AMERICAN THINKER
MARCH 07, 2011
Leo Rennert
The Washington Post, in its March 7 edition, runs an article under a headline that reads: "Netanyahu says world is conditioned to back Palestinians" (page A6 "World Digest").
The story says the Israeli leader "accused the international community of automatically sidingwith the Palestinians" and he criticized the Palestinians for "refusing to make peace overtures, instead preferring to take advantage of the international community's Pavolvian reflex in their favor."
At this point, the Post moves from Netanyahu's general comments to give readers its own specific view of why peace negotiations are stalemated -- "Peace talks broke down in September," the Post reports. "The Palestinians blame Israel for the stalemate, citing continued Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem."
End of story.
Israel's reasons for why the talks are stalemated go unmentioned. A balanced story would have included Netanyahu's long-standing offer to conduct direct negotiations without pre-conditions -- with Palestinians free to bring up all final-status issues, including settlements and Jerusalem. And since the peace process involves an important third party -- the United States -- a balanced story also would have mentioned that Israel's push for direct talks is also the view of the White House.
By citing only the Palestinian view of why negotiations are stalemated, the Post -- inadvertently or not -- confirms Netanyahu's view that the world is conditioned to back the Palestinians. A global pro-Palestinian Pavolvian reflex is also alive and well at the Washington Post.
And this isn't just a one-time tilt toward the Palestinian view. It's become commonplace at the Post that any mention of stalemated negotiations automatically is followed by Palestinians blaming Israel -- without any countervailing Israeli view that the Palestinians are gumming up the peace works by boycotting negotiations..
The March 7 article also leaves a false impression that Israel is building more settlements in the WestBank. Under Netanyahu's premiership, there has been a strict ban on building new settlements or expanding old ones. Complementing these moves, there also has been a ban on taking additional West Bank land for further settlement building. Thus, there has been no "continued Israeli settlementbuilding," as the article states. The only building that has occurred has been within existingsettlements.
By citing only Palestinian reasons for lack of progress on the peace front and by injecting anti-Israel spins like "continued Israeli settlement building," the Post ends up seconding Netanyahu's view that the deck indeed is stacked against Israel -- with the Post adding to this imbalance.
______________________
