraphs of
this article, without providing any context about the continuing terrorism emanating from Gaza. It isn't until the 11th paragraph, well into the interior pages of the print edition, that the more than 1700 terrorist rocket attacks on Israel from within Gaza subsequent to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza are even briefly mentioned, and nowhere in the entire article is there any mention of (1) the cross border attack and kidnapping by Hamas of an Israeli soldier, (2)
large numbers of terrorist tunnels being dug on an ongoing
basis, or (3) large scale weapons smuggling operations.
Scott Wilson and most of the Washington Post's reporters and editors view and report the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians through a distorted prism, and they make little to no effort at fairness or objective reporting. Theirs is a campaign to influence the reading public, even if doing so requires deception, sleight of hand and sometimes outright lies. Anyone who cares about fair reporting or about Israel should not continue to subscribe to this agenda driven
newspaper.
Leo Rennert's letter below further amplifies
the many omissions and distortions of this article:
To: Scott Wilson and Washington Post Editors and Publisher
From: Leo Rennert
Subject: Washington Post Blames Israel For Gaza's Misfortunes
Date: March 10, 2007
In its Saturday, March 10, editions, the Washington Post carries a lengthy, front-page article on the growing political, social and economic estrangement between the West Bank and Gaza. The article's principal focus, however, is on the plight of Palestinians in Gaza -- with Israel as the main culprit.
Correspondent Scott Wilson begins enumerating the reasons for Gaza's ills in PARAGRAPH 4. Right off the bat, Israel becomes his primary target:
"Since withdrawing from Gaza a year and a half ago, the Israeli government has severed this coastal strip from the West Bank."
Wilson then mentions, but only in very cursory fashion, that Palestinians have
"fractured politically," there's a "power struggle," and Gazans have embraced Hamas, without giving readers any real notion why these antiseptically phrased factors might account for Gaza's downward spiral.
But when it comes to Israel, Wilson is not shy about being specific. Take PARAGRAPH 6:
"Gaza has been further impoverished in the past year by Israeli border restrictions." Gaza's roads are
"cratered by Israeli artillery shells and neglect." For good measure, Wilson also takes a poke at the
international community for freezing aid to the Palestinians.
Israel again becomes Wilson's target du jour in PARAGRAPH 9 for reneging on its 1993 pledge in the Oslo accords to treat the West Bank and Gaza as
"a single territorial unit" with guaranteed safe passage for Palestinians between the two. Why didn't Israel carry out this obligation? Well, it happened with the start of
"the second Palestinian uprising" in 2000. An "uprising"? Yes, that's the Post's Orwellian euphemism for a sustained war of terror that continues to this very day. In the Post, of course, there is no such reality as Palestinian TERRORISM -- the deliberate attempt to murder innocent civilians in pursuit of a political agenda. In reporting on Palestinians, the dictionary doesn't count at the Post.
In PARAGRAPH 10, Wilson piles on still more blame on Israel, which is portrayed as welshing on a deal brokered by Secretary of State Rice to allow bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank. Why didn't Israel follow through? According to Wilson, Israel had
"security concerns." Duh!
It is not until PARAGRAPH 11 (when many readers may already have gone on to other parts of the paper) that Wilson briefly allows a glimmer of reality to intrude into his article. Citing Shin Bet, he reports Palestinians
"fired 1,726 crude rockets from Gaza last year -- more than 4 times as many as in 2005. Two Israelis were killed and 163 were wounded." Doesn't sound like such
"crude" rockets, especially when you factor in the fact that these daily rocket barrages terrorize tens of thousands of residents in southern Israel, whether they hit their targets or not -- something Wilson does NOT report. Sderot has been left with massive numbers of serious trauma cases -- again something that singularly disinterests Wilson.
In the same paragaph, Wilson writes that Israel has been unable to stop these attacks
"despite several intensive military forays into the strip last year that killed nearly 400 Palestinians." Notice the double pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel
spin -- Wilson carefully omits the fact that Palestinian terrorists and their active supporters in continuing attacks on Israelis accounted for the bulk of these 400 fatalities. It's just Palestinians who got killed, not terrorists. And he fails to tell readers that Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas agreed on a total Gaza cease-fire last November on the explicit assurances of Abbas that ALL Palestinian factions would abide by the cease-fire. And that furthermore, while Israel immediately ended its forays into Gaza, daily cross-border rocket barrages from Gaza continued right to this very day -- while Israel continues to turn the other cheek. Since last November, not a single Palestinian in Gaza, terrorist or otherwise, has been killed by any Israeli forays, because there haven't been any.
