MAY - JUNE, 2004
June 27, 2004
Israel Kills Six Terrorist Leaders in
Nablus and The Post's Headline Says Israel Kills Six
Palestinian Leaders (Israeli Raid Kills Six Palestinian Leaders,
Attack is One of Deadliest on Guerrillas, 6-27-04, A23)
Well, at least the sub-headline calls them guerrillas, so
we know Israel did not attack the PA's Legislative Council.
Someone At The Post Is Asleep At The
Wheel: It's bad enough that The Post didn't report
this story one week ago when it happened, but someone at
The Post needs to tell John Ward Anderson and his editor
at The Post that the PA has now admitted that Al Aksa
Martyrs Brigades is a mainstream part of Fatah, and not
just "an armed faction linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah political
movement" as The Post has been reporting for
years and as Anderson is still reporting today. (Israeli Raid Kills Six Palestinian Leaders,
Attack is One of Deadliest on Guerrillas, 6-27-04, A23).
PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, on Sunday, June 20, 2004, in an interview with the London-based Asharq
al-Awsat newspaper, said: " 'We have clearly declared that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades are part of
Fatah ....We are committed to them and Fatah bears full responsibility for the
group.' " (Fatah
Committed to Aksa Martyrs, Jerusalem Post, 6-20-04).
Could this be any clearer?
June 26, 2004
The Washington Post in
Are You Tired of Getting Only Half the News From Israel?
Here's The Half The Post Won't Report
The latest media
outlet to report on the success to date of the Israeli
security fence in reducing terrorism is the Washington
Times. "The Israeli army reports a sharp drop in fatalities from Palestinian terror attacks in the first half of this year, giving much of the credit to the partially completed West Bank security barrier."
(Mideast security barrier working,
6-25-04, Front Page) The Baltimore Sun, based on a
report from the New
York Times News Service, recently ran an article on
the same topic. (Israel Says It Has Foiled a Series of
Attacks, Baltimore Sun, 6-20-04) But The Post only gives
its readers half the news from the Middle East, so this
story didn't make the cut.
June 25, 2004
The Washington Post in
Are You Tired of Getting Only Half the News From Israel?
Here's The Half The Post Won't Report
Post failed to report the 407 to 9 vote of the US House
of Representatives strongly endorsing President Bush's April 14
letter to Prime Minister Sharon repudiating the
Palestinian claim to a so-called right of return and
affirming that the US considers a return to pre-1967
borders unrealistic. One can be sure that if the vote
had gone the other way, The Post would have given it
front page coverage. Click
Here for Story.
Post Refuses to Cite, Even Though Called To Their
The latest figures and breakdowns from the International Policy Institute for
Counter-Terrorism provide the following picture of Palestinian fatalities since the start of the intifada. All figures are from Sept. 27, 2000, to May 1, 2004:
TOTAL FIGURES (The only statistics ever mentioned by The
PALESTINIAN fatalities 2,806. ISRAELI fatalities 921.
WHAT THE POST NEVER REPORTS:
PALESTINIAN NON-COMBATANTS KILLED BY ISRAELI FORCES: 985 or 35 percent of the Palestinian fatality total.
ISRAELI NON-COMBATANTS KILLED BY PALESTINIANS: 715 or 78 percent of the Israeli fatality total.
In other words, on the Israeli side, 4 out of every 5 fatalities are non-combatants. On the Palestinian side, it's 1 out of every 3. This great disparity of a far greater Israeli casualty rate among innocent civilians is of course a direct result of the effects of Palestinian terrorism as contrasted with Israel's attempts to zero in on Palestinian gunmen, fighters and other assorted terrorists.
Here are two other breakdowns that show what happens when terrorists go after civilians in buses, cafes, discos, etc. in terms of the random demographic breakdown of the ensuing carnage:
PALESTINIAN FEMALE FATALITIES: 126 or 4 percent of the Palestinian total. ISRAELI FEMALE FATALITIES: 280 or 30 percent of the Israeli total. In other words, the rate of female casualties on the Israeli side is more than 7 TIMES AS HIGH as on the Palestinian side. In actual numbers, the fatality total of Israelis in this group is MORE THAN TWICE that on the Palestinian side -- 280 to 126.
PALESTINIAN NON-COMBATANT FATALITIES AMONG VICTIMS AGED 45 OR OLDER: 82 or 3 percent of the Palestinian total.
ISRAELI NON-COMBATANT FATALITIES AMONG VICTIMS AGED 45 OR OLDER: 226 or 24 percent of the Israeli total. In other words, the rate among older Israeli victims is 8 TIMES AS HIGH ON THE PALESTINIAN SIDE. In actual numbers, the fatality total of Israelis in this group is nearly 3 times as high as among Palestinians -- 226 to 82.
by Leo Rennert
Thursday, June 24,
Article About Exhibit of Photos Supposedly Showing
Abuse of Palestinians by Soldiers and Settlers Grossly
Exaggerates - Photos Don't Show Abuse
Post reporter Molly Moore returns from a several week absence with one of her characteristically biased anti-Israel articles about an exhibit of photographs by three IDF soldiers, allegedly showing abuse of Palestinians by Israeli troops and settlers in the West Bank. The words "abuse" and "mistreatment" are used in the headline and in the first seven paragraphs, without actually informing the reader of exactly what the photographs show.
('Breaking the Silence' on West Bank Abuse,
Israeli Soldiers' Exhibit Depicts Mistreatment of Palestinians by Troops, Settlers in Hebron,
6-24-04, A17) Then, well into the article, beyond where most readers will long since have stopped reading, we learn that the photos are relatively innocuous. Here are some examples:
a photo showing graffiti saying "Arabs to the Gas Chambers." Needless to say, the article doesn't mention Arab graffiti against Israelis, including swastikas, throughout Israel and the disputed territories.
soldiers lounging while what is claimed to be a 15 year old
stone-throwing Palestinian who has been arrested is sitting handcuffed and blindfolded. Of course, photographs can't reveal age, and this photo doesn't show what this Palestinian did to get arrested... not to mention that stones can kill and maim.
Palestinian children playing a game
holding sticks in which they pretend to be Israeli soldiers, while a real soldier stands by smiling. Seriously folks, this one is listed among the photos
supposedly showing "abuse" and "mistreatment," and Molly Moore, the author of this biased piece, calls this "one of the most arresting pictures."
But as obvious as it seems that the above photographs don't show
"mistreatment" or "abuse," it isn't until
the 18th paragraph that the author concedes that "[p]hotographs that appeared benign took on an ominous edge when organizers described the events preceding or following the snap of the shutter." Stated more plainly, she concedes that these photographs themselves don't reveal anything, and you have to believe what the 3 biased and politically motivated narrators tell you about the photos... and even then
their biased descriptions reveal only angry or spiteful behavior and cannot be said to
rise to the level of abuse and mistreatment. And lest we forget, as the author did, there is an abundance of equivalent conduct (not to mention terrorist activity) by Palestinians toward the Jewish residents of Hebron, where the photos were taken, and it wasn't mentioned anywhere in
this article. This is the type of shoddy journalism, created solely to vilify and defame Israel, that gives The Post the well earned reputation of having an anti-Israel bias.
