In an Oct. 16 Washington Post article titled “Israeli settlers attack Palestinians and Washington Post photographer in West Bank,” the extent of factual distortion is such that it is impossible to know what to believe. After all, if the paper is distorting some of it, then who’s to say they aren’t distorting all of it?
For example, the Post prints the number of Palestinian deaths that have occurred in Judea and Samaria, but does not describe the nature of those casualties. What were the circumstances of their deaths? Were the victims civilians uninvolved in hostilities or terrorists killed during attempted attacks, armed clashes or other security incidents? The reporting presents the raw total with no meaningful context.
Israeli accounts characterize many of these clashes as responses to attacks. Since late February, Palestinians have been killed while allegedly accelerating vehicles toward troops or military vehicles, during confrontations involving stone-throwing or in targeted operations against terror operatives. In Bani Naim, for example, a car-ramming struck an Israeli army vehicle, and one occupant was killed. Other incidents reportedly involved attempted vehicle-rammings or armed attacks. The Post omits this context.
Moreover, the Post selected Feb. 28 as a starting point for tracking casualties. Why choose that seemingly arbitrary date?
The reason appears to be that it marks the start of the broader U.S.-Israel escalation involving Iran. Violence by Jews in Judea and Samaria is reported to have increased from that point, but so did the dangerous security environment due to Palestinian terrorism. The article treats the date as the start of a higher Palestinian death toll, again without providing context.
In short, the number of Palestinian casualties is not invented, but appears without any mention that a substantial share took place during Palestinian attacks and other confrontations. This is a classic Washington Post omission that casts Israelis as the sole aggressors.
The newspaper’s many articles bashing Israel stand in contrast to its blatant disregard of actual transgressors in the Middle East and beyond. Yet the paper always ensures that the Israel-bashing criticism occupies a visible spot on the front page or close to it.
How can its reporters and editors blind themselves to the daily acts of inhumanity that have dragged on for decades in the Arab world?
For example, in some Middle Eastern countries, it’s against the law to become a citizen if you’re Christian or Jewish. In some, it’s against the law to build a synagogue or a church. Women are often second-class citizens. Gays are murdered.
Many of Israel’s neighbors are dictatorships whose citizens lack meaningful voting rights. By contrast, Arab citizens vote in Israel. Across much of the Arab world, civil liberties—including freedom of speech, press and religion—are severely restricted. Criticizing the national leadership is prohibited by law or suppressed in practice.
Why doesn’t the Post interview aggrieved Arabs? Why not speak with gay men who have fled Arab countries for Israel out of fear for their lives? Their stories should merit front-page coverage.
And what about women? In some Middle Eastern countries, women cannot leave home without a male escort. Does this discrimination not warrant even one Post article? After all, women constitute roughly half of the Arab world’s 350 million people across the Middle East and North Africa.
The disproportionate attacks on Israel through selectively chosen anti-Israel pieces in prominent spots at the Post—and most mainstream outlets—reflect intentional malpractice.
Is the cause of it a “soft bigotry of low expectations” for the Arab world or simply bias against Israel?
Either way, the Post appears unable to consider that a people such as the Palestinians might be both weak and wrong. Clearly, the Post’s coverage shapes our society in journalistically warped ways. And it needs to stop.