Wilson, however, is not only spectacularly off-base by what he writes and by his selective use of history to tar Israel; he's just as adept at mangling history by what he omits. HERE ARE JUST SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT DIRECTLY ACCOUNT FOR GAZA'S GROWING MISERY THAT ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN HIS ARTICLE:
--When Ariel Sharon completely withdrew all Israeli military forces and all Jewish residents from Gaza 18 months ago, Palestinians had a golden opportunity to turn the territory into a prosperous, self-governing entity. International donors -- governments and private investors -- were ready to pour in hundreds of millions of dollars in direct aid and for start-up business and agricultural enterprises. Israel stood ready to give Gaza access to the world by sea and air once it no longer was used as a base for killing Israelis. Instead, Palestinians turned Gaza into a launching pad for intensified attacks on Israel.
--Left behind by Jewish farmers were many greenhouses, which produced valuable market crops. Instead of turning them into cash cows, Palestinians destroyed many of them.
--Gazans didn't endear themselves to Israelis by desecrating and destroying evacuated synagogues in the strip and using a couple of them as launching sites for Qassam rockets -- not exactly confidence-building moves.
--Nor is there a single mention in the article of Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group sponsored and financed by Iran, which has been directly responsible for the rocket attacks and which, like Hamas, insists on Israel's elimination as its chief objective.
--There is no mention whatsoever of a cross-border raid by Hamas and other terrorist groups into Israel that resulted in the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit and the murder of two other IDF soldiers last June. To this day, there's no word about Shalit's condition or whereabouts. This was a major provocative attack, which
occurred about 9 months after Israel's complete pullout from Gaza.
--Wilson, while depicting Gaza's economic deterioration, utterly fails to point out that -- despite continued Palestinian aggression -- Israel released $100 million in frozen Palestinian tax and customs money on the explicit assurance from Abbas that this money would go entirely for humanitarian purposes. Abbas and the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority instead diverted the money from humanitarian relief to some unclear purposes. Another example of Israel trying to help needy Palestinians, who then get screwed by their own leaders!
--While the European Union, the chief foreign donor for the Palestinians, suspended all direct aid to the Hamas-run Palestinian government because of its refusal to renounce terrorism and to recognize Israel's right to exist, the Europeans have continued to pour equal, by some counts even greater, amounts of money to alleviate need in the West Bank and Gaza through non-governmental Palestinian channels. The NY Times, on its web site, recently reported that 2006 foreign aid to the Palestinians actually topped 2005 levels. So where did all that money go?
--Wilson doesn't write a word about widespread destruction by Fatah of a Hamas university in Gaza and widespread destruction by Hamas of a Fatah university. If you're writing about economic deterioration in Gaza, wouldn't it be relevant to mention how Palestinians sacked high-tech equipment and other instructional resources at these universities which potentially could have been a path for many young Gazans toward a more prosperous future?
--While finding plenty of reasons to blame Israel, Wilson doesn't write a word about the massive influx of advanced weapons, explosives and terrorist cadres from Egypt into Gaza via tunnels and Palestinian-controlled crossings -- a clear sign that Hamas (which Wilson himself describes as the real power in Gaza) is intent on waging an even wider war on Israel from Gaza.
These are just some of the Wilson omissions of highly pertinent causes of Gaza's misfortunes which didn't make it into his article. I'm sure you can lengthen the list with your own examples.
So, of course, could Wilson if he were interested in telling the real story of Gaza -- that IT'S THE PALESTINIANS WHO FOULED THEIR OWN NEST AND, WITH WILSON'S AND THE POST'S COLLABORATION, ARE TRYING TO SHIFT THE BLAME TO ISRAEL AND TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.
Leo Rennert
[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]
Sunday,
February 25, 2007
Post Continues To Strip News Reports Of Factual Context In Order To Depict Israel In Negative Light - Today Reported That Israel Raided Nablus And Placed It Under Curfew, But Failed To Report Israel's Reasons, i.e., The Discovery Of A Bomb Factory And Israeli Troops Coming Under Attack
Our Alert yesterday dealt with the Post having altered an AP report about Jimmy Carter and his book to eliminate
from the AP report information about Carter's critics and their criticism. As Leo Rennert's letter
reveals, the Post today published in its World in Brief section a single, solitary sentence reporting that Israel raided Nablus
yesterday and placed the city under curfew, without providing any context or explanation of Israel's reasons.
From: Leo Rennert
To: Washington Post Editors, Publisher and Ombudsman
Date: February 25, 2007
Subject: Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israel Mindset Of Washington Post Editors
The Washington Post's endemic anti-Israel spin is not only evident in selection and pursuit of major stories. It seeps even into the smallest news items. Take, for example, the Post's Sunday, Feb. 25, editions.
On page A19, under a "World In Brief" roundup, you will find a single-sentence dispatch datelined: Nablus, West Bank. Here's the entire item:
"Dozens of Israeli jeeps and armored vehicles raided the West Bank city of Nablus Sunday and placed the city under curfew."
The impression left with readers is clear: Here's Israel's all-powerful military swooping down on Palestinians in one of their major cities -- an example of Israel's harsh "occupation" practices. Thousands of Palestinians are locked in their homes.