Wednesday, June 23,
The Words "Terrorist" and
"Terrorism" are Fine When Needed to Criticize Bush
Administration for Underreporting 2003 Terrorism Rate, But
Off Limits In Articles Reporting Same Acts In Israel
We know that The Post, in articles reporting
on Palestinian terrorism in Israel, has a policy of refusal
to call the terrorists as such. We've previously shown that
The Post's unhesitating use of the terms
"terrorist" and "terrorism" when
referring to Saudi terrorists, Spanish terrorists, Turkish
terrorists and Indonesian terrorists creates a double
standard when reporting on Israel. Evidence of this double
standard continues to mount. Add to it the front page
article today reporting on the recent Bush administration
mistake in tabulating the 2003 rate of world terrorism. The
Post didn't hesitate to repeatedly use the words
"terrorist" and "terrorism" in both the
headline and body of the article in referring to an increase
in terrorist attacks throughout the world in 2003, including
a specific reference to Israel. (New 2003 Data: 625 Terrorism Deaths, Not 307,
6-23-04, A1). But anyone who read The Post's news
reports about those same terrorist attacks in Israel
throughout the year 2003 would not have seen them referred
to as terrorism.
Tuesday, June 22,
The Washington Post in
Are You Tired of Getting Only Half the News From Israel?
Here's The Half The Post Won't Report
After years of
media reports describing only a loose association
between the PA, Fatah and Al Aksa Martyr's Brigades, the
PA has now announced that Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades are
part of Fatah and that they accept full responsibility
for them. It will be interesting to see how The Post
describes Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades in future reports.
Here for Story.
Tanzim terrorist official and two other terrorists were
arrested Monday night at an Israeli checkpoint riding in
an ambulance, clearly illustrating why Israel must stop
and search ambulances.
Here for Story.
terrorist groups in Gaza, including Arafat's Fatah, tell
Egypt to butt out, exposing breach between the PA and
Here for Story.
United Nations held its first ever seminar on worldwide
anti-Semitism, and Koffi Annan, acknowledging an "alarming resurgence,"
called on U.N. bodies to adopt resolutions and investigate the ancient scourge.
What's most egregious about The Post's failure to report
this news is that their own web site published a Reuters
report on the event, but the paper edition was silent.
Here for Story.
Monday, June 21,
Post Fails to Report Anti-Semitic
Incitement by Saudi Leadership
Another savage, terrorist
beheading, this time in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi
leadership, rather than openly address and confront the true
cause of the terrorism, chooses instead to feed the flames
of the hatred responsible for that terrorism by claiming
Zionists are behind it. Crown Prince Abdullah went on Saudi
television on the 19th, and told his people the following:
"Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened."
The Post failed to report
this statement. It echoes similar statements by the Saudi
leadership within the past two weeks. There is only one way the Saudi leadership will ever stop its support of Islamic extremism and its incitement of Arab hatred toward Israel, and that is if world opinion refuses to tolerate and accept
it. This cannot happen if The Post continues to fail to report
on the Saudi incitement.
Sunday, June 20,
Israel Targets Terrorist Rocket
Factories for Destruction and The Washington Post Calls Them
"Empty Metal Workshops"
On Friday and Saturday, June 19 and 20, 2004
Israel launched helicopter attacks on buildings in
Gaza housing Kassam rocket factories, firing missiles into
the buildings. This occurred after Hamas on Friday launched
what the Israeli press calls an "advanced" Kassam
rocket into the backyard of a home in the Israeli town of
Sderot, doing some damage to the home and sending a family
member to the hospital for treatment for shock.
How does the Post report the Israeli effort
to destroy these factories? It reports that Israel is firing
missiles into "empty metal workshops." While The
Post does note as an afterthought that Israel contends the
"empty metal workshops" are being used to make
weapons... not rockets, but merely "weapons," at
the same time it fails to report the Hamas rocket strike
Friday on Sderot, which would have placed the Israeli
strikes in context.. (World
in Brief, 6-20-04, A22)
Question 1: What makes an empty metal
workshop "empty?" Does it become "empty"
when the terrorists go home from work for the day or night)?
Question 2: Why would Israel waste time and
resources shooting missiles into nothing more than
"empty metal workshops?"
Wednesday, June 16,
Post Tries to Smear Israel With Front
Page Article Tying Israel's Treatment of Palestinian
Prisoners To Abu Ghraib
There is much that is malicious and misleading about The Post's front page article on what The Post wants its readers to believe is Israeli torture of Palestinian prisoners.
(Prison Tactics A Longtime Dilemma For Israel, Nation Faced Issues Similar to Abu
Ghraib, June 16, 2004, A1)
Front page placement itself was inappropriate. Israel has not been faced with a torture scandal, and although
this piece is disguised as a feature article discussing Israeli handling of the issue of treatment of prisoners,
it is a fairly blatant effort by The Post to smear Israel by tying it to Abu Ghraib. The Post has been criticized heavily for excessive and sensationalistic coverage of the Abu Ghraib issue, and now, rather than let that issue move off the front page, The Post kills two birds with one stone by tying Israel to it and at the same time keeping the issue front and center.
The selection of interior photos with misleading captions was improper. The use of a large photo of a Palestinian paraplegic in a wheelchair with a caption saying "Palestinian Anan Labadeh, 31, a paraplegic, says he was abused in prison," implied that he was put in the wheelchair as a result of prison abuse by Israelis. In fact, as the article reveals to the careful reader, he became a paraplegic 15-20 years ago when he fell off a balcony during a
chase. The article further reveals that his imprisonment last year in Israel involved terrorist activities in which he was believed to have helped set up bomb factories in Nablus,
and the extent of his abuse allegations against Israel in
connection with that imprisonment is that they deprived him
of food and sleep. But the Post knows that the photo will,
unfortunately, have by far the greatest effect on most of
The little Palestinian girl brandishing symbolic chains is, in the caption of the photo, said to be protesting Israeli detentions, but in reality, it would be a good bet that this is a file photo of a little girl at a more general protest of what Palestinians call the Israeli occupation.
Finally, it was a bit too pat that the first two sentences of the article, relying on the word of a terrorist without other substantiating evidence, attempted to draw a direct parallel to all of the features of the US-Abu Ghraib scandal, complete with a claim of "casual beatings ... humiliations ... [and] trophy photos taken by both male and female guards." The same informant, however, in the very next breath, backs off those exaggerated claims by noting that what the Israelis did to him was distinguishable from what the Americans did at Abu Ghraib, was much more sophisticated and consisted of "three days without food and without sleep." By contradicting himself, this informant bore the indicia of his own unreliability as a source, and it was irresponsible for
The Post's reporter to knowingly quote exaggerations and unsubstantiated allegations from an unreliable source.
This is one more example of The Washington Post engaging in unethical and unfair reporting
in a deliberate effort to taint Israel in the minds of its
Sunday, June 13,
Post's Glen Frankel Ignores 55 Year
History of Arab Attacks Against Israel as a Contributing
Cause of Israel's State of Perpetual Emergency
Dear Mr. Frankel:
I must tell you that I was very disappointed in your article in Outlook on 6-13-04.
[The Crisis Without End,
Israel's Perpetual Emergency Has Become a Political Tool,
6-13-04, Outlook, B1] Some have said that your reporting is an improvement in terms of fairness and insight over the other Post reporters stationed in Israel. One would never know it from this article. It was disappointing for a number of reasons.
First, I think both the headline and thesis expressed by you in the opening three paragraphs to the effect that some politicians in Israel are thriving on perpetuating a crisis or emergency situation were designed to give the impression to the reader that Israel and Israeli politicians are, in large part, responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although there is no doubt that there are hard liners on the Israeli side, your article ignores the historic role that Arab conventional and terrorist attacks have played in keeping Israel in a war like or emergency stance. Granted, you give lip service to an Arab contribution to this ongoing emergency posture of Israel when you say: "But a number of historical factors -- including the enduring hostility of Arabs to the idea of a Jewish homeland in their midst, five wars and the fevered messianic dreams of an influential minority of Israelis -- marred that original vision and transformed Israel into a besieged garrison state." Arabs have repeatedly declared war on Israel, yet you don't say so. Arab terrorists continue to attack Israeli civilians over and over again, yet you don't say so. "Enduring hostility" certainly doesn't say the Arab nations surrounding Israel attacked Israel, and it certainly doesn't note many years of terrorism directed not only at its civilian population in Israel, but all over the world. "Five wars" certainly doesn't say those wars were fought due to Arab aggression designed to destroy Israel. You soft-pedal Arab aggression and its contribution to the perpetual Israeli emergency mode ... indeed you don't even mention Arab aggression or violence. Yet in the same sentence you talk of the "fevered messianic dreams of an influential minority of Israelis." It's obvious you're referring to the settlers, but since you're discussing an emergency state that you explicitly note goes back to 1948, please tell us, your readers, where the "fevered messianic dreams" contributed to that emergency mode prior to 1967.
You continue to soft-pedal the contribution of Arab aggression to the Israeli crisis mentality by not mentioning in your brief historical account of the history of Oslo Arafat's rejection of a peace agreement that would have created a Palestinian state and his return to violence following Camp David in 2000. You note, almost casually, the breakdown of Oslo by stating: "...when it all went wrong, both sides were sucked
back into the whirlpool." When it all went wrong?!! Is that a quaint way of saying "when Arafat rejected Israel's offer of a genuine peace, started another intifada, released terrorists from Palestinian jails and launched a barrage of terror attacks
Oh, excuse me. I forgot we must not use the word "terrorist" or any of its derivatives. I note your lengthy article doesn't use any of those words even one time, though it's hard to understand how any in depth treatment of the subject you sought to evaluate, Israel's perpetual emergency mode and what or who is responsible for it, could possibly avoid mentioning terrorism. While we're at it, you didn't use the words "bomb," "bombing," "suicide," "shooting," "killing," or even "violence." I guess that's because you're not willing to concede that Arab hostility and violence toward Israel historically have kept Israel in this emergency mode. And it's not as though your article doesn't deal with the subject of violence at all, because we do find in your discussion of the "dispirited" IDF the phrase "muscle-bound riot cop meting out rubber bullets and beatings to rebellious Palestinian youths." "Rebellious youths" was a nice touch too. The rebellious youth that I have living here in my house ignores curfew and pretends not to hear me when I tell him to clean up his room. He doesn't throw fire bombs. But I guess things are different over there.
You use buzz words and phrases in asserting that the state of emergency has "ground down" the Israeli political system and that Likud and Labor are "crumbling," all to give the reader the impression of decay, dissent and disfunction in Israel, but all you can offer in support is an analysis of political changes in the parties and in the personalities representing those parties, and one could certainly just as well point to those changes as reflecting the vitality, flexibility and fluidity of Israel's political system as anything else.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, is that after the one-sided headline and theme are set forth asserting that Israelis are using the perpetual state of emergency as a political tool and somehow profiting, you seemingly abandon your thesis and never tell us who they are or how they're benefiting. Who are they? You seem to concede that Ariel Sharon is not among them, because you note that he is fighting with his cabinet in seeking to remove Israelis from Gaza. Peres is an advocate of peace, so I doubt you would contend he's seeking to perpetuate an emergency mode. Who are you talking about? The settlers and the politicians who support them? If that's what you mean, why not just say so? Is it because the backdrop of your thesis is that Israel has been on this war footing since the War of Independence, and the West Bank settlers have only been influential in more modern times? That would leave at least the first 20 years of the perpetual emergency state unexplained. Then you might have to place the blame squarely where it belongs, on Arab aggression designed to destroy Israel.
Think about this for a moment. How could anyone write a credible article about Israel's perpetual emergency posture without once mentioning 55 years of constant Arab declarations of an intention to drive Israel into the sea, without once mentioning four wars started against Israel by Arab countries surrounding it in its first 25 years of existence and without once mentioning a constant stream of terrorism directed against its civilian population? How could you?
Robert G. Samet
Friday, June 11, 2004
Post's Continuing Refusal to Call
Terrorist Groups "Terrorists" and Its Selective
Sanitization of Terrorist Groups in Articles Mentioning
We noted and gave
examples in an earlier "Media Alert" of how
The Post will not, in the context of any mention of Israel,
call Hamas a terrorist organization. When Israel isn't
mentioned, The Post enthusiastically calls Hamas a terrorist
organization. Yesterday, in a front page article about the
prosecution of an American Moslem, Abdurahman Alamoudi, for
smuggling cash, The Post reports that when Alamoudi was
first arrested, authorities thought the cash was
destined for Hamas, who The Post then gently describes as
"the Palestinian group ... that sponsors suicide bombings against
Israelis." (Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ruler Detailed,
Libyan Leader Behind It, Detainee Says, 6-11-04, A1)
Sponsors? Hamas doesn't just
"sponsor" suicide bombings or even
terrorism. A sponsor is defined as "one that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group"
or "one who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation."
Hamas directly conducts terrorism through its own terrorist
operatives. Furthermore, Hamas' terrorist activities are not
limited to just suicide bombings, but include
shootings, missile attacks and any other means available for
killing innocent civilians. The Post's selective
sanitization of Hamas only when Israel is mentioned is a
shameful example of The Post's continuing double standard
applied to Israel.
Wednesday, June 9, 2004
Slanted News Report Expresses Post Criticism of Israel
The Decision to Withdraw From Erez Industrial Zone in Gaza
There are numerous unethical journalistic
techniques for expressing a publication's opinion in a news
report without directly calling it an editorial. One of the
ways is for the author to find and liberally quote others
expressing the publication's opinion throughout the news
article. The Post frequently engages in that type of
unethical, opinionated and agenda driven reporting. In the
article today entitled "Israelis to Quit Gaza Industrial Zone,
Many Palestinians Will Lose Jobs at Border Site,"
6-9-04, A17 The Post, after years of cheering the
Palestinian effort to drive Israel out of Gaza, does
an about face and editorializes against Israel's decision to
evacuate the Erez industrial zone. It does this by first highlighting
in the headline and opening paragraph the loss of
Palestinian jobs and by then going on to liberally sprinkle
throughout the article quotes from Palestinians and Israelis
willing to assert that the decision was precipitous, unwise,
or not well thought out. The article even contains an
unsupported opinion that Israel's decision was motivated by
a desire to punish the Palestinians. Despite noting that
Israel cites as its reason security concerns and failing
businesses in the zone, and even after noting that 11
Israelis have been killed since November, 2001 and that "Palestinians and Israelis alike have said the security situation was intolerable in the Erez zone,"
the article then provides a flood of criticism of Israel.
