Wash. Post, NY Times flog Israeli settlements, facts notwithstanding (AMERICAN THINKER) Leo Rennert / Blog 04/25/12)
AMERICAN THINKER Articles-Index-Top
Earlier this week, the Israeli government formally legalized three
small Jewish communities in the West Bank -- Rehalim, Bruchin and
Sansana. They had been authorized and approved by prior governments
in the 1980s and 1990s. Rehalim received official authorized
settlement status on May 19, 1983, Bruchin on Nov. 27, 1991, and
Sansana on June 28, 1998.
What had been lacking was additional paperwork to formalize their
legal status -- essentially an oversight that now has been corrected.
But since the Washington Post and the New York Times are predisposed
to see evil in anything pertaining to Jewish settlements, it comes as
no surprise that they jumped on this thin bureaucratic reed to flog
Jewish presence in the Jews´ biblical homeland.
Ignoring facts and history, the Post carries a three-column article
by Jerusalem correspondent Karin Brulliard in its April 25 edition,
headlined "Israel legalizes 3 West Bank outposts -- Palestinian
activists decry move as step toward new settlements."
In the lead paragraph, Brulliard writes that Israel "legalized three
unauthorized Jewish outposts in the West Bank" -- a move decried by
Palestinians and anti-settlement groups as a "step toward creating
the first new settlements in more than a decade."
The office of Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately pointed to the
errors in such coverage, with spokesman Mark Regev declaring
that "one can be critical of the Israeli settlement policy, that´s
everybody´s right, but you can´t tell me that the Israeli government
has built new settlements, and you can´t tell me that this is
legalizing unauthorized outposts. These (new) decisions are
procedural or technical. They don´t change anything whatever on the
ground." In other words, the Post is dead wrong.
The Post, however, completely ignored Regev´s statement. Brulliard
instead gives full coverage to critics and opponents of settlements.
To say that hers is a one-sided story doesn´t do justice to the
Post´s biased coverage.
Unlike the Post, the New York Times features a more nuanced article
by correspondent Jodi Rudoren that includes Regev´s explanation, but
still blows the issue of the three long-established settlements out
of all proportion. In a provocative, finger-in-Israel´s eye six-
column report that, with an accompanying five-column photo of a
settlement, takes up a full half page, the Times headlines Rudoren´s
piece: "Israel Retroactively Legalizes 3 West Bank Settlements,
Citing Technical Issues" (April 25, page A8)
Rudoren´s lead flatly accuses Israel of a "provocative move" that,
according to critics, "marked the first establishment of new
settlements in two decades."
Having ginned up and tilted the coverage against Israel at the top,
then and only then does Rudoren quote Regev in rebuttal.
The Post´s piece is an all-out fabrication -- the three small
settlements were NOT "unauthorized Jewish outposts" before this
week. The Times´ piece crosses the line by casting this week´s
action as constituting creation of "new settlements."
Under Netanyahu and his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, Israel has adhered
to a policy of not creating new settlement and not expanding the
outer limits of existing settlements. The only thing authorized
under this policy is construction within existing settlements.
This week´s action in no way or shape alters this policy, the
Washington Post and the New York Times to the contrary
Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington
bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY