WaPo attempts to use context in covering Jerusalem, fails

In "Arab nations warn U.S. against moving embassy" (12/5/17), The Washington Post puts into context Israel's acquisition of Jerusalem by stating that Israel "captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan in 1967 in the Six-Day war."

Most, if not all, prior Washington Post articles discussing Israel's governance of the eastern part of the city fail to mention whom Israel captured the land from.  The omission led readers to believe that Israel took it from the Palestinians.  After all, the media have convinced the world that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, so therefore Israel must have won the eastern part of Jerusalem from the Palestinians – but that's not true at all.  The West Bank and East Jerusalem are disputed territories because Israel's sovereign claim to the lands are as valid as any Palestinian claim, if not more so, and there has been no negotiated settlement over them.

If The Washington Post wanted to put the situation in full context, it would best serve its readers by explaining that all of Jerusalem was allocated to the "National Jewish Home" by the League of Nations, and Israel "captured" the eastern part of the city in defense against a Jordanian attack.  Further, while the eastern part of Jerusalem was under Jordanian control from 1948 to 1967, the Jordanians destroyed virtually every Jewish structure, including most synagogues, and placed latrines adjacent to Judaism's holiest site in the city – the Western Wall.  (Interestingly, now that Israel is in full control of the Western Wall, it is revered by the Arabs as a holy site that they "want back.")

In "Arab nations warn U.S. against moving embassy" (12/5/17), The Washington Post puts into context Israel's acquisition of Jerusalem by stating that Israel "captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan in 1967 in the Six-Day war."

Most, if not all, prior Washington Post articles discussing Israel's governance of the eastern part of the city fail to mention whom Israel captured the land from.  The omission led readers to believe that Israel took it from the Palestinians.  After all, the media have convinced the world that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, so therefore Israel must have won the eastern part of Jerusalem from the Palestinians – but that's not true at all.  The West Bank and East Jerusalem are disputed territories because Israel's sovereign claim to the lands are as valid as any Palestinian claim, if not more so, and there has been no negotiated settlement over them.

If The Washington Post wanted to put the situation in full context, it would best serve its readers by explaining that all of Jerusalem was allocated to the "National Jewish Home" by the League of Nations, and Israel "captured" the eastern part of the city in defense against a Jordanian attack.  Further, while the eastern part of Jerusalem was under Jordanian control from 1948 to 1967, the Jordanians destroyed virtually every Jewish structure, including most synagogues, and placed latrines adjacent to Judaism's holiest site in the city – the Western Wall.  (Interestingly, now that Israel is in full control of the Western Wall, it is revered by the Arabs as a holy site that they "want back.")

How can the story of eastern Jerusalem be told by neglecting Jordan's blatant ethnic cleansing, when every last Jew was kicked out of the eastern part of Jerusalem in Israel's 1948 War of Independence?  Jews were forbidden to worship at their holiest sites during the subsequent 19 years of Arab rule.  Conversely, now that Israel controls the holy sites of Jerusalem, there is freedom of religion – anyone can worship where he wants!

And no one calls out the absurdity of the U.N. and media opinion – that they would even consider Arab reign over any part of the religious city again!  The Washington Post and other media sources would serve their readers by reporting the news in full context, not slanting it by omitting central facts.