But hold on. There's something important missing from this news item: WHY DID ISRAEL CONDUCT THIS RAID? The Post doesn't give readers a clue. Yet, the answer was widely available to Post editors from wire
dispatches [dispatches that actually ran on
the Post's web site], if not from its own correspondent, Scott Wilson, who has ready access to same-time information from Israeli media and IDF announcements.
In sharp contrast to the Post, the New York Times did not hesitate to let its readers in on this secret. Here's how the Times reported the Israeli raid in its Sunday editions:
"Israeli forces discovered a bomb-making factory in the West Bank city of Nablus during an overnight operation that ended Saturday, an army spokesman said. "Five pipe bombs, two gas balloons, materials for bomb making and large quantities of shrapnel were found in the
factory, situated in the Old City market area. Palestinians threw a grenade and opened fire on the soldiers, and one member of Islamic Jihad was arrested, the spokesman said."
If you read the Times, Israel was conducting a legitimate defensive operation to protect the lives of its citizens against terrorist preparations in the West Bank. If you read the Post, Nablus was a target of an Israeli raid and its citizens were barred from leaving their homes -- for no discernible reason.
Actually, so inbred is the Post's anti-Israel spin that it's not confined to even the smallest news items, You can also find it in what the Post DOESN'T REPORT AT ALL. Omission of important developments is as symptomatic of the Post's pro-Palestinian bent as what's actually carried in the paper. Again, look at the Sunday, Feb. 25, editions of the Times and the Post.
In the Times, you will find a report that "two Qassam rocket were launched from the Gaza Strip in the direction of Israeli communities across the border...That brings the number of Qassam rockets launched from Gaza in the past week to 12, according to the Israeli army, despite a cease-fire that was declared in November."
What did the Post report? NOTHING. And with the Post, that's par for the course. Since Abbas and Olmert concluded the Gaza cease-fire in November, Palestinians have kept up an incessant, daily barrage of rockets aimed at Sderot, Ashkelon and other Israeli towns and kibbutzim in southern Israel (At the start of the cease-fire, Abbas gave Olmert his personal guarantee that ALL Palestinian factions would desist from further Qassam attacks -- so much for Abbas as a reliable peace negotiator). Since Israel dismantled all its settlements and pulled out from Gaza in the summer of 2005, more than ONE THOUSAND rockets have been fired from Gaza, with some hitting their Israeli targets and all of them terrorizing local populations when sirens give only a few seconds notice of an incoming strike.
Yet, the Post has studiously abstained from reporting these grossly provocative and aggressive Palestinian actions. It is only when Israel, after demonstrating the kind of
forbearance and restraint that no other country would show under similar
circumstances, finally takes defensive actions that the Post shows any interest -- and then only to leave readers with the impression that Israel might be overreacting!
Leo Rennert
[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]
Saturday,
February 24, 2007
Washington Post Publishes On Page 2 AP Story About Jimmy Carter Speech Defending His Anti-Israel Book, But Crops Portions Of AP Story Detailing
Criticism Of Book
On Thursday, February 22, 2007 Jimmy Carter delivered a speech at Emory University in Georgia. He defended his book and himself against charges of anti-Israel bias. Carter has been doing that since the book's release almost 4 months ago, so there was nothing at all new or newsworthy in this speech. However, for the Washington Post it was an opportunity to slam Israel by publishing on page 2 of the print edition an account of the speech that was limited from top to bottom to Carter's contentions and was devoid of any reference to the many critics of the book and the bases of their criticism.
(Carter Says Book's Critics Should See Territories, 2-23-07, A02) That the Post would even feature such a story on page 2 of the print edition, after the controversy over Carter's book had already peaked and declined, is itself revelatory of the Post's anti-Israel agenda. But the Post did not just seize an opportunity to prominently display an already pro-Carter article. The AP story was balanced until the Post's editors got their hands on it. The Post, in pursuit of its activist anti-Israel agenda, culled out paragraphs from the original AP story that set forth some of the critics and criticisms of Carter and his book. The untrimmed version of the AP story can be viewed here:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/16763325.htm.
The Post eliminated from the AP story facts that would have caused readers to question Carter's fairness and objectivity. For instance, the Post eliminated the following from the AP story:
-
that Carter declined to debate former Mideast Envoy Dennis Ross;
-
that 11 Emory University faculty members wrote a letter of protest over the Carter
appearance;
-
that Carter previously refused to debate Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis University;
-
that Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center's first executive director and founder of its Middle East program, resigned from the Carter Center, saying Carter's book was one-sided and filled with
errors;
-
that 14 members of an advisory board of the Carter Center also resigned in protest over the
book;
-
that 25 students in the Emory auditorium wore black T-shirts that said
"What's Jimmy Afraid Of?"
-
that students in the audience stated that Carter still dodged the issue of having a debate on his book, and one student was quoted
as saying "'He still refuses to debate a book written without footnotes and without citing any research other than his
own.'"