Here are some of the comments of the author of the article
and some of the quotes in the article used to express The
"Israeli analysts and Palestinian workers expressed surprise at the sudden decision"
" ' We were all shocked by this hasty
decision,' said Sami Abu Zarifa, an economic adviser to the Palestinian Authority"
"It is too easy to give up so quickly on such a huge project," said Yossi Beilin, a member of parliament
[This is an error. Yossi Beilin is no longer in the
Knesset] who heads the Economic Cooperation Foundation, through which he helped initiate the 1993 Oslo peace accords.
"Who's going to pay for this?" Beilin said.
"These people who become unemployed. These people
will become our enemies in no time. And we will pay,
"Palestinian workers... said the closure of the nearly 100 Israeli companies there would mean disaster for them"
" ' They are going to destroy thousands of Palestinian
families,' said Abu Musa, who owns a clothing factory. '
This is an unwise decision.' "
" ' There was supposed to have been continuity after the
withdrawal,' said Zarifa, the Palestinian Authority adviser.
'A special mechanism was going to be established to maintain the rights of workers and the rights of businesses for the benefit of all
"But Yosef Alpher, an Israeli strategic analyst, said the government's decision appeared to be motivated by something other than despair.
'At a certain level, it is punitive,' He added, "There is an attempt to release Israel of responsibility for the Palestinian population, which is nonsense, because as long as you control all the entries and exit points -- the land and air and sea -- even if there's no Israeli inside, you bear a certain responsibility for the welfare of people in there."
This is par for the course for The Post.
Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. The
last quote by the so-called "strategic analyst" is
the most noxious of all, because it is a virtual
announcement that Palestinians, with The Post cheering them
on through unethical, agenda-drive reporting, will hold
Israel responsible for the fate of the Palestinians no
matter what Israel does. That's the anti-Israel bias that so
permeates all of The Post's reporting.
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
Hypocrisy Continues In Its Refusal to Refer to
as "Terrorists" Only In Articles About Israel
In today's paper several articles refer to
Saudi terrorists as "terrorists," and there is
even an article referring to Hezbollah and Hamas as
"terrorist" organizations, but only in an article
devoid of any reference to Israel.
In "For Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda Threat Is Now Hitting Home,"
6-8-04, A18, the word "terrorist" is mentioned 3
times, and the word "terrorism" is mentioned once
in referring to the terrorists in Saudi Arabia who are
shooting and bombing innocent civilians. Why are they not
referred to as such in articles about Israel?
In "Pressure Builds on Key Pillar of Saudi Rule,"
6-8-04, A18, there is at least one reference to fighting the
"terrorists" in Saudi Arabia. Why are they not
referred to as such in articles about Israel?
Finally, on the front page in "Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism",
6-8-04, A1, we find a grand total of 11 references to
"terrorist" and "terrorists" and 4
references to "terrorism." And who exactly are the
"terrorist" groups this Washington Post report
says are being funded by cigarette smuggling? The article
itself says they are Hamas and Hezbollah. Why are Hamas and
Hezbollah not referred to as "terrorist" groups in
articles about Israel?
This refusal of the Post to call these exact
same groups "terrorist" groups when referring to
them in articles about Israel, while at the same time
unhesitatingly referring to them as such in articles not
directly involving events in Israel, is one of the clearest
examples of the differing treatment The Post gives to Israel
in all of its reporting. This is rank hypocrisy, plain and
simple. It is evidence of The Post's anti-Israel bias.
Sunday, June 6, 2004
Washington Post Hides the Fact that Anti-Semitic
Attack in Paris on
Yeshiva Student Was Probably Perpetrated by A
On Friday, June 4, in northern Paris a 17
year old Jewish student attending a local Jewish school was
attacked by a man who eye witnesses said yelled "Allahu Akbar!" before stabbing
the victim. Today The Post reported the incident but
deliberately attempted to sanitize the report of any
suggestion that the perpetrator was an Arab by changing the
Arabic "Allahu Akbar" to its English translation.
The Post's report stated: "A Jewish teenager was stabbed in the chest by a man crying,
'God is great,' officials said." (World
in Brief, Paris, 6-6-04, A23)
The truth was reported elsewhere, (Chirac Condemns Stabbing Of Yeshiva Student In Apparent
Anti-Semitic Attack, Haaretz, 6-6-04)(Jewish
Teen Stabbed by Muslim in Paris, Maariv, 6-7-04)(Yeshiva Student Stabbed In Paris,
Arutz Sheva, 6-6-04).
Does this not clearly demonstrate The Post's
willingness to twist the truth and hide facts in pursuit of
Saturday, June 5, 2004
Another Story Not Reported by The
Palestinian Efforts to
Shed Their Corrupt Leadership
100 lower level Palestinian security officers went on strike
in Gaza to protest what they said was rampant corruption
among senior Palestinian security officers. Some of these
senior officers were alleged to have placed their wives and children on the
payroll of the security services, already short on cash for
vehicles and weapons. (Palestinian
Security Officers on Strike in Gaza, Reuters, 6-3-04) The ability of the PA's
security services to take over upon an Israeli pullout from
Gaza is crucial to the future of peace efforts in the
region. The Post has often blamed Israel for weakening
the PA's security forces, but has never adequately reported
the PA leadership's own self-inflicted damage. It is clear
movements within the Palestinian rank and file protesting corruption
that is seriously weakening the PA's
security services should be encouraged and should be reported,
but it may be that The Post is loath to report any stories
that might draw the ire of Arafat and his high level PA
Friday, June 4, 2004
Two More Stories Not Reported by The Post -
One Favorable to Israel and
The Other Unfavorable to Palestinians
The Post is continuing its policy of silence when nothing negative can
be said about Israel and nothing positive can be said about the
Palestinians. How often have we all seen The Post report every little
comment that has a negative nuance toward Israel made by President
Bush, Secretary Powell or any other administration representative, even
unnamed ones? For two days now US administration representatives have
been making unfavorable comments about Yasser Arafat and positive
comments about Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan. The Post has
dealt with this news with stone cold silence.
Secretary of State Powell, in a television interview in France on June
2, called Yasser Arafat a disappointment and a hindrance to peace. He
called on the Palestinians to reform their leadership. In response to
the French interviewer prodding Secretary Powell to criticize Prime
Minister Sharon, Powell not only declined, but praised Sharon's Gaza
disengagement plan as a good start and an opportunity of which the
Palestinians ought to avail themselves. (Powell
Criticizes Arafat As A Problem, Hindrance To Peace Efforts, Associated
Arafat, Frankly, Has Been A Problem, Associated Press/Jerusalem Post,
The Washington Post didn't report Secretary Powell's negative comments
about the Palestinian leadership.
