Washington Post wants you to believe Trump's peace deal will deport Arabs from Israel

The Washington Post in "How peace plan could dispossess Arab Israelis" (2/9/20) has dispossessed and manipulated the truth.  The Post uses a device called a "straw man argument" to indoctrinate its readers.

In the article, which describes the recently proposed Trump administration peace deal, the Post states that "many [Israeli Arabs] say [the deal] would amount to a forced deportation from Israel, where their families have lived for generations."  Who are these "many" individuals?  Nonexistent straw men.  No Israeli Arabs would be "deported" in the peace plan.  The peace plan expressly states that no one would be deported, displaced, or transferred in any way.  The plan merely contemplates a redrawing (or more precisely, a drawing) of permanent borders.  So there cannot be "many" Israeli Arabs who fear deportation.  The Post's account is a deception.

The Post said Israeli Arab protests against the peace plan included a "march of hundreds," implying a big turnout.  However, there are 350,000 Arabs in the area.  "Hundreds" is a rather small turnout, especially for people who supposedly believe they are being "deported."

The article quoted several Israeli Arabs who recited a litany of grievances against Israel.  One of the complaints revealed something telling about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole.  Mohammed Abu Majid offered this remark about the peace deal: "Maybe if they give us a real state with our land back and our dignity, yes, why not?"  Did the Post bother to ask Mr. Majid what he meant by wanting "our land back"?  As anyone familiar with the conflict (but the Post) knows, the Palestinians want all of Israel because they think it is theirs and will settle for nothing less — that's what he meant, and that is the crux of the conflict.  The Palestinians want it all: Haifa, Beersheva, Ashkelon, etc.!  Just look at the Hamas charter (the destruction of Israel is part of it) and the Palestinian Authority insignia, which shows that the desired State of Palestine includes all of Israel.  Wake up, Washington Post: you have been wrong for decades!

How is it possible that despite the half-dozen or so people the Post interviewed for the article, the Post was not able to find one person in favor of the deal or even neutral about it?  Might it be because the benefits of the plan run counter to the Post's views?  Obviously, as there are people in favor of the deal.  Interviewing solely those on one side of an issue while excluding the other side is another example of journalistic malpractice by the Post.

There is an obvious disconnect (again missed by the Post).  With all the Arab-Israeli grievances regarding their lives in Israel listed in the article, including claims of being "second-class citizens," why wouldn't they jump at a chance to be first-class citizens of a new Palestinian state they can help mold?  Why doesn't the Post pose this question rather than parrot the status quo view that the Arab-Israelis want to avoid Palestinian "corruption" and "infighting"?  If Arab-Israeli grievances are true, they should be all the more interested in joining their brethren to form a new Palestinian state.  They, as founding fathers, could make it exactly as they want.

The Washington Post in "How peace plan could dispossess Arab Israelis" (2/9/20) has dispossessed and manipulated the truth.  The Post uses a device called a "straw man argument" to indoctrinate its readers.

In the article, which describes the recently proposed Trump administration peace deal, the Post states that "many [Israeli Arabs] say [the deal] would amount to a forced deportation from Israel, where their families have lived for generations."  Who are these "many" individuals?  Nonexistent straw men.  No Israeli Arabs would be "deported" in the peace plan.  The peace plan expressly states that no one would be deported, displaced, or transferred in any way.  The plan merely contemplates a redrawing (or more precisely, a drawing) of permanent borders.  So there cannot be "many" Israeli Arabs who fear deportation.  The Post's account is a deception.

The Post said Israeli Arab protests against the peace plan included a "march of hundreds," implying a big turnout.  However, there are 350,000 Arabs in the area.  "Hundreds" is a rather small turnout, especially for people who supposedly believe they are being "deported."

The article quoted several Israeli Arabs who recited a litany of grievances against Israel.  One of the complaints revealed something telling about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole.  Mohammed Abu Majid offered this remark about the peace deal: "Maybe if they give us a real state with our land back and our dignity, yes, why not?"  Did the Post bother to ask Mr. Majid what he meant by wanting "our land back"?  As anyone familiar with the conflict (but the Post) knows, the Palestinians want all of Israel because they think it is theirs and will settle for nothing less — that's what he meant, and that is the crux of the conflict.  The Palestinians want it all: Haifa, Beersheva, Ashkelon, etc.!  Just look at the Hamas charter (the destruction of Israel is part of it) and the Palestinian Authority insignia, which shows that the desired State of Palestine includes all of Israel.  Wake up, Washington Post: you have been wrong for decades!

How is it possible that despite the half-dozen or so people the Post interviewed for the article, the Post was not able to find one person in favor of the deal or even neutral about it?  Might it be because the benefits of the plan run counter to the Post's views?  Obviously, as there are people in favor of the deal.  Interviewing solely those on one side of an issue while excluding the other side is another example of journalistic malpractice by the Post.

There is an obvious disconnect (again missed by the Post).  With all the Arab-Israeli grievances regarding their lives in Israel listed in the article, including claims of being "second-class citizens," why wouldn't they jump at a chance to be first-class citizens of a new Palestinian state they can help mold?  Why doesn't the Post pose this question rather than parrot the status quo view that the Arab-Israelis want to avoid Palestinian "corruption" and "infighting"?  If Arab-Israeli grievances are true, they should be all the more interested in joining their brethren to form a new Palestinian state.  They, as founding fathers, could make it exactly as they want.