This wire service article
appears to have been too honest, balanced and accurate for the
likes of the Washington Post. Unfortunately, Washington Post readers were, once again, treated to another dose of the Post's agenda based journalism. We have no way of knowing if this type of deliberate
pruning of context in order to propagandize against Israel is the handiwork of one or two editors or the entire staff, but if the Post wants to staunch the outflow of its reputation as a quality news source, some action from upper management would work wonders.
Sunday,
February 11, 2007
Post Publishes Biased Front Page Article
Critical of Israel for Financing Jews (Who the Post Calls
Settlers) In Purchasing Homes (Which Post Calls Altering The
Skyline) In Arab Quarter Of Old City, But Conceals Deep In Article Crucial Facts That There Was No Judenrein Arab Quarter prior to 1949 And That Thousands Of Jews Were Expelled From The Arab Quarter By Jordan At The End Of The War Of Independence
Scott Wilson, in carrying out the Washington Post's anti-Israel political agenda, has again crafted a distorted, out of context and historically deficient swipe at Israel.
(Jewish Inroads in Muslim Quarter, Settlers' Project to Alter Skyline of Jerusalem's Old City, 2-11-07, page A01) In an article reserved by the Post for a day and page where it would do the most damage to Israel's image, the front page of Sunday's print edition, Mr. Wilson slams Israel for financing projects to build homes and a synagogue in the Arab quarter of the Old City, turning a blind eye to the history and demographics of the Old City prior to it having been violently altered by Arabs at the time of the Israeli War of Independence. For Wilson, the history of the region didn't begin until Israel took control of the Old City in 1967, after it was attacked by Jordan. However, as he always does, Mr. Wilson tries to hide the fact that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and describes it simply as:
"Israel seized the Old City, the adjacent valley known as the Holy Basin and the rest of East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war, later annexing them."
The article is huge. It continues from the front page into an entire interior page with a large, blaring
headline saying:
"CONFLICT OVER JEWISH ALTERATION OF ARAB JERUSALEM."
Prior to 1949 thousands of Jews lived in the Arab quarter of the Old City, but they were expelled by Arabs when Jordan captured it in the War of Independence. Prior to 1949 there was no clearly identified and Jew-free Arab Quarter. Indeed, Jews made up a majority of the entire population of the Old City as early as the 1844 census. Following the War of Independence Jordan ransacked 57 synagogues in the Old City, destroying 12 of them. Jewish gravestones were used as paving for Arab roads. Wilson conceals these facts deep in the article so that he can early in the article accuse Israelis of what he calls an
"accelerated campaign...to change the ethnic and physical character of this city's oldest Arab neighborhoods." The conduct being criticized by Wilson is the voluntary sale by Arabs and the voluntary purchase by Jews of land and homes, which Mr. Wilson sees as a nefarious plot that shouldn't be allowed. Twenty apartments are to be built - not apartment buildings, but individual apartments that Jewish people will live in. In addition, one synagogue will be built. Not the 57 that were ransacked and/or destroyed by Arabs following the War of Independence, but one.
At the heart of Mr. Wilson's condemnation is the racist notion that Jews shouldn't live among Arabs, and Arabs shouldn't sell their homes to Jews. In staking out this racist position, Mr. Wilson and the Washington Post would impose upon Israel the continuation of an unwise apartheid separation created by Jew-hating Arabs when they attacked the nascent Jewish state. Mr. Wilson sees charm in the
"ethnic and physical character" of a Judenrein Arab quarter. He subtly argues for exclusive Arab entitlement by furtively injecting comments about Arab roots into his story whenever possible. He tells the reader that an Arab neighbor to the proposed Jewish apartment building was
"born 63 years ago in the house he inherited from his father." At another point he notes that the synagogue would be built above
"the thick stone walls of a 600-year-old Arab neighborhood" - without mentioning
that a Jewish neighborhood might lie below the 600 year old Arab walls. And at another point he goes out of the way to note that
"Adnan Husseini, the Jerusalem director of the Waqf, the Islamic land trust that has authority over the al-Aqsa mosque complex, traces his Palestinian family's Jerusalem roots back 800 years." The only relevance of any of this information about Arab roots is to support Mr. Wilson's deceptive argument for Arab entitlement. Needless to say, he scrupulously avoids any mention of the more deeply embedded Jewish roots throughout the Old City.
One wonders what this Israel baiting reporter would say if Israel sought to keep Arabs from buying homes in Jewish neighborhoods in order to preserve what Wilson calls the
"ethnic and physical character" of these neighborhoods.
The following reader letters by Leo Rennert, Adam Glantz and
Emily Rose further expose Mr. Wilson and the Post's hatchet job for what it is.
