How WaPo skews 'news' coverage against Israel

In its May 26 edition, the Washington Post reports that prospects for resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were dealt a severe blow by Prime Minister Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington ("Israeli-Palestinian impasse deepens" page A12)

Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg writes about Netanyahu's "unbending stance."  In the same vein, in another article in the same edition, Greenberg and Cairo correspondent Ernesto Londono report that Netanyahu presented "uncompromising positions on negotiations for a Palestinian state."  ("Egypt's rulers to reopen Gaza crossing in days," front page).

Thus, in advance of any possible negotiations, Netanyahu is "unbending" in his demands with a set of "uncompromising positions," like maintaining Israel's control of a united Jerusalem, retention of close-in Jewish neighborhoods beyond the 1967 lines and keeping the Hamas terrorist group, with its genocidal charter to destroy Israel and Jews, out of the picture entirely.

But if "unbending" and "uncompromising" properly and objectively fit Netanyahu, how come the Post never applies such hard-line adjectives to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's negotiating agenda?  After all, even before talks get under way, Abbas already rejects Israeli security demands and insists that he will not compromise on the right of five million Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel -- a proviso that would destroy the Jewish state.

Yet, the Post -- and other mainstream media as well -- never presents such Abbas demands as "unbending" or "uncompromising."  Its correspondents uncritically report any and all Palestinian demands -- however far-fetched and unrealistic -- as seemingly quite natural and reasonable.

Whatever the Palestinians want and demand is presented without pejorative adjectives.  What Israel wants is presented as deal-breakers that deepen the chasm between the two sides.

Actually, it's perfectly natural that, in advance of any negotiations, both sides usually start with maximalist demands.  That's what negotiations are all about.  They're designed to bring totally disparate positions to the table so as to engage each side to make concessions and compromises.

The Post, however, would deny Israel the right to insist on going into negotiations with its full agenda, while showing no such displeasure with Abbas presenting his maximum demands.

And, mind you, this total lack of fairness, objectivity and even-handedness is served up to Post readers in the news section, which is not supposed to favor one side over the other.
In its May 26 edition, the Washington Post reports that prospects for resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were dealt a severe blow by Prime Minister Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington ("Israeli-Palestinian impasse deepens" page A12)

Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg writes about Netanyahu's "unbending stance."  In the same vein, in another article in the same edition, Greenberg and Cairo correspondent Ernesto Londono report that Netanyahu presented "uncompromising positions on negotiations for a Palestinian state."  ("Egypt's rulers to reopen Gaza crossing in days," front page).

Thus, in advance of any possible negotiations, Netanyahu is "unbending" in his demands with a set of "uncompromising positions," like maintaining Israel's control of a united Jerusalem, retention of close-in Jewish neighborhoods beyond the 1967 lines and keeping the Hamas terrorist group, with its genocidal charter to destroy Israel and Jews, out of the picture entirely.

But if "unbending" and "uncompromising" properly and objectively fit Netanyahu, how come the Post never applies such hard-line adjectives to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's negotiating agenda?  After all, even before talks get under way, Abbas already rejects Israeli security demands and insists that he will not compromise on the right of five million Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel -- a proviso that would destroy the Jewish state.

Yet, the Post -- and other mainstream media as well -- never presents such Abbas demands as "unbending" or "uncompromising."  Its correspondents uncritically report any and all Palestinian demands -- however far-fetched and unrealistic -- as seemingly quite natural and reasonable.

Whatever the Palestinians want and demand is presented without pejorative adjectives.  What Israel wants is presented as deal-breakers that deepen the chasm between the two sides.

Actually, it's perfectly natural that, in advance of any negotiations, both sides usually start with maximalist demands.  That's what negotiations are all about.  They're designed to bring totally disparate positions to the table so as to engage each side to make concessions and compromises.

The Post, however, would deny Israel the right to insist on going into negotiations with its full agenda, while showing no such displeasure with Abbas presenting his maximum demands.

And, mind you, this total lack of fairness, objectivity and even-handedness is served up to Post readers in the news section, which is not supposed to favor one side over the other.

RECENT VIDEOS