Washington Post clings to an 'Israel as aggressor' narrative to kiss up to Iran

In the Washington Post's "Attacks blamed on Israel across three Middle East countries ratchet up tensions" (8/26/19), the operative question would be, blamed by whom?  The article makes it quite clear that the overwhelming blame comes from nobody but the now partisan Washington Post, as Israel and its adversary largely denied the aforementioned assertion.

The false assertion occurs not only in the title, but also in the first sentence: "Attacks against Iranian-allied forces in three countries, all blamed on Israel, escalated tensions across the Middle East on Sunday, drawing threats of retaliation and intensifying fears that a bigger conflict could erupt."  It's astounding that there is one-sided anti-Israel rhetoric in every part of that sentence!

The Washington Post has become a lead advocate for the Iranian sympathy machine, it seems.  Iran is the one moving heavy and sophisticated weapons into south Syria and into Lebanon, and it created and sponsors Hezb'allah, the Iranian terror group that basically runs Lebanon (put there to destroy Israel).  And Israel is the aggressor for trying to put a halt to this aggression?

Moreover, the Post claims that Israel is the country responsible for "escalated tensions"?  When Iran calls for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," threatens that the "cancer" in the Middle East — Israel — needs to be removed, weaponizes Lebanon and Syrian anti-Israel forces, and then Israel responds to this — and  it is Israel that is causing the "escalated tensions"?  Further, the "attacks" are "drawing threats of retaliation" by Iran?  Maybe a retaliation against a retaliation — The Washington Post can't help but make Iran the victim.

Lastly, all in the one sentence, it ends with that the "attacks" are "intensifying fears that a bigger conflict could erupt."  Fears from whom?  The Post leaves it a mystery.

The Post doesn't stop its pro-Iranian propaganda there.  In the very next paragraph, the Post says the attacks on Iranian forces "appeared to be a significant escalation" by Israel to "contain the expansion of Iranian influence in the region."  Iran has been escalating its military buildup by supplying its forces next door — once again, Israel's response is not an escalation.  And the Post's minimizing Iranian aggression and genocidal aims by saying what they are doing is increasing "influence" is one of the biggest spins of motivations that has been recorded in modern-day journalism.  (See this WSJ article for the Journal's assessment of what Iran is up to.)

The Post is full of couldas and wouldas.  According to the Post, Israel's alleged actions (the Post doesn't use "alleged") "could jeopardize the continued presence of US troops in Iraq and draw Lebanon into a new war."  Well, The Washington Post is not only a newspaper, but a soothsayer!

The Post says, "Israel confirmed that it was responsible only for the first attack."  The Washington Post, despite no expert knowledge, blames Israel for all three attacks.  The Post speaks of the "shadowy conflict between Israel and Iran."  However, even the most disinterested reader knows that the conflict is about Iran wanting to destroy Israel and Israel defending itself to stay alive. 

The Washington Post paraphrases Hilal Khashan, who the paper says is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.  The Post mentions nothing about how Lebanon is run by the terror group Iranian-backed Hezbollah and that the society does not allow for free speech, especially speech that criticizes Iran.  How could the Post not insert a disclaimer to anything attributed to this professor!  Perhaps it is because the professor goes along with the Post's viewpoint, which is exactly aligned with Iran.  That is the only explanation.  Of course, the professor portrays Israel as the aggressor and speaks of an Israeli attempt to "roll back Iran's presence in the region."  "Presence"?  Iran has essentially taken over Lebanon and dominates Syria. They have steamrolled over two countries. Yet the Post accepts the description as a "presence"?  What bias!  The professor continues to spout lies and the Post continues to cover them with such comments as "The Israelis are telling everyone that they are expanding the scope of their attacks against Iran and its allies."  If the Israelis are "telling everyone," how come they denied culpability for two of the three attacks that the Post attributed to them?

The Post says Israel accused Iran of attempting a "large-scale attack on Israeli territory.  Had such an attack taken place, it could have triggered an all-out war."  What's a paragraph in The Washington Post without a "coulda"?

The Post writes about Iranian "retaliation" when in fact it would be a "response."  For example, "Israel placed its military on high alert against possible retaliation."  Even terrorist Hezb'allah leader Hassan Nasrallah said about the attack in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, "What happened last night will not happen without response."  Even the Hezb'allah leader calls it a response, not a retaliation.  Why should the Post be more protective of Iran and its proxy Hezb'allah than Hezb'allah is of itself? 

Image: Daniel X. O'Neil via Flickr.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com