From: Leo Rennert
To: Scott Wilson and Editors and Publishers of The Washington Post
Date: February 11, 2007
Subject: Washington Post Falsifies Ancient And Recent Jewish History Of Jerusalem
Your efforts -- and those of the Washington Post -- to paint Israel in the darkest possible colors reached a new peak with your tendentious article about Israel's supposed threat to the Old City of Jerusalem's character and skyline. By picking out tiny bits of history that suit your anti-Israel agenda and ignoring far more important ones -- an exercise in historical cherry-picking and revisionism if there ever was one -- you ignore, minimize and deny continuous Jewish roots in Jerusalem's Old City that stretch back more than a couple of millennia, so as to make it appear that Muslims are its rightful possessors.
Let's start with the inflammatory headlines splashed on the front page and the jump page, for which you bear at least partial responsibility, since they clearly reflect what you wrote:
"Jewish Inroads in Muslim Quarter -- Settlers's Project to Alter Skyline of Jerusalem's Old
City"
and on the jump page:
"CONFLICT OVER JEWISH ALTERATION OF ARAB
JERUSALEM."
Given Jerusalem's history, I find the term SETTLERS as applied to Jewish families buying a few parcels of land in the Old City not just misleading, but simply odious. And JEWISH ALTERATION OF ARAB JERUSALEM is a slanderous and hostile attack on Jews whom you and the Post malign as intrusive outsiders trying to dislodge Arab natives.
Complete historical context suggests exactly the opposite of what you wrote. If any group has the deepest roots in Jerusalem, it's Jews. And, as recently as the 20th Century the salient pattern was ARAB ALTERATION OF JEWISH JERUSALEM -- the exact opposite of the import of your story and headline. And that ARAB ALTERATION still is reflected today in the skyline and demographics of the Old City.
Before going into specific criticisms of your piece, let me stress that I have no problem with you, the Post, or anyone else writing about a controversy involving the purchase of Muslim-owned land parcels by Jews in the Old City -- as long as you provide some fair, comprehensive and accurate context. As long as you get the Old City's history right, especially since you're stretching to portray a fairly miniscule real estate transaction as emblematic of something far bigger and graver -- trying to make Post readers believe that Jews are taking over Jerusalem! (If that were the case, it still would be like Catholics taking over the Vatican).
Your first and most grievous historical error is to use as the basic timeline for your article the day before the 1967 war when Israel -- after vainly pleading with Jordan not to attack -- captured East Jerusalem, including the Old City. That's when you freeze the Old City's history as if its physical and demographic character during the Jordanian occupation (1949-1967) constitutes its genuine, authentic and immutable identity.
Why do you pick 1949-1967, without telling readers the vast Jordanian transformation of the Old City during this period? Because Jordan made the Old City during that period JUDENREIN. Your selective time frame is the one time in more than 2,000 years when there were no Jews in the Old City. So any change from that becomes a JEWISH ALTERATION. The brief JUDENREIN interlude in the long history of the Old City is your preferred frame of reference.
Never mind that Jews were a continuous presence in Jerusalem for more than two millennia before 1949. Never mind that from the 1840s until the 1940s, Jews were the predominant group in Jerusalem, including the Old City. That doesn't count with you and the Post.
Never mind that, during its occupation of the Old City, Jordan expelled
THOUSANDS of Jews from the Old City whose families had lived there for centuries. Never mind that from 1949 to 1967, Jews were not permitted to pray at their holiest shrine, the Western Wall. That doesn't figure in your equation.
Never mind that during the Jordanian occupation, hundreds of ancient Jewish graves on the Mt. of Olives were destroyed and used for pavement and latrines in Jordanian military camps. Never mind that more than 50 synagogues were destroyed or ruined -- not just a pair of synagogues that you incidentally mention way down in your story. Never mind that some of these synagogues were used by the Jordanians as stables and chicken coops.
If you were to rely on real, not ultra-selective, history, the JEWISH ALTERATION OF ARAB JERUSALEM headline would strike readers as a gross historical libel.
Contrast for a moment Jordan's behavior (1949-1967) with Israel's behavior (since 1967) in the Old City. Adherents of all three monotheistic religions today are free to worship at their shrines (Christians are not barred from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher or Muslims from Al-Aqsa Mosque). Jews, by your own count, remain a small minority in the Old City -- no brutal ethnic cleansing a la Jordanian performance 1949-1967. Palestinian merchants prosper along the souk.
By no stretch of the imagination has Israel for the last 40 years when it has controlled the Old City restored it back to its pre-1967 character and skyline.
But all this is ignored by you and the Post as you manufacture a fictitious threat to a fictitious Arab right to the Old City out of a controversy involving a change in ownership of a few parcels of land. And if a synagogue were to be built on one of these parcels, that still would leave more than 50 other destroyed synagogues that haven't been brought back to life.
So I ask you and the Post: In the full light of Jerusalem's entire history, ancient and modern, which group -- Arab or Jewish -- bears responsibility for the biggest ALTERATION of the Old City's character and skyline?
You and the Post have it exactly wrong: You've stood history on its head.
