In "Rise of Israel's far right puts focus back on the West Bank" (12/11/22), it's The Washington Post that puts the focus back on the West Bank. The article begins with a description of an awful event where an Arab woman was struck by Israeli stone throwers. If the Post were to write articles about rocks and boulders being thrown by Arabs at Jews, there would be 365 articles a year. The biased Post reporter ignores that fact by singling out this one instance where the victim was Arab. How are Post readers supposed to put the conflict in context!

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

So, what, if any, will be the influence of the two far-right Israeli ministers in Israel's new government? The Post alleges that according to "MANY (emphasis added), Hebron's bloody, biblically tinged conflict between its 800 hardline Israeli settlers and its 200,000 Palestinians, is a test case for the future of relations between the two peoples under the next government." The Post does not identify who these "many" are. There is no cited population sample, no NGO survey, no evidence whatsoever. This, from a paper once known for its investigative journalism. And why are Israeli citizens in Hebron called "hardline?" Moreover, why aren't the Palestinians in Hebron called "militant," consistent with their behavior? The Post can't hide whose side they are on.

The Post states that "Israel's most far-right government and pro-settler government in its history is being sworn in during one of the deadliest years for both Israelis and Palestinians." But then the Post admits to the cause of "one of the deadliest years." It explains that "[s]ince last spring, a string of Palestinian attacks in Israeli cities and many military posts" has occurred. And yes, Israel has responded in self-defense, fulfilling the obligation of every country to defend its citizens. In the Palestinian-sparked exchanges of blows, some Palestinians have been killed. As everyone knows, actions have consequences. What does the Post think – that Israel should just submit to the terrorism? Should any country?

The Post quotes one fringe anti-Israel Israeli group notorious for misinformation – Breaking the Silence – as saying that "MANY (emphasis added) Israelis are shocked by the images coming out of Hebron." But "MANY" can mean 10 – it's an "indefinite" number, according to Webster's dictionary. By the Post's own logic, the entire population of Israel may be shocked by the Palestinian terrorist attacks while only a limited few are shocked by Israel's actions. The Post's insidious spin on Israeli public opinion is likely the opposite of the reality on the ground.

The Post disparages the new Israeli ministers, saying "[Bezalel] Smotrich and [Itamar] Ben-Gvir were both suspected of being involved in terrorism in their youth." The word "suspected" does not mean the individuals were guilty of anything! On what other occasions has the Post inferred guilt when the named parties were mere suspects? What animus from the Post reporters!

The Post says Minister Smotrich's use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" evokes the "biblical name for the West Bank." If biblical means before 1947, the Post would be correct. But it's not! Judea and Samaria are the proper historical terms for the region. The new name "West Bank" was manufactured by Jordan after it illegally captured the territory in 1948. A correction is in order. The Post associates Minister Smotrich with a "biblical" image to paint him as a religious zealot. The Washington Post's job is not to distort the news but to report it.

The Post quotes one Israeli official who allegedly stated that the new ministers will quash "all options for a two-state solution." That remark is laughable in light of the omitted context: The Palestinians have not only spurned numerous offers of a two-state solution but repudiated the olive branches with wars, waves of terrorism, and/or alienating silence.

The Post article gives the false impression that the two so-called "hard line" Israeli ministers will somehow oppress Palestinians. In reality, the individuals rose to power democratically in response to Palestinian terrorism. The Post's pro-Palestinian sympathy ploy notwithstanding, it is the Palestinians who are – and have always been – the source of the conflict.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A sympathy parade for Palestinians, with a new angle appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In its coverage of the recent "Rally in Solidarity with the Jewish People," the Washington Post seems to downplay the need for such a rally. In its article, Hundreds denounce antisemitism during rally at Capitol, the daily cherry-picks statistics in order to minimize the threat to Jews, citing an Anti-Defamation League report that, while incidents of harassment against Jews were up 10% in 2020 over 2019, "acts of vandalism and assault declined by 18% and 49%, respectively." Well maybe that had something to do with the lockdown during the worst pandemic in 100 years?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

According to the FBI's latest annual crime report from 2019: FBI – Victims, over 60% of all religious hate crimes were perpetrated against those of the Jewish faith. That is more hate crimes than against all other religious groups combined. That statistic is especially alarming considering that Jews make up only 2% of the US population.

In 2021, hate crimes against Jews have risen substantially. Hate crimes against Jews in L.A. rose nearly 60% in first half of 2021.

Most readers have seen the horrendous videos of gangs attacking Jews in New York and elsewhere, outside of restaurants and bagel shops, solely because they were Jewish. This is clearly reminiscent of the pogroms that caused many Jews to flee to the United States in the first place.

Yet these shocking facts are ignored by the Washington Post, which shows little regard for the crime wave against Jews.

One of the two photos accompanying the article revealed more editorial distaste for the rally against antisemitism. The lead photo showed four Orthodox Jews who objected to the rally. The caption – "Orthodox Jews make their opinion known" – falsely implied that religious Jews generally oppose protests against antisemitism. Why highlight this tiny handful of nonconformists? Apparently, the Washington Post was trying to discredit the purpose of the gathering.

Next, the paper distracted from the theme of antisemitism by putting Israel on trial. One speaker at the rally was Elisha Wiesel, son of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. Although Wiesel's speech emphasized the importance of Jewish unity, the Washington Post undercut that message by quoting his parenthetical remark that some "disagree on Israel." It seems the Washington Post would prefer to embarrass the Jewish community by noting their mix of opinions about Israel rather than reveal their overwhelming solidarity on the issue of antisemitism.

The same article tried for a second time to spoil the occasion by hinting at intra-faith conflict. The piece stated that "while the event and its speakers displayed goals of unity, there was a brief moment of tension." Their evidence? Two people "got into disagreements with attendees" and one woman yelled at a "group of Orthodox Jews." Does the Washington Post really believe a few exchanges of heated words by three people can cause a massive public demonstration to descend into a "moment of tension"? The reporter must have been desperate to find fault with the Jewish event.

The piece even tried to minimize the rally's attendance figure by claiming only "hundreds" were there, in comparison to the Jewish News Syndicate's account of 3,000.

In further contrast to the report, the Jerusalem Post report on the rally used only quotes that accurately reflected the purpose of the demonstration. For example, the Jerusalem-based paper quoted Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, as saying, "'We are bolstered by the presence of our Jewish brothers and sisters from across America. And we are strengthened by the support of our interfaith allies and friends. We value this unity, because even our nation's capital has not been immune to the rising tide of antisemitism. None of us should need to be at a rally against antisemitism in 2021, but we do need to be here because we must again respond to vile rhetoric, physical attacks and symbols of hatred against our people."

He went on to declare that "the Jewish people will not be divided" and that "we will fight antisemitism from the Right and we will fight antisemitism from the Left; we will hold both of our political parties and all of our elected representatives accountable for protecting Jewish Americans from hatred and oppression."

Now that explains the rally!

The Washington Post could have provided honest coverage of the rally by focusing on the fight against antisemitism. Instead, the reporters clouded the story with their own political agenda. Readers had to wade through the entire piece to finally capture the essence of the occasion. The last line noted that the crowd "sang in front of the Capitol, 'I'm a Jew and I'm proud!' "

And that, WaPo, is unity and solidarity!

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post How the Washington Post torpedoed the DC Jewish solidarity rally appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.