Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

November 4, 2007

This article was distributed to New Zealand Newspaper editors with the accompanying letter:

Dear Editor:
Since many NZ newspapers use the Washington Post news service, and with the Annapolis peace conference coming up soon, I hope you will read these postings by eyeonthepost.org about anti-Israel bias in the Post's reporting.
You might also ask if other news services are guilty of the same kind of bias.
Rodney Brooks,
Chairman Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast

‘Dear friends,
As you can see, the Washington Post has been ramping up its one-sided coverage of Israel in preparation for the Annapolis conference. Post reporters and editors have a political agenda with respect to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and they will use every opportunity to distort their coverage of Israel to convey that agenda. These alerts are examples, and it will get worse.

The Post's anti-Israel, pro-Arab propaganda pieces are syndicated in scores of newspapers around the US and the world. The Post's bias is a problem not only for residents of the Washington, DC area but for all news consumers who hope for and expect balanced and truthful reporting. Please forward these alerts to everyone you know with an interest in critically examining the news coverage of the Israel-Arab conflict. Let them see how a newspaper with a reputation for quality news reporting is not living up to its reputation. ’

Washington Post Worries Only About Suffering In Gaza -- Ignores Qassam Barrages At Sderot

By Leo Rennert

Sunday, October 28, 2007

For the last several months, the Washington Post has imposed a virtual blackout on news about near-daily Qassam rocket barrages from Gaza aimed at kibbutzim and southern towns in Israel, including Sderot and Ashkelon. The Post's Jerusalem correspondent, Scott Wilson, has studiously avoided taking a look at Sderot's terrorized population as Qassams kill, wound and traumatize its residents, especially youngsters, but also adults who frequently have to be treated for shock as rockets hit schoolyards and homes.

But now that the Israeli government, after concluding that pinpoint strikes against rocket launchers have not halted cross-border missile and mortar fire, is carefully moving toward selective, relatively minimal power and fuel cutoffs to Hamas-ruled Gaza, the news department of the Washington Post seems to have suddenly woken up that Gazans finally may feel a bit of pain for the terrorism practiced by their rulers. As usual, Palestinian pain rates much higher coverage priority than Israeli pain at the Post.

So let's take a look at a short article in the Post's Oct. 25 issue that is emblematic of the paper's consistent anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias. The headline reads: ‘Military Plans Gaza Power Cuts to Curb Attacks. ’

The three-sentence article informs Post readers that Israel has completed plans for gradual electricity and fuel cutoffs to the Gaza Strip in response to ongoing rocket fire from the Palestinian territory. It also notes that Israel provides more than half of Gaza's electricity and ‘any power cutoff is sure to make life more difficult to residents. ’

Two problems in the first two sentences and the headline: The first problem is obviously the fact, as noted earlier, that the Post hasn't similarly reported the daily missile attacks from Gaza and is only interested when Israel decides to respond. The second problem is that the Post fails to point out that Israel, to show utmost restraint, plans electricity cutoffs, in spread-out, two-hour segments, only to the Beit Hanoun area, which abuts Israel and is the main staging ground for Qassam launchings. The lights will still go on in Gaza City - - a rather important aspect of Israel's response that is totally missing from the Post's dispatch.

No surprise since the Post has no interest in spotlighting Israeli restraint. Just the opposite. It goes on to convict Israel before any power cutoff has even taken place. ‘The (Israeli) move is also certain to draw international condemnation, ’ the article asserts.

And there you have the Post's ingrained animus against Israel. For one thing, the prediction of ‘international condemnation ’ is not attributed to any source whatever. It's the Post's own value judgment that Israel will rate international condemnation for trying to protect itself against Qassam attacks terrorizing its population. The Post also doesn't tell its readers that far from being condemned by the entire ‘international ’ community (a construct without any reality), whatever criticism Israel may encounter is bound to come only or mainly from the usual suspects - - the Palestinians, naturally; the Arab League, naturally; the UN bureaucracy, naturally; Jimmy Carter, obviously; the NY Times editorial page, reliably; ‘human rights ’ groups with pacifist political agendas which would leave terrorists free to pummel their victims while denying the victims any right to defend themselves; and the news pages of the Washington Post, of course.

The agenda of the Post's news section has been all too obvious for a long time -- defend or overlook Palestinian terrorism and atrocities, while shaping its coverage on the premise that Israel, unlike any other country, enjoys no right of self-defense, or at least the kind of self-defense that actually may protect its citizens.

[Leo Rennert is a journalist and former White House correspondent]

---

Saturday, November 3, 2007

How Two Newspapers Reported A Hamas Atrocity - Washington Post Ignores News Reflecting Negatively on Palestinian Terrorists

Earlier this week, the IDF filmed a terrorist cell using a Gaza school yard to fire mortar rounds at Israel. “It's about as cynical use of the civilian population as it gets,” an IDF official declared. The terrorists fire from amidst vulnerable civilians, he said, knowing Israel won't hit back for fear of harming innocent people. The IDF waited until the terrorists cleared the school buildings before responding.

Here's how the NY Times reported this event:

‘Late Wednesday, the Israel military released video of Gaza militants firing mortar rounds from the yard of an elementary school in the northern town of Beit Hanoun on Monday morning.

‘The terrorist organizations, headed and controlled by Hamas, constantly and cynically use the uninvolved Palestinian civilians and children as human shields," said the army in a statement, adding that it "targeted and hit the launching cell as they were fleeing the school premises. ’

‘A resident of Beit Hanoun said the militant belonged to the Hamas military wing. ’

The school is run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance to Palestinian refugees. Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the agency, condemned the use of its schools ‘by militants and during military operations. ’ Both types of activity are “highly disruptive ” and “clearly endanger the lives of our students and teachers, ” he said.

Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas legislator in Gaza, said that “the Palestinian resistance works hard to stay away from population centers and public buildings, ” but that “sometimes the resistance is obliged to defend these places. ”

Now here's how the Washington Post reported the same event:

‘ -----------------------
----------------------- ’

No, it's not your computer or my transmission. The Washington Post totally failed to report this utterly cynical use of children as (human shields) in a school run by the United Nations. Not one word. Nothing.

Nor can the Post claim that this was just a harmless oversight. While this story made headlines in Israel, the Post had a full time correspondent in Jerusalem, Scott Wilson. And Wilson couldn't have failed to notice this clearly newsworthy event, which the IDF widely publicized.

And just in case, Wilson might have overlooked the IDF announcement, I immediately sent it to him with the actual video of Hamas terrorists firing mortar rounds from the school yard in more than ample time for his Friday, Nov. 2 deadline.

The Washington Post news blackout of this event is not surprising. Why would a newspaper and a Jerusalem correspondent, both dedicated to Israel-bashing as their highest journalistic priority, bother with coverage of an event that would not fit their agenda?

Leo Rennert