On the same day as Secretary Powell made his televised comments,
President Bush, in an Air Force Academy commencement ceremony, praised
Prime Minister Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, calling it a "historic
moment of opportunity" for the Palestinians that could "stimulate
progress toward peace." (Bush
Backs Gaza Withdrawal, Jerusalem Post, June 3, 2004
Although The Post provided a lengthy report on President Bush's Air
Force Academy speech, including its major themes of the current
situation in Iraq and the War on terrorism, as well as his passing
comments on such minutiae as last years Air Force Academy sexual harassment scandal,
The Post conspicuously said nothing of President Bush's comments during
the same speech favorable to Israel. (Bush
Addresses Air Force Grads, Speech Aims to Counter Criticism, Boost
Support for War on Terrorism, 6-3-04 A14
Are we surprised? Not at all. Perhaps there is an innocent explanation,
but it certainly appears that The Post is continuing a long standing
pattern of failing to report any news favorable to Israel or
unfavorable to the Palestinians.
Thursday, June 3, 2004
As predicted last night, The
Post upgraded and today published a lengthy story on Saudi efforts to
cut off funding by supposed charities to terrorist groups (To
Thwart Terrorism, Saudis Outline Controls on Charities,6-3-04 A16
but did not report the PLC's
(Palestinian Legislative Council) complicity with Palestinian
NGOs in refusing to pledge to cut off funding by these so called
charities of terrorist groups.
In its news reports on the recent terrorism
in Saudi Arabia we are now seeing the effect of The Post's
unsupportable policy of refusing to call terrorists terrorists. In an
effort to remain consistent with its ill advised policy of not
using the term "terrorist" in reports from Israel, The Post is
now calling Saudi terrorists "gunmen," "Islamic militants,"
"attackers," "bombers" ... anything other than "terrorists." They've
even borrowed from the lexicon of journalists in Iraq and have called
the Saudi terrorists "insurgents,
as in "[t]he Saudi government
has struggled to contain the insurgents." (10
Killed In Attack On Saudi Complex, Dozens of Foreign Hostages Said to
Be Freed in Raid, 5-30-04 A1
). Perhaps we'll next see The
Post calling members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah
"insurgents." Why not? In the past they've shamelessly referred to them
as "activists." But The Post's editors are hypocritical, because they,
themselves, in their editorials, don't hesitate to call the so-called
"insurgents" by what they really are, which are terrorists
Terrorism and Oil, 6-3-04, A18
). Even editorials cannot ethically
misrepresent facts, and what's good for the editors should be good for
the reporters ... and, ultimately, the readers. It's about time The
Post stopped steering clear of the truth in its news reporting.
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
Still More In the "News Not Reported By the
Post" Category: Two Stories
- Saudis Dissolve a Charity That Funnels Money to Terrorists -
Palestinian Legislative Council Backs Refusal of NGO's to Pledge
Non-Support of Terrorist Groups - Guess Which Story The Post Will Not
So predictable is The
Post's refusal to report any news that casts a negative light on
Palestinians, that occasionally we feel confident in predicting which
stories The Post won't cover.
On its web site tonight The Post is carrying a story about Saudi Arabia
dissolving a large charity that the US has accused of funneling
money to Al Qaeda. (Saudi
Charity to Be Dissolved, Washington Post, 6-2-04
). We assume this
story will be in tomorrow morning's paper. It is important for readers
of The Post to know who is working with us in the war against terrorism
and who is working against us.
But at the same time a story is being reported out of Israel tonight
that the PLC (Palestinian Legislative Council) is joining Palestinian
NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in supporting their refusal of a
US sponsored demand that they pledge to not transfer funds to terrorist
Rejects Us Anti-Terror Pledge, Jerusalem Post, 6-2-04
). Thirty (30)
such Palestinian groups have refused to commit to not fund the
terrorist organizations, and now the Palestinian Legislative Council is
supporting that refusal. Isn't this a story The Post should cover as
well? Wouldn't the two stories fit nicely together to show Washington
Post readers the opposition and support the US is encountering in
various Middle East venues in its effort to cut off terrorist funding?
Does anyone think The Post will cover the story casting a negative
light on the Palestinians?
Monday, May 31, 2004
Another One for the "News Not Reported by
The Post" file: The Post Fails To Report UN Ambulances Transporting
Healthy Terrorist Fighters During Battle
We previously noted how quick The Post always is to report that
ambulances transporting sick and wounded Palestinians are slowed by
Israeli inspections but never adequately reports the reasons for these
inspections. Only a week ago we noted that The Post failed to report Israel uncovering
and making arrests in connection with a ring of fake ambulances
outfitted with fake patients being used to ferry Palestinians through
checkpoints into Israel. Now we learn The Post failed to report
positive proof uncovered in Rafah of UN ambulances being used to ferry
terrorists during battle. Video Footage by Reuters of Palestinian
gunmen boarding a UN ambulance can be seen by clicking
[Windows Media format - 2.9 megabytes]. The incestuous
relationship between the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency (UNWRA) and Palestinian terrorists has long been a
strong objection of Israel, but The Post has failed to report it. This
was a news story that should have been covered, not just because it
clearly explains why Israeli forces must inspect Palestinian
ambulances, but also because it illustrates the degree of intimacy
between the UN's representatives in Israel and the disputed territories
and Palestinian militants.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Another One for the "News Not Reported by
The Post" file: The Post Fails To Report Palestinian Human Rights
Group's Issuance of Report About Palestinian Torture and Abuse of Other
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
As noted by one of our bloggers
world's press, including The Washington Post, is ignoring a human
report about torture and abuse of Palestinians at the hands of Yasser
Arafat's Palestinian Authority. The report includes episodes of torture
of Palestinian prisoners by the PA and shooting of innocent Palestinian
bystanders by the PA and its henchmen, events the press loves to report
when the US or Israel is alleged to be at fault. Not only is the press
ignoring this report, but the group issuing the report, the
Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG), long a critic
of Israel, is losing its funding by the EU, because the EU, with its
anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian agenda, doesn't want
anyone to report anything negative about the Palestinian Authority.
Details of the story were reported by a Scottish publication, but
everyone else is silent. (Arafat
at Heart of Rights Abuse Report, The Scotsman, 5-15-04
Post Publishes Lengthy Article on Death of Teenager in Gaza While
Ignoring 2 Stories Showing PA Aiding Terrorism - Post Continues to
Exaggerate in a Manner Reminiscent of Jenin
lengthy article today was devoted exclusively to the death and mourning
of a single teenager in Gaza shot last week. (Emerging
From Fear To Bury A Son, Family in Rafah Details Killing of
13-Year-Old, 5-25-09, A10
) No evidence exists that this death was
at the hands of Israeli forces, other than the paraphrasing in the
article of a supposed unnamed
Israeli spokesman speculating that it was probably an Israeli sniper.
On the other hand, according to IDF Gaza division commander Brigadier
General Shmuel Zakai, the investigation by Israel of the deaths of
seven Palestinian demonstrators last Wednesday that provoked widespread
condemnation of Israel revealed that "Israeli
soldiers spotted terrorists who were shooting at civilians.
is precedent for Palestinian terrorists murdering innocent Palestinian
children solely for propaganda purposes, so The Post should exercise
greater restraint in leveling such accusations without evidence.
