Wash. Post sees 'terror' threat in Lubbock, but not in Israel

In its Friday, Feb. 25, edition, the Washington Post features an article by Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg about Israel's responses to an attack from Gaza on an Israeli border patrol and to a an advanced rocket fired from Gaza that hit a residential area in Beersheba, the capital of the Negev ("Israel responds to rocket fire with airstrikes" page A6).

Four comments:

First, the Washington Post is playing catch-up.  It did not provide news of these attacks to its readers in the first immediate news cycle.  Attacks on Israel from Gaza don't seem to rate as a big deal to Post editors and correspondents.  It's only when Israel strikes back that the paper shows some interest and belatedly bothers to take notice.

Second, Greenberg goes to extreme lengths to avoid labeling the attack on Beeesheba as the work of "terrorists."  Instead, he refers to "militants" -- a soft, Orwellian euphemism designed to sanitize terrorist groups that deliberately target civilian populations.  'Within the space of two paragraphs, he uses "militant" no fewer than four times and only to describe terrorists that Israel subsequently had in its cross-hairs -- never as perpetrators.   "Israeli tank fire killed militants and wounded 10 other people in Gaza, including militants and civilians" after the attack on an Israeli patrol, he writes.   And again, after the Beersheba attack, Israeli airstrikes wounded "three Islamic Jihad militants."  And, in another strike, two "militants" were wounded. 

Yet, in the same Feb. 25 edition, the Post shows no hesitation to place the Saudi student who allegely built a bomb in Lubbock, Tex., and drew up a list of high-value targets, inclouding former President George W. Bush, in the category of "suspected terrorism plotters."   This is par for the course at the Washington Post -- the "T" word is used routinely to describe attacks or threatened attacks by jihadists against civilians, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere on the globe, except when Palestinian terrorism is aimed at Israel.  Then, the "T" word is banned and all sorts of euphemistic labels are used to keep readers from recognizing that Israel is target No. 1 of relentless terrorist attacks.

Third, Greenberg doesn't even use "militants" to identify the perpetrators of the two attacks on Israel.  Actuall perpetrators of these attacks are totally missing from his peice.  "A rocket struck....",  "The rocket strike...."  It's as if the attacks occured automatically on their own -- with no human involvement at all.  How's that for letting terrorists off without any blemish.

Fourth,  Greenberg makes light of the severity of the attack on Beersheba.  "The rocket strike damaged a house but caused no casualties."  No mention that this was an advanced, high-precision Grad missile.  No mention that 10 people had to be taken to hospital to be treated for shock.  Psychological traumas don't matter.  Yet, when a rocket is fired against civilians in southern Israel and the alarm siren sounds, giving residents only a few seconds to seek shelter, these traumatic shocks are long-lasting, especially in children.  With Greenberg and the Post, however, they are dismissed, in fact ignored as totally inconsequential.
In its Friday, Feb. 25, edition, the Washington Post features an article by Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg about Israel's responses to an attack from Gaza on an Israeli border patrol and to a an advanced rocket fired from Gaza that hit a residential area in Beersheba, the capital of the Negev ("Israel responds to rocket fire with airstrikes" page A6).

Four comments:

First, the Washington Post is playing catch-up.  It did not provide news of these attacks to its readers in the first immediate news cycle.  Attacks on Israel from Gaza don't seem to rate as a big deal to Post editors and correspondents.  It's only when Israel strikes back that the paper shows some interest and belatedly bothers to take notice.

Second, Greenberg goes to extreme lengths to avoid labeling the attack on Beeesheba as the work of "terrorists."  Instead, he refers to "militants" -- a soft, Orwellian euphemism designed to sanitize terrorist groups that deliberately target civilian populations.  'Within the space of two paragraphs, he uses "militant" no fewer than four times and only to describe terrorists that Israel subsequently had in its cross-hairs -- never as perpetrators.   "Israeli tank fire killed militants and wounded 10 other people in Gaza, including militants and civilians" after the attack on an Israeli patrol, he writes.   And again, after the Beersheba attack, Israeli airstrikes wounded "three Islamic Jihad militants."  And, in another strike, two "militants" were wounded. 

Yet, in the same Feb. 25 edition, the Post shows no hesitation to place the Saudi student who allegely built a bomb in Lubbock, Tex., and drew up a list of high-value targets, inclouding former President George W. Bush, in the category of "suspected terrorism plotters."   This is par for the course at the Washington Post -- the "T" word is used routinely to describe attacks or threatened attacks by jihadists against civilians, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere on the globe, except when Palestinian terrorism is aimed at Israel.  Then, the "T" word is banned and all sorts of euphemistic labels are used to keep readers from recognizing that Israel is target No. 1 of relentless terrorist attacks.

Third, Greenberg doesn't even use "militants" to identify the perpetrators of the two attacks on Israel.  Actuall perpetrators of these attacks are totally missing from his peice.  "A rocket struck....",  "The rocket strike...."  It's as if the attacks occured automatically on their own -- with no human involvement at all.  How's that for letting terrorists off without any blemish.

Fourth,  Greenberg makes light of the severity of the attack on Beersheba.  "The rocket strike damaged a house but caused no casualties."  No mention that this was an advanced, high-precision Grad missile.  No mention that 10 people had to be taken to hospital to be treated for shock.  Psychological traumas don't matter.  Yet, when a rocket is fired against civilians in southern Israel and the alarm siren sounds, giving residents only a few seconds to seek shelter, these traumatic shocks are long-lasting, especially in children.  With Greenberg and the Post, however, they are dismissed, in fact ignored as totally inconsequential.

RECENT VIDEOS