From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:46:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Disguising Palestinian advocate as neutral party - clear example of purposeful bias against Israel
12/1/09
Dear Mr. Foxman,
"In U.S. praises Netanyahu plan" [Nov. 26, 2009], The Washington Post rightly states that the Israeli plan to prod the peace process with a settlement halt has been "hailed" by the Obama administration as "significant". The Post then presents the Palestinian view, the Israeli view, followed by quotes from Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace - as if he were a neutral party. The Washington Post quotes Aronson, saying that the caveats of the Israeli plan made it "virtually meaningless." What the Post did not say was that Aronson has a Pro-Palestinian lean. For example, Aronson, in the UK Guardian described Israel's actions in the recent Gaza war as an "assault"[1] . He further stated to the VOA that he feels that Israel has "pursued a policy aiming at the physical destruction of these people”[2] (referring to the Palestinians). Clearly this is not the phrasing of a disinterested party in the conflict. A simple Google search yields more than a dozen articles further depicting Aronson's Pro-Palestinian slant.
The Washington Post has failed to identify Geoffrey Aronson as a Palestinian advocate and instead has proffered his view as that of a neutral party. In so doing, the Post is knowingly leading the reader to a particular view violating journalistic ethics and exhibiting purposeful bias.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/gaza-israelandthepalestinians
[2] http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-a-2003-05-01-17-Interview-66317667.html?textmode=1