There is no
problem with The Post reporting human interest stories, but this type
of extensive and sympathetic coverage has rarely, if ever, been given
to Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism, not to mention that the
express reason for this campaign in Gaza was to eliminate the tunnels
used to smuggle the weapons the terrorists use to murder Israelis.
And in this instance, at least some of the column inches spent on the
human interest story could and should have been devoted to reporting
news out of Israel showing that the PA is supplying Hamas and Islamic
Jihad with weapons to fight the IDF in Gaza. This was reported by both The
But we all know it's not really an issue of lack of space, as today's
interest story shows. News showing the PA's sponsorship of terror is
precisely the type of news that The Post refuses to report, because it
casts a negative light on the PA.
Another item of "news the
Post will not report" is the uncovering of a
Palestinian ring that transformed vehicles into fake ambulances,
dressed Palestinians as sick patients, hooked the fake patients up to
fake medical equipment and forged fake documents to smuggle them
through checkpoints into Israel. This story was reported in both The
In the human interest story above it is noted that delays in the
movement of the ambulance were caused by Israeli forces insisting on
inspecting the inside of the ambulance. There is a very good reason for
such inspections, but if The Post continues its ongoing refusal to
report stories such as this, its readers will never know.
Finally, some reporters at The Post, in an effort to evoke sympathy for
Palestinians and condemnation of Israelis, continue to exaggerate the
numbers of Palestinians rendered homeless by the recent campaign.
On Saturday, May 22, 2004 Robin
Shulman of The Post's foreign service reported that according to UN
officials 450 people have been rendered homeless
. Today in the
human interest story discussed above, Ms. Shulman relied upon
Palestinian sources to inflate the figure to 1,000 people rendered
homeless. She stated: "Palestinian officials said more than a thousand
have been rendered homeless by Israeli
demolitions." Yet as recently as today UNWRA
reported only 575
people left homeless
. Ms. Shulman must have known the figure she
repeating today from Palestinian sources was an exaggeration. One
is left to wonder why her editor wouldn't have caught the inflated
Monday, May 24, 2004
Here's One For the "We'll Report Any
Nonsense Told to Us by Palestinians" File:
Post is either exceedingly gullible or is continuing to sanitize the
image of Palestinian terrorists. Yesterday three Hamas members were
blown up in their car in Nablus. Initial false reports by Palestinian
witnesses attributed the blast to an Israeli rocket, but all now agree
that Israel had nothing to do with it. The likely cause was what
is commonly called a "work accident," i.e., the terrorists blew
themselves up with a bomb they were planning for Israelis. This
is what the Israeli media is reporting. But the Post doesn't
mention this version. The Post simply reports some unlikely silliness
spoon fed to the media by Palestinians. Here's what The Post reports: "In the West Bank city of Nablus, three
members of the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas, were killed
when their car exploded. Witnesses at first said the car had been
rocketed by an Israeli aircraft, but later accounts said explosives
stored in an abandoned vehicle had detonated next to the car."
Perhaps it was divine intervention or just an amazingly fortunate
coincidence that terrorist leaders just happened to be whiling away
some leisure time in their own car that just happened to be parked
right next to an abandoned vehicle with explosives stored in it. But
one has to wonder how often someone in a Palestinian town stores
explosives in a vehicle and then abandons it. (Key
Israeli Condemns Offensive In Gaza, Deputy Premier Says Images Evoke
Holocaust Memories, 5-24-04 A14)
Sunday, May 23, 2004
After Reporting For Days That Israeli Forces Deliberately Fired
On Palestinian Protestors, Post Finally Acknowledges Two
to the Story
For days Glenn Frankel has given only
lip service to Israeli denials that the deaths of protestors was
deliberate, all the while including statements of his own in his
articles stating as fact that Israel fired "at"
these protesters. See our
notes for Thursday, May 20
. One such article referred
to them as having been "cut down when
helicopter gunship and tank fired on demonstrators
." He seems to
have finally come to his senses today, where he devotes an entire
article to the differing versions of events coming out of Rafah, and
the indications that much of the Palestinian version may have been a
Jenin-like (our description) exaggeration and orchestration to gain
international condemnation of Israel. (New
Rift in Mideast's Great Divide, Israelis, Palestinians Cling to
Separate Accounts of Assault on March, 5-23-04 A18
) But the
acknowledgement is two days late and two dollars short. The damage has
already been done.
Mr. Frankel, shouldn't journalists have learned from Jenin to
critically question the credibility of their sources?
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Headline Falsely Suggests Israel Completed Mission
But is Refusing to Leave Rafah - Article Falsely Suggests Israeli
Forces May Have Done Something To Family Whose House Was Destroyed
Friday, May 21, 2004
The headline of
today's article on Operation Rainbow in Rafah reads: "Destruction Stuns
Residents of Gaza, Siege Ends, but Israel Won't Pull Out." This
headline, by use of the words "siege ends" and then "Israel won't pull
out," falsely implies Israel is being obstinate in refusing to leave
despite having completed its mission. In fact, the article itself
reveals that the only thing that happened was a lull in the fighting
and a repositioning of forces. The article even quotes a military
leader during a briefing in Tel Aviv saying Israeli forces have not yet
achieved all the targets of their mission. This misuse of words in the
headline was a blatant effort to deceive readers.
Even more unprofessional was what may have been an attempt by the
author to imply that something nefarious may have been done to a family
who previously resided in a house that was leveled. This was what the
article said: "Some residents of the neighborhood were nowhere to be
found. A visitor from another part of this sprawling camp, which
is home to nearly 100,000 Palestinians, pointed to a pile of rubble and
asked: 'Where is the family that lived over there? My sister lived in
that house.' "
Deliberately buried deep within this article,
where many readers will never see it, is Israel's contention that the
Palestinians exaggerated the impact of Operation Rainbow and
manufactured a humanitarian crisis. "Zakai and army spokesmen said
Palestinian officials had exaggerated the degree of hardship in the
affected neighborhoods to increase international pressure on Israel to
withdraw from the area. They said residents had regular access to food,
water and medical care and had received 70 ambulances and more than 40
truckloads of food, water, medical supplies, mattresses and blankets.
'There is no humanitarian crisis in Rafah,' Zakai said." This denial by
an Israeli military official of a humanitarian crisis is, in Israel,
worthy of separate news coverage itself. (IDF:
There Is No Humanitarian Disaster in Rafah, Jerusalem Post, 5-23-04)
But perhaps most egregious is the Post's failure throughout this entire
Israeli military campaign to accurately portray the seriousness of the
tunnel problem and the weapons pipeline they provide to terrorists.
Photos are available to the media and have been used by other media
outlets, but The Post hasn't used them. On the Egyptian side there are
stockpiles of weapons backed up and waiting to be smuggled into Gaza.
