WaPo Stacks the Deck

With the European Union ratcheting up its anti-Israel bias and Secretary of State John Kerry embracing an Arab League peace plan that would doom the Jewish state, the Washington Post joins the fray with ''news' coverage with the customary pronounced pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel tilt. ("E.U. acts against Israeli settlements -- Move to block funding comes as Kerry renews push for Mideast peace" by William Booth and Anne Gearan, July 17, page A11).

Here's how the Post provides supposed context for Kerry's latest push to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table:

"Netanyahu has agreed in principle to resume talks without pre-conditions, but Abbas has sought a show of good faith before he takes the political risk of negotiating with a leader whom many Palestinians distrust."

In a single paragraph, Post correspondents Booth and Gearan manage to whitewash Abbas while distorting Netanyahu's position on renewed peace talks.

For starters, Netanyahu hasn't agreed "in principle" to resume talks. He has given unquestioned, concrete, specific support to resumption of negotiations without preconditions not just once or twice but dozens and dozens of times. He is fully and publicly committed -- not just "in principle", as if there might be some hesitation or still unfulfilled details on his part.

As for Abbas, he hasn't just sought a show of good faith by Israel -- he demands in very specific terms a complete Israeli construction freeze in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, plus release of scores of Palestinian terrorist killers in Israeli jails, as his price, his pre-condition for resuming peace talks. Why keep Post readers in the dark about Abbas's real agenda?

The Post is so invested in Abbas that it sympathizes with his having to take a "political risk" in negotiating with Netanyahu. Why exactly should that be? Because many Palestinians "distrust" Netanyahu. But don't many Israelis distrust Abbas as much as Palestinians might distrust Netanyahu? Why commiserate only with one side -- the Palestinian side? Wouldn't Netanyahu also have to take risks in renewing negotiations?

Objective, even-handed journalism goes out the window.

With the European Union ratcheting up its anti-Israel bias and Secretary of State John Kerry embracing an Arab League peace plan that would doom the Jewish state, the Washington Post joins the fray with ''news' coverage with the customary pronounced pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel tilt. ("E.U. acts against Israeli settlements -- Move to block funding comes as Kerry renews push for Mideast peace" by William Booth and Anne Gearan, July 17, page A11).

Here's how the Post provides supposed context for Kerry's latest push to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table:

"Netanyahu has agreed in principle to resume talks without pre-conditions, but Abbas has sought a show of good faith before he takes the political risk of negotiating with a leader whom many Palestinians distrust."

In a single paragraph, Post correspondents Booth and Gearan manage to whitewash Abbas while distorting Netanyahu's position on renewed peace talks.

For starters, Netanyahu hasn't agreed "in principle" to resume talks. He has given unquestioned, concrete, specific support to resumption of negotiations without preconditions not just once or twice but dozens and dozens of times. He is fully and publicly committed -- not just "in principle", as if there might be some hesitation or still unfulfilled details on his part.

As for Abbas, he hasn't just sought a show of good faith by Israel -- he demands in very specific terms a complete Israeli construction freeze in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, plus release of scores of Palestinian terrorist killers in Israeli jails, as his price, his pre-condition for resuming peace talks. Why keep Post readers in the dark about Abbas's real agenda?

The Post is so invested in Abbas that it sympathizes with his having to take a "political risk" in negotiating with Netanyahu. Why exactly should that be? Because many Palestinians "distrust" Netanyahu. But don't many Israelis distrust Abbas as much as Palestinians might distrust Netanyahu? Why commiserate only with one side -- the Palestinian side? Wouldn't Netanyahu also have to take risks in renewing negotiations?

Objective, even-handed journalism goes out the window.

RECENT VIDEOS