Leo Rennert
[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]
From: Adam S. Glantz
To: Editors of The Washington Post
Date: February 11, 2007
Dear Editor,
I'm troubled by the timing and tone of Scott Wilson's article on Jerusalem. At a time of tension over the mere restoration of a damaged walkway, why would you splash the provocative words "Jewish Inroads in Muslim Quarter" on page 1 of your Sunday edition? Is the Post going out of its way to make an inflammatory situation even worse?
I'm also disturbed by the lack of context in this would-be expose of Israeli designs on the Old City. This doesn't mean I dispute Wilson's facts. But the way they are related is akin to an understated conspiracy theory. The cocktail of Ateret
Cohanim Yeshiva, Jewish settlers, Israeli money, the boycott of the Hamas Government mix together into a sinister subtext.
As an alternative, let's look at the facts. Much of the money pouring into Jerusalem is earmarked for Islamic shrines. The Haram ash-Sharif got a new mosque in 1996, a restored minbar this year, and will soon have a fifth minaret, thanks to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And Jewish sites? Hurva Synagogue was destroyed sixty years ago by Arab troops and the Western Wall plaza was a slum until Israel was able to restore it in 1967. If there's a plot against the Old City, it seems to be an attempt to destroy or preempt any visible Jewish presence in what is a multi-confessional city. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adam S. Glantz
From: Emily Rose
To: Editors, The Washington Post
Date: February 11, 2007
One thing that can be said for Mr. Wilson...he is consistent. No matter what topic he writes about, he blames Israel, the Jews or both. Comparing Israel to South African apartheid is absurd. Jimmy Carter was a moral man, who wrote an immoral book. As far as Mr. Wilson's article is concerned, it amazes me how he connects the Flower's Gate project to the Mugrabi Gate bridge reconstruction. Instead of trying to dampen the Arab rioting, he inflames it:
Here are the facts:
The work carried out by Israeli professional authorities on the Mugrabi Gate is completely transparent, which is why the excavations are open to the press.
All activities are being carried out in a location that is under Israeli sovereignty in an area under the responsibility of the Jerusalem municipality and the Government of Israel.
The new bridge and the Mugrabi Ramp are located entirely outside of the Temple Mount complex and are not part of it.
The aim of this process is to replace the old ramp which collapsed due to natural causes. Building the new bridge will not harm any religious feelings and/or interests.
All operations are in cooperation with UN officials, Palestinian officials and other member of the international community and are completely transparent to them.
Shame on you Mr. Wilson, for continuing to flame the fires of violence against Jews and Israel.
Emily Rose
Saturday,
February 10, 2007
Post Reporter Files Slanted and Misleading Report on Arab Rioting at Temple Mount in Old City - Implies Israel May Have Started the Rioting - Implies Israel Is Jeopardizing Arab Holy Site - Fails to Report That the Site Is
At Least Equally As Holy To Jews - Fails to Report Arab Incitement Throughout the Middle East for Days Leading Up To The Rioting - Downplays Safety Concerns Prompting The Israeli Construction
The above summary describes the slanted report filed by Post reporter Scott Wilson on the Palestinian rioting on the Temple Mount on Friday.
(Palestinians Riot at Jerusalem Shrine,
Protests Also Erupt In Cairo, Elsewhere Over Israeli Digging, 2-10-07, A12)
Three readers' letters, one by Judge Herbert Grossman, one by Stephen
Silver and the third by Emily Rose discuss at length the problems with Mr. Wilson's report:
From: Judge Herbert Grossman
To: Scott Wilson and Editors of The Washington Post
Date: February 10, 2007
To the Editor:
In "Palestinians Riot at Jerusalem
Shrine" (news, Feb. 10), Scott Wilson has reached a new low in his reporting from the Middle East. He manages to make it appear that Palestinians hurled rocks in response to Israeli police pouring into the Temple Mount, rather than vice-versa as actually happened, and omits the critical, and clearly observable, fact that the Israeli excavation is hundreds of feet away from the mosques that Arabs claim might be damaged by the work, their fallacious rationale for instigating the violence, although he prominently repeats their bogus
claim.
In addition, he dredges up two similar, and also bogus, claims that Arabs used in the past to instigate religious violence against Israel, without disclosing their fabrications: Ariel Sharons's visit to the Temple Mount that he had actually cleared in advance with Muslim authorities; and a tunnel excavation also a considerable distance from Muslim holy structures that the Palestinians claimed would be damaged.
It would be bad enough if Wilson were just too lazy to measure the distance between excavation and mosques or research the bogus nature of the prior Arab justifications for jihadist violence, but he appears to have a political agenda that interferes with honest reporting. Can't The Post do better than that?