Weapons have become more sophisticated, and these tunnels are outfitted
to roll missiles and rockets into Gaza. The Post is reporting only the
impact upon Palestinians, but is not fairly reporting the reasons for
the Israeli military operation. And not a word is being said about
Palestinian refusal to do anything to staunch the flow of weapons to
Stuns Residents of Gaza Siege Ends, but Israel Won't Pull Out, 5-22-04,
Post Continues to Imply that Israeli Forces
Deliberately Fired at Gaza Protesters
The initial media reports of the deaths of the
Gaza protesters on Wednesday claimed 25-30 or more deaths, mostly of
children, with morgues overflowing. Israel, despite its denial, was
reported to have deliberately opened fire on the protesters. These news
reports relied upon Palestinian exaggerations reminiscent of Jenin, and
a media all too willing to accept these exaggerations and join in
another feeding frenzy, with Israel as its main course. One would think
the media would have learned a lesson from the Palestinian fraud at
Jenin. Yesterday Glenn Frankel at The Post lowered his report to 10
deaths, while Israel continued to maintain it was only 8. Frankel's
report yesterday accused Israel of firing "rockets
and artillery shells at Palestinian protesters,
" while Israel
continued to maintain that the protestors were not deliberately fired
upon. Today Frankel lowered his report to 8 deaths. One would think
that as the number of deaths declined until it was consistent with
Israel's reports from the start, Frankel might have gotten a clue that
perhaps Palestinian reports could not be trusted. But Frankel continued
today, in a lengthy report about the funerals of the victims, to accuse
Israel of deliberately targeting the demonstrators. Frankel states:
"Battered metal doors of shops throughout the city were bolted shut to
protest the incident and honor the dead, who were cut down when
helicopter gunship and tank fired on demonstrators
enter a neighborhood that has been sealed off by troops since Monday."
Buried in Gaza As Killings Continue, 5-21-04, A15
Mr. Frankel, it is not fair or consistent with journalistic ethics for
you to continue to report as fact that Israel fired on these
demonstrators, when Israel denies having done so.
Post Rejects Israel's Contention that Killings of Gaza Protesters Was
Accident, But Accepts US Denial that it Accidentally Misidentified and
Bombed a Wedding Party
The opening sentence
of the front
page, above-the-fold Post report on the deaths of the Gaza protestors
clearly shows that Post reporters and editors were trying to inflame
their readership into believing that the warning shot by an Israeli
tank that went awry and killed 8 Gazan protestors was, contrary to
Israel's denials, deliberately fired at the crowd. The opening sentence
of the article reads: "An Israeli helicopter gunship and a tank fired
rockets and artillery shells at Palestinian protesters Wednesday as
they marched toward a heavily populated neighborhood in the southern
Gaza Strip." This is not the description of what Israel contends was an
accident caused by an
errant warning shot that was intended to disperse an angry mob. While
the article eventually (after descriptions
of the victims, screaming, blood and mayhem) goes on to provide the
Israeli explanation, headlines and lead statements in an article are
often the only thing scanned by some readers and are most
The Post's placement of this article on the front page, above the fold,
with a photo of an injured and bloody Palestinian child being carried
by an adult, as well as the lead sentence implying a deliberate attack
on innocent civilians, are in stark contrast to the Post's
below-the-fold, comparatively mild coverage
of the US attack on what was alleged to have been an Iraqi wedding party
There were forty victims of the US incident, mostly women and children,
but the headline of this article reads: "Dozens Killed in U.S. Attack
Near Syria; Target Disputed." In contrast to the article on the Israeli
mishap, the lead sentence of this article contains the US denial: "U.S.
ground forces and aircraft attacked a village in Iraq's western desert
before dawn Wednesday, striking what Iraqi witnesses said was a wedding
celebration but U.S. officials called a way station for foreign
The coverage of the US incident, with equal placement and emphasis
being given to the US contention, was entirely appropriate. On the
other hand, the Post's downplaying and, by implication, rejection of
Israel's contention that the Gaza incident was an accident,
demonstrates the Post's anti-Israel slant.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Post Editorial "Wrong
Way in Gaza"
Wrong Way in Journalism
The Post's editorial, "Wrong
Way in Gaza
" (May 18, 2004) once again gives us a window into the
animus The Post's leadership feels toward Israel ... animus that
blatantly infects the attitudes of The Post's editors and reporters
from the top to the bottom of the organization. The editorial pays only
lip service to the legitimacy of Israel's motives for the current
military action in seeking to destroy weapons smuggling tunnels and in
creating a larger security buffer for its troops against Palestinian
sniper fire from nearby buildings. However, with a sweepingly broad
brush, the editorial then casts aside Israel's motives, asserting that
the demolitions are being done without regard for the welfare
or possessions of what The Post describes as "desperately poor"
Palestinian residents. Never mind the lives of Israeli citizens who
won't die from weapons that won't be smuggled to terrorists as a result
of the current military action. Never mind the pregnant mothers (and
their little girls) who won't be shot in the belly at point blank range
by terrorists in possession of weapons smuggled through the tunnels.
And quite apart from close range terrorist attacks, the editorial fails
to note the recent significant increase in long range attacks on
Israelis using more sophisticated weaponry being smuggled through these
tunnels. None of this matters to The Post.
The editorial lays all of the blame at the hands of Prime Minister
Sharon, labeling the current military action as "yet another of the
unpleasant surprises he has delivered to the administration as it
struggles with a major crisis in Iraq." So, in the Post's eyes, Israel
bears some responsibility for events as they now unfold in Iraq. The
careful reader should see in this the groundwork for a nascent effort
by The Post to lay the blame at the feet of Israel for whatever
negative outcomes the US may yet face in Iraq.
But this is not the extent of The Post's vilification of Ariel Sharon
and Israel itself ...We say Israel itself, because of the widespread
support the Prime Minister has among the Israeli public for the
policies that draw the attacks of The Post. According to The Post
"Mr. Sharon has further inflamed Arab opinion by assassinating the two
top leaders of the Hamas movement...." Post editors thinly disguise
their animosity toward Israel itself by pretending their scorn is
directed at Prime Minister Sharon. They carefully avoid noting
that the Israeli public stands strongly behind Ariel Sharon's policy of
targeting the terrorist leadership. The Israeli public does not
believe, as The Post apparently does, that Israel, in defending itself
against terrorists, should be overly concerned with "further
inflam[ing] Arab opinion."
The editorial goes on to not only deny Mr. Sharon credit in the first
instance for his plan to withdraw from Gaza, but to blame him for
"allowing his withdrawal plan to be halted by hard-liners in his Likud
Party." The article then concludes that "part of the United States' own
standing in the Middle East, and Iraq" now hangs on whether Mr. Sharon
takes action to revive his withdrawal plan.
The bias of The Post's editors is apparent. This editorial never once
mentions Yasser Arafat, never once mentions Palestinian responsibility
for putting a halt to terrorism, never once mentions the terrible toll
terrorism has taken on the Israeli populace and never once makes even a
feeble effort at portraying events in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
with even a semblance of balance. We see in this editorial the
anti-Israel attitude that produces such irresponsibly slanted
journalism by The Post when reporting on events in Israel. We say to
"This is the wrong way in journalism."
Monday, May 17, 2004
Post Ignores Powell's Rebuke of Yasser
Arafat for Frustrating Peace
Process and Exaggerates Powell's Disapproval of Destruction
of Homes Harboring Palestinian Weapons
Post did Secretary of State Colin Powell a gross disservice with its
glaringly one-sided account of his Mideast trip. In focusing
almost entirely on his criticism of Israel's destruction of Palestinian
buildings in Gaza, it omitted his harsher castigation of Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat for blocking efforts to revive the peace process
("Powell Denounce Israel's Destruction Of Palestinian Homes" May 17,
missing was Powell's comment that Arafat, by his actions and
statements, made it "exceptionally difficult" to end the violence and
work toward a two-state solution. The secretary singled out a
speech by Arafat a day earlier in which the Palestinian leader urged
his people to "terrorize your enemy and the enemy of God," praised
"warriors of jihad," declared the return of millions of refugees to
Israel a "sacred" Palestinian right, and rejected Israel's legitimacy.
Powell instead had blasted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for
making it "exceptionally difficult" to end the conflict, is there any
doubt that the Post not only would have reported it, but given it
banner treatment? But downplaying or overlooking Arafat's
nefarious role has become a regular feature of the Post's one-sided,
Israel-bashing coverage. If such glaring omissions were
ordered by the government, editors would rightly scream "Censorship!"
and invoke the people's "right to know." But what about readers'
"right to know" when the Post imposes its own blackout on Arafat's
terror-driven campaign to eliminate Israel?
The Post Fails to Report News of Yasser
Speech Urging Continuation of Terror
as a Means
to Taking Over all of Israel
How could Sunday's (May 16) Post devote three extensive stories to the
Mideast conflict -- a Tel Aviv demonstration for a pullout from Gaza,
Secretary of State Colin Powell's efforts to revive the peace process,
and the plight of refugees in Gaza caught in the cross-fire -- without
any mention of an incendiary speech on the same day by Yasser Arafat
who called for more terror and "jihad" against Israel?
To mark the 56th anniversary of Israel's founding, Arafat laid out on
Palestinian TV an agenda for a single Palestinian nation within
pre-1948 borders. He called on his people to "terrorize your
enemy and the enemy of God," rejected Israel's legitimacy, praised
"warriors of jihad" as the Palestinians' best hope and termed the
return of refugees to Israel a "sacred" right. For good measure, he
threw in a peace offer, but the speech made it clear that Arafat's
"peace" can be achieved only by Israel's extinction.
As long as Arafat holds supreme power over Palestinians, peace protests
in Israel, diplomatic efforts to bring the two sides together and the
plight of refugees will continue to take a backseat to his
terror-driven campaign to eliminate the Jewish state.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Post Downplays Palestinian Terrorist Savagery
at the Same Time Giving Front Page Coverage to Terrorist Savagery
most shocking and newsworthy aspect of the attack upon and killing of
six IDF soldiers in Gaza on Tuesday, May 11 was in the aftermath ...
the savagery of
Palestinian terrorists in parading the Israeli victims' body parts,
including one soldier's head, in front of television and still cameras
and in then declaring they would hold the body parts hostage for the
release of live Palestinian terrorists in Israeli custody. The Israeli
army, in response, announced it was launching a search in Gaza to
recover the remains of its soldiers, and the Israeli government
indicated it would not negotiate to recover the remains. Headlines or
coverage in the lead paragraphs took place in articles by the
Associated Press, New York Times, The Guardian (UK), LA Times,
International Herald Tribune, and many other news outlets, including
broadcast media, but not in The Washington Post. These despicable acts
by Hamas in the aftermath of the killings warranted either headline or
lead paragraph coverage, because the violent confrontation itself was
not particularly unusual in Gaza, and it is important for
informed readers to be able to make their own judgments about groups
engaging in behavior
that fell that far outside the bounds of civilized conduct. However,
The Washington Post sought to downplay the savagery of the terrorists
by treating their conduct as an aside, not mentioning the
parading of the body parts or the effort to hold the remains hostage
until the sixth and seventh paragraphs and then moving quickly on. (Six
Israeli Soldiers Killed By Bomb in Gaza Strip, 7 Palestinians Killed,
120 Injured in Battles,
By way of comparison, however, the same day terrorist beheading in Iraq
of Nicholas Berg, an American businessman, was, quite
appropriately, given front page headline coverage by The Post. (American Beheaded on Web Video, Militants
Say Killing Was Revenge for U.S. Abuses at Iraqi Prison , 5-12-04, p. A1
The Post thereby displays a discriminating taste in its terrorists....
or perhaps in its victims ... once
again revealing an unusual and shameful solicitousness of Palestinian
terrorists by its unwillingness to give prominence in its reporting to
the most dastardly of their acts.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Defense of Terrorists Continues
The Washington Post is
relentless in its
defense of terrorists. On
Sunday, April 25, 2004, front page, above the fold, the headline of a
Molly Moore piece asserted, absurdly, that the targeted killings of
terrorist leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi
over the last month may make Hamas more dangerous to Israel ... as if
that was actually possible. (Killings
May Make Hamas More Formidable, Group's Military Wing Is Seen in
Ascendancy, 4-25-04, P. A01)
surprisingly, apart from citing a
opinion and the vague opinions of a few unnamed sources, the body of
the article doesn't support the thesis at all,
and, in fact, is strongly persuasive that Israel's targeting of the
leadership has done substantial damage to the terrorist infrastructure.
The position of
Israel's military spokespeople to the effect that the Hamas
infrastructure has been seriously damaged was placed at the end of the
article, and the article concludes by quoting a Palestinian editor who
frequently speaks for Hamas as agreeing that the loss of its leaders
has been damaging. The article itself contains no new news, and
The Post, by positioning this article
on the front page, above the fold, with a headline critical of Israel,
is able to continue its relentless campaign attacking Israel for
defending itself against terrorism. The failure of the body of the
article to support the headline reveals that the true purpose of The
Post was to place the misleading and critical headline in front of its
All contents Copyright ©2002
EyeOnThePost.org and EyeOnThePost,
Molly Moore's thesis
that the killings of Hamas leaders are apt to make the group more
radical and dangerous should be taken with a grain of skepticism
("Killings May Make Hamas More Formidable" front page Apr. 25).
Three years of suicide bombings by Hamas killers make it rather
doubtful that Hamas until now had some "moderate" leaders. I'm
reminded of then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger's comment during
the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages fiasco that the only "moderates" with
power in Iran were buried six feet under.
Hamas actually has
become less effective and less dangerous since Israel stepped up its
counter-terrorism efforts. The rate of successful Hamas attacks has
dropped significantly over the last year. Israel now manages to
foil up to 90 percent of attempted suicide bombings, compared with
about 50 percent at the start of the intifada. While Hamas
blusters about increasing the bloodshed, there was only one suicide
bombing in the five weeks after the killing of its leader, Sheik
Yassin. Hamas remains an undeniable threat, but empirical
evidence belies the Post's alarmist forecast that it's about to become
even "more formidable."
The Washington Post is a trademark of The Washington Post Company.
EyeOnThePost.Org is not affiliated with The Washington Post Company.
Please see our Disclaimer.