Tuesday, December 11th | 3 Tevet 5779

January 26, 2017 7:43 am

The Washington Post’s Biased Sources: Settlement Watch, J Street, the PLO and the PA

avatar by Yarden Frankl

Email a copy of "The Washington Post’s Biased Sources: Settlement Watch, J Street, the PLO and the PA" to a friend
The settlement bloc of Ariel in the West Bank (Judea-Samaria). Photo: Wikipedia.

The settlement bloc of Ariel in the West Bank (Judea-Samaria). Photo: Wikipedia.

When the media use advocacy groups with political agendas as sources, they have an obligation to present the views of the other side. At the very least, they should make clear when their sources have political goals. Yet the Washington Post neglected to do so.

In the article, “Israel Plans West Bank Settlement Expansion Amidst Policy Shifts in Washington,” it uses Settlement Watch and J Street as sources. Both groups have clear anti-settlement agendas and have been vocal in their opposition to the policies of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Settlement Watch is an Israeli anti-settlement political organization. J Street is a far-left American political organization that supports the Iran nuclear agreement and continued US aid to the Palestinian Authority, and opposes anti-terror Israeli military actions. Neither group could be said to represent public opinion in its host country. In addition, J Street is constantly opposing polices advocated by the vast majority of American Jewish organizations that support Israel.

Yet these groups were not asked questions about their opposition to Israeli settlements. They were used to provide information and analysis about the Israeli move.

The Post then adds to its biased sources by quoting Hanan Ashrawi, a long-time foe of Israel’s who represents the PLO. Not surprisingly, she slams Israel, claiming the move was exploiting the new US administration and continuing Israeli violations. She does not explain what, exactly, Israel is continuing to violate.

If that weren’t bad enough, the Post next goes to the Palestinian Authority for an official response. The response, printed without any other opinion, is that the Israeli move is so bad it will “…undermine efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and will promote extremism.”

Are readers to believe that the PA has been busy with efforts to bring peace to the Middle East? The government that spends million of dollars on monthly stipends for terrorists claims the building of homes promotes extremism? The Post prints this absurd accusation without a dissenting view.

One short line is given to Netanyahu and another to Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Netanyahu is quoted as saying: “We’re building — and will continue to build.”

Though he surely had more to say on the subject, the only quote attributed to Lieberman was, “We are returning to normal life in Judea and Samaria.”

These are mere sound bites, not another view or analysis.

The article then returns to J Street for a concluding thought. This time the anti-settlement group gives an opinion on international law and settlements:

“It may really feel good for Israel’s government not to feel the sting of an American rebuke in the wake of this latest announcement,” said [J Street founder and head Jeremy] Ben-Ami, whose group supports a two-state deal between Israel and Palestinians. “But it doesn’t change the fact that the world has made it very clear that these actions have no legal validity.”

Why is one of the most partisan advocacy groups against Israeli settlements being used to speak about international law?

If advocacy groups must be used, why not ask a more mainstream group, such as AIPAC?

If the Post wants an opinion on settlements and international law, it could interview Professor Eugene Kontorovich, whose column on international law appears regularly in the Post itself.

By limiting sources to those with an interest in opposing the move, readers will be unable to make an informed, objective conclusion.

Journalists should always be cautious when using politically biased advocacy groups as sources of information and analysis. At the very least, they should make clear to readers the agendas of these organizations. It would also be a good idea to provide balance by including sources with a different perspective.

It is interesting to note that the New York Times covered the same topic without using Settlement Watch, J Street or any other advocacy organizations.

Read more at The CAMCI.Report.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner