Wednesday, May 18th | 17 Iyyar 5782

March 14, 2018 10:34 am

How ‘The Washington Post’ Distorts the Arab-Israeli Conflict

avatar by Sean Durns /


The former Washington Post building. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. – When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, The Washington Post says a lot with what it chooses — and chooses not to — report. Omission-laden reporting and selective coverage are both distorting the Post’s depiction of the Jewish state.

The Washington Post continually omits Palestinian rejection of peace offers, while simultaneously ignoring Palestinian leaders who embrace terror.

In the last 18 years alone, the Palestinian Authority has refused US and Israeli proposals for peace in exchange for a Palestinian state on numerous occasions, including 2000 at Camp David, 2001 at Taba and 2008 after the Annapolis Conference. The PA could have accepted any of these numerous opportunities for statehood; they not only refused, but they declined to so much as make a counteroffer.

Similarly,the PA rejected US attempts to restart negotiations in 2014 and 2016, and has refused bilateral talks — a requirement stipulated by the Oslo Accords, which created the PA in the first place and which remains the basis for its funding.

Related coverage

May 18, 2022 12:29 pm

The Angel of Death at Mount Meron – I felt like the angel of death last year at Mount Meron, when the annual Lag B’Omer festival...

Yet The Washington Post doesn’t feel that this continual pattern of Palestinian rejectionism is worthy of news space. The Post failed to detail these rejected offers in the more than 35 reports on the state of the “peace process” that their Jerusalem bureau and World Views section published between January 2016 and February 2018.

Indeed, when the details of the 2014 US peace offer were finally revealed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in June 2017 — including Israel’s acceptance of the proposed terms and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’ rejection of them — The Washington Post didn’t even bother filing a report.

The paper’s pattern of omissions raises a question: Why would the outlet write so frequently about the peace process and the possibility of Palestinian statehood, yet nearly always fail to provide readers with this pertinent information?

In a June 5, 2017, interview live-streamed on Facebook, then-Post Jerusalem bureau chief William Booth acknowledged that the paper has been criticized for repeatedly failing to note these rejected peace offers. However, he defended the decision on the grounds that “we’ve done all of those stories before,” and “not every story can be a retelling of everything and not every story can have [the] context that readers of either side might like.” This excuse would be more believable if the Post wasn’t fixated on the same subjects, while constantly ignoring and minimizing others.

For example — as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has documented — The Washington Post disproportionately covers settlement construction in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The paper filed literally dozens of reports on “settlements” in 2016-18, many of them omitting important details. The majority of these dispatches provide the misleading impression that Jewish communities in the West Bank are expanding externally when, in fact, their territory is not expanding. In reality, most of the population growth is the result of natural increase and not new arrivals.

And in contrast to what the Post’s reporting often implies, most of the construction has been in areas that Israel, per existing agreements with the PA, is likely to keep in any future peace deal.

In other words, Jewish homes are not preventing a two-state solution. Palestinian leaders are.

The obsession with a non-existent story is odd, particularly when one considers the short shift that the Post gives to internal Palestinian developments. In one recent example, when PA leader Mahmoud Abbas was suddenly hospitalized last month while visiting the United States, the paper declined to provide any original reporting on the incident.

Rumors swirled that Abbas — an octogenarian who reportedly smokes two packs a day — was deeply sick, and that his sudden hospital visit was more than just the “routine checkup” that his spokespeople claimed.

Abbas, an autocrat in the 13th year of a single elected four-year term, leads an entity that is a significant beneficiary of US aid and a lynchpin of US strategy. His sudden death or incapacitation would likely lead to a chaotic power struggle that would have vast implications for the Palestinian people, Israelis, the United States and other regional actors.

Not only did the Post fail to investigate Abbas’ illness, but it has repeatedly minimized his antisemitic rhetoric and the PA’s promotion of anti-Jewish violence.

For example, the paper didn’t report on Abbas’ December 13, 2017 speech in Istanbul, in which he claimed that Jews “are really excellent in faking and counterfeiting history.” PA policies, including the Authority’s refusal to quit paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year to terrorists and their families — and enshrining a culture of martyrdom via antisemitic messages broadcast on official media and taught in PA schools — also receives little attention from the Post.

And when this incitement is noted — and even that is rare, as it receives far less attention than homes in Judea — the Palestinians’ actions are often minimized as merely “Israeli claims.”

Editorially, the paper has also shown a preference for publishing anti-Israel screeds, many of them far removed from truth and decency. This pattern is more pronounced in the paper’s Outlook section, as well as in online-only op-eds.

Within a week of the AIPAC policy conference held earlier this month in Washington, the paper published commentaries titled “The dark roots of AIPAC” and “How Benjamin Netanyahu enables anti-Semitism.” The latter lacked proof; the former misled by omissions and a lack of context. Both spoke volumes about what the Post deigns to be worth publishing and when.

The Post’s Outlook section has previously published op-eds by the head of Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that the Anti-Defamation League has noted “uses its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of antisemitism and to provide the movement with a veneer of legitimacy.”

By contrast, one is hard-pressed to find Post Outlook pieces and online op-eds that focus exclusively on Palestinian leaders and society — perhaps because the paper has, on several occasions, refused to publish them. A March 8 Post commentary on Hamas by US presidential adviser Jason Greenblatt is a rare exception — one the paper would have probably had trouble declining given its author’s job.

The voices that comprise column space by the Post speak volumes about how the paper views the Arab-Israeli conflict: Israel is an intransigent power responsible for the lack of peace, and the Palestinians are without independent agency. Details and facts that don’t fit this narrative are left out.

So is the truth.

The writer is a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.