Sincerely,
Judge Herbert Grossman
[Herbert Grossman, author of the book "J'Accuse
the N.Y. Times and Washington Post: Biased Reporting from the
Middle East," is a full time Federal Administrative Law
Judge]
To: Scott Wilson and Editors of The Washington Post
From: Stephen Silver
Date: February 10, 2007
Dear Mr. Wilson,
I know you sincerely mean well, but there are so many things wrong with your article
"Palestinians Riot at Jerusalem
Shrine" (Feb. 10) that it is difficult to know where to begin. Here's a "Top 13" list of examples of either misstatements or inadvertent suggestions of bias in your article:
(1) The article fails to state the actual distance between the construction work Israel is performing and the Muslim shrines, implying Israel's work is much closer to the shrines than it is;
(2) The article states that the 1996 riots began over the opening of a tunnel, when in fact Israel merely opened an entrance to an already-existing archaeological tunnel;
(3) The article fails to note that the 1996 riots spread because Arafat and other Arab leaders intentionally stirred up passions by publicly claiming that Israel was digging UNDER the Muslim shrines -- a claim that was false and which they knew to be false;
(4) The article gives primacy to the "Haram al-Sharif"'s status as one of the most revered Muslim holy sites over its much later references to the site's status as the most important site to Jews;
(5) The article refers to Israel "seizing" the Old City from Jordan in 1967, when in fact Israel did not initiate the conflict with Jordan -- it was Jordan that initiated the Israel-Jordan front in the Six-Day War by bombing Israeli West Jerusalem, including firing missiles at Israel's Knesset (parliament) Building, Israel's Prime Minister's residence and various Israeli civilians in communities as far west as the outskirts of Tel Aviv, all before Israel had fired a single shot against Jordan or sent a single troop across the border into Jordanian-held East Jerusalem;
(6) Nor does the article mention that when Jordan besieged and captured the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem in 1948, it ethnically cleansed the city of all of its Jews, destroyed all but two of its ancient synagogues, used ancient Jewish
grave markers to make roads and latrines, and thereafter barred Jews from setting foot anywhere near the Western Wall or Temple Mount until Israel recaptured them in 1967;
(7) The article does not include any mention by anyone of the fact that Israel's actions will have NO effect on the physical condition of the Muslim shrines until the 10th paragraph;
(8) By contrast, in the article's 7th paragraph, it includes a false and inflammatory quote by an Arab individual with no actual knowledge of Israel's archaeological work who says:
"I think they want to change the view of the al-Aqsa mosque so when anyone looks at it from the outside they will see only Jewish tradition."
(9) By contrast, the article makes no mention of the very real and very damaging digging under the Temple Mount by the Muslim Waqf that has caused severe damage to the site, including a bulge in the wall of the Temple Mount itself that many fear could presage a collapse of the site (which the Waqf will then doubtless blame on Israel);
(10) The article does not note that while the Waqf has conducted very damaging construction work right at the holiest site in Jerusalem, Israelis have not rioted or attacked Arabs over the Waqf's actions;
(11) The article blames Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount for the Second Intifada, ignoring the fact that Arafat's close aide Imad al-Faluji admitted long ago that
"The Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations,"
and that the Sharon visit was merely used as a pretext for initiating the riots;
(12) The article fails to mention that Israel has given the Muslim Waqf de facto sovereignty over the site since Israel first captured it in 1967, including complete religious autonomy.
(13) The article did not mention that Israel is considering providing online 24-hour surveillance of the construction activities so as to assure Arabs that they can monitor the fact that Israel's construction activities are nowhere near the Muslim shrines and will not damage them.
Please consider these concerns in writing future articles on the subject.
Stephen Silver
Saturday,
February 3, 2007
Post's Scott Wilson Finally Covers Palestinian on Palestinian Violence - Leaves Out Up Close And Personal Profiles of Palestinian Victims That He Includes In Reports on Israeli-Palestinian Violence - Continues Refusal to Report That Hamas Seeks the Destruction of Israel - Post's Glen Kessler On Same Page Says Hamas's Goal is to Destroy Israel
Hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including
women and children, are being injured and killed by the
internecine warfare now taking place between the Palestinian
terrorist groups. For months EyeOnThePost and other critics of the Post's anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian slant have,
in a steady stream of letters to Post editors at all levels, complained that the Post and its reporter stationed in Israel, Scott Wilson, are failing to provide adequate coverage of this Palestinian on Palestinian violence. Today, Mr. Wilson finally provided an adequate report on the Gaza fighting, albeit from Jerusalem and lacking any of the up close and personal emotion that he injects into his reports about Palestinian injuries and deaths
sustained in fighting with Israel.
(18 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Fighting, Violence Among the Worst of Year-Long Struggle Between Fatah and Hamas Movements, 2-3-07, A10) In fact, although Mr. Wilson notes in the opening paragraph of his article that two Palestinian children were among the 18 dead in internecine fighting yesterday, the reader would have to wait until the very last sentence of the entire article to learn that the two Palestinian children killed were 5 and 7 years old. Does anyone recall Mr. Wilson saving such information for the end of any article he has ever written about Palestinian deaths as a result of Israeli military action? Mr. Wilson typically races to Gaza and interviews family and friends of the children and their families in order to report intimate details that will tug at the heart strings of readers. And Mr. Wilson's editors typically search for and publish photographs of wailing parents or bodies being held aloft in funeral processions.
