Why?
Israel sympathy.
Yep:
Washington Post: On Israel, More Catholic Than The Pope
By M.J. Rosenberg
If the Washington Post was an Israeli daily, it would not be Ha'aretz -- the New York Times of Israel which publishes editorials and columns on all sides of the issues -- it would be the Jerusalem Post, jingoistic and, if anything, to the right of the government.
Of course, the Washington Post is not an Israeli paper so its defense of even the most indefensible Israeli policy -- the refusal to freeze settlements -- is just weird. Fred Hiatt (the editorial page editor), neocon hero Charles Krauthammer and columnist Bill Kristol consistently defend Israeli policies with a zealousness they last demonstrated when pushing for war with Iraq.
...Nor are there any "parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton searched the archives and says that there is no evidence whatsoever that any agreement allowing settlement expansion exists. [this is BS]
The reason US relations with Israel have deteriorated is that the Israeli government is increasing, not decreasing, settlement activity. [more BS] This is its response to Obama's one demand: a settlements freeze, a freeze a sizable percentage of Israelis believe is acceptable. [how sizable? telephone booth size?]
...[now he gets a bit antiS] Israel is the number one recipient in the world of aid from the United States. And traditionally the aid relationship is a two-way street. The donor provides it and the recipient pays some heed to what the donor requests.
So far, that has not been the case with the Netanyahu government.
The Washington Post had better start thinking with at least a tad of objectivity about Israel's current policies. The last thing the world of journalism needs is a second Jerusalem Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment