Two factual errors in same Wash. Post paragraph, conveying Palestinian spin and myths

Leo Rennert
The Washington Post, in its Sept. 14 issue, runs a front-page article on the GOP victory in a heavily Democratic congressional district in New York, which manages to inject two pro-Palestinian spins in a single paragraph  ("Republican wins House seat in NY.'' by Paul Kane).

Kane notes that the victorious Republican, Bob Turner, made criticism of Obama's stance on Israel a major issue in a district with a heavy Jewish orthodox population.

Here's how he conveys this:

"The New York race, for a seat representing a large portion of Queens and a slice of Brooklyn, also turned on Obama's handling of Israel and Palestine.  The district's large contingent of Orthodox Jews opposes his proposal for Palestinian statehood drawn around 1967 borders."

Wrong on two counts: 

-- There is no "Palestine" -- at least not yet, and there won't be any until there's an actual two-state peace agreement.  We're far from that.  Kane, however, seems in a hurry to beat the UN to the punch and endorse Palestinian statehood, as if it already is a done deal.

-- There were no 1967 "borders" -- only a 1949 armistice line that half a dozen Arab armies tried to erase in 1967 when they waged an extermination war against Israel.  They lost that war and Israel, in the course of defending its existence, enhanced its security by capturing the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.  There was no Palestinian state prior to 1967 -- only Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian occupation of the areas captured by Israel.  So Israel didn't grab anything from a pre-existing Palestinian state, as Kane's reference to "borders" would suggest.  Israel's eastern "border" remains to be determined, as does a still elusive "Palestine."

Kane and the Washington Post need to brush up on the history and geography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if they have any interest in presenting accurate reports to their readers.  In the Sept. 14 issue, however, they instead dispense with facts and engage in wishful thinking -- Palestinian wishful thinking, that is.  And in a so-called "news" article, no less.

The Washington Post, in its Sept. 14 issue, runs a front-page article on the GOP victory in a heavily Democratic congressional district in New York, which manages to inject two pro-Palestinian spins in a single paragraph  ("Republican wins House seat in NY.'' by Paul Kane).

Kane notes that the victorious Republican, Bob Turner, made criticism of Obama's stance on Israel a major issue in a district with a heavy Jewish orthodox population.

Here's how he conveys this:

"The New York race, for a seat representing a large portion of Queens and a slice of Brooklyn, also turned on Obama's handling of Israel and Palestine.  The district's large contingent of Orthodox Jews opposes his proposal for Palestinian statehood drawn around 1967 borders."

Wrong on two counts: 

-- There is no "Palestine" -- at least not yet, and there won't be any until there's an actual two-state peace agreement.  We're far from that.  Kane, however, seems in a hurry to beat the UN to the punch and endorse Palestinian statehood, as if it already is a done deal.

-- There were no 1967 "borders" -- only a 1949 armistice line that half a dozen Arab armies tried to erase in 1967 when they waged an extermination war against Israel.  They lost that war and Israel, in the course of defending its existence, enhanced its security by capturing the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.  There was no Palestinian state prior to 1967 -- only Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian occupation of the areas captured by Israel.  So Israel didn't grab anything from a pre-existing Palestinian state, as Kane's reference to "borders" would suggest.  Israel's eastern "border" remains to be determined, as does a still elusive "Palestine."

Kane and the Washington Post need to brush up on the history and geography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if they have any interest in presenting accurate reports to their readers.  In the Sept. 14 issue, however, they instead dispense with facts and engage in wishful thinking -- Palestinian wishful thinking, that is.  And in a so-called "news" article, no less.