However, the sympathy Post reporters and editors routinely
convey for Palestinian suffering is reserved for suffering
they blame on Israel. The reader can judge whether this
sympathy is genuine or merely a cynical effort to turn public
opinion against Israel.
Despite many complaints to the Post and Scott Wilson directly about his definition of Hamas, Mr. Wilson's soft pedaling of Hamas's image continues. He often describes Hamas simply as an organization that refuses to recognize Israel, leaving out any reference to Hamas's admitted
goal to violently destroy Israel.
It would be instructive to compare 2 descriptions of Hamas on the same page of the Post's
print edition today. Here's Mr. Wilson's description:
"Hamas, a radical Islamic movement that does not recognize Israel's right to exist, deposed Fatah in January 2006 parliamentary elections that were supported by Israel and the United States."
Here's a description by the Post's Glen Kessler from an article
(Russia Clashes With U.S. on Mideast Policy, Official Urges Role for Syria And End of Hamas Isolation, 2-3-07, A10) directly beneath the Wilson article:
"The United States has led an international boycott of the Hamas-led government in an effort to persuade it to abandon its pledge to seek the destruction of Israel."
Post editors, in safeguarding the right of Post readers to be fully informed,
should discourage Mr. Wilson's agenda driven refusal to report the whole truth about Hamas.
Saturday,
January 27, 2007
Washington Post Continues Support Of Terrorist Organizations - Post Reporter Ridicules President Bush for Calling Hezbollah A Terrorist Organization - Says Hezbollah Has "Evolved" And Is Now Just An "Anti-Israeli Militant Organization"
According to Washington Post reporter Glen Kessler, President Bush isn't giving Hezbollah the respect it deserves.
(President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed, 1-24-07, A13) A group known to be responsible for multiple bombings, kidnappings, hijackings and murders, including attacks on a US embassy (17 dead), Marine barracks (241 Americans killed), and the
1992
and 1994 car bombings of the
Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center
in Buenos Aires (124 dead between the two bombings) has, in Mr. Kessler's estimation,
"evolved." Now, Mr. Kessler says, it's just an "anti-Israeli militant
organization:"
"Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization."
Note Mr. Kessler's use of the phrase "nearly
a quarter-century ago" to advance his opinion that
Hezbollah has been rehabilitated. He even seeks to justify
Hezbollah's US embassy bombing and bombing of the Marine
barracks by blaming the United States for bringing on the
attacks when it "intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah
strongholds." What Mr. Kessler mischaracterizes as "intervention"
by the US was actually the US's membership in the
Multinational Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon in which the US,
France, Italy and Britain sent troops to Lebanon in an effort
to bring about an end to the civil war. Mr. Kessler forgets to
mention that a French army barracks was also bombed by
Hezbollah 20 seconds after the US Marine Barracks, killing 58
French soldiers.
The car bombings of the Israeli Embassy and
the Jewish Cultural Center in Argentina were only 12 and 14
years ago, not a quarter century ago, so Mr. Kessler simply
ignores them. And he conveniently forgets to mention that this
past summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah was started by
the unprovoked cross border attack, kidnapping and killing by
Hezbollah of Israeli soldiers in Israel.
Mr. Kessler is quick to observe that the
European Union has not listed Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization, but he fails to inform readers that in a March 10, 2005 Resolution
(NOT "nearly a quarter-century ago") the European Parliament voted 473-33 to blacklist the entire Hezbollah organization as terrorist.
Should Post readers trust anything Washington Post reporters say when they
advance their agenda with nonsense such as this?
Saturday,
January 20, 2007
Post Reporter Writes About Palestinian Hummus Restaurant - Ladles On Propaganda and a Dollop of His Political Agenda
Scott Wilson, the Post's correspondent in Israel, spends little time these days traveling within Israel to report news. For events in Gaza and the West Bank he relies mostly on Palestinian stringers. Despite the steady stream of rockets the terrorists have been launching at the Israeli town of Sderot outside of Gaza, we cannot recall the last time Mr. Wilson showed any interest in taking the short drive to report live on the Israeli damage. Most of his time is spent interviewing and reporting the position of so-called "human rights" activists and serving in the role of propagandist for the Palestinians. This week Mr. Wilson wrote an entire article about a tiny Palestinian hummus restaurant on the edge of the Old City of Jerusalem. From top to bottom this article sought to depict Palestinians as the peaceful, humble, Godly, loving, laboring class of Israel.
(Its Decor Is Humble, Its Hummus First-Class, 1-18-07, A16) Lest any reade
We now accept
contributions by credit card, online. Click
here if you can help us.