WaPo inverts victim and aggressor

“Israel’s ominous escalation” (8/28/19) could also be called the Washington Post’s “ominous escalation” with three articles/editorials in three days about Israel’s allegedly egregious responses to Iranian aggression. Of course, the Post calls Israel’s response to weapons buildups on its borders and attempted drone attacks as Israeli “aggression.” What else does one of the smallest countries in the world have to do in its spare time than to poke a hornet’s nest of enemies that have them pretty much surrounded?

The Post editorial says that “since July, Israel has quietly expanded its air campaign” against Iran. Might that have anything to do with Iran expanding its military campaign/buildup against Israel?  We know that Iran has been provoking the world by attacking and hijacking international ships while creating havoc in the Straits of Hormuz. This has gone on for months. Iran’s actions are clear to everyone -- except the Washington Post when it comes to Israel. 

To its credit, the Post acknowledges (will wonders ever cease?) that “Israel clearly has a right to defend itself.”  Like clockwork, there is then the inevitable “but” after any concession or acknowledgement of an Israeli action.” The Post follows (drumroll), “But” the Israeli response “comes with considerable risks.” Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one? The alleged risks: “5,000 US troops could be targets for Iranian reprisals.” The Post continues the unprofessional use of speculation with their “coulda” brigade.

The editorial concluded with more speculation attempting to draw a link between Israel’s actions against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming election by saying Netanyahu is facing a “tough election.” The Post then states that Netanyahu “might consider” this a good time to “escalate” with Iran. And that Netanyahu “may also” feel that President Trump will not have a problem with it. The piece finishes with, “Unfortunately, on the latter point, he’s probably right.”

So the Post takes layers of suppositions and draws a conclusion as if those suppositions are facts -- when they are not. Poor journalism at its finest.

“Israel’s ominous escalation” (8/28/19) could also be called the Washington Post’s “ominous escalation” with three articles/editorials in three days about Israel’s allegedly egregious responses to Iranian aggression. Of course, the Post calls Israel’s response to weapons buildups on its borders and attempted drone attacks as Israeli “aggression.” What else does one of the smallest countries in the world have to do in its spare time than to poke a hornet’s nest of enemies that have them pretty much surrounded?

The Post editorial says that “since July, Israel has quietly expanded its air campaign” against Iran. Might that have anything to do with Iran expanding its military campaign/buildup against Israel?  We know that Iran has been provoking the world by attacking and hijacking international ships while creating havoc in the Straits of Hormuz. This has gone on for months. Iran’s actions are clear to everyone -- except the Washington Post when it comes to Israel. 

To its credit, the Post acknowledges (will wonders ever cease?) that “Israel clearly has a right to defend itself.”  Like clockwork, there is then the inevitable “but” after any concession or acknowledgement of an Israeli action.” The Post follows (drumroll), “But” the Israeli response “comes with considerable risks.” Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one? The alleged risks: “5,000 US troops could be targets for Iranian reprisals.” The Post continues the unprofessional use of speculation with their “coulda” brigade.

The editorial concluded with more speculation attempting to draw a link between Israel’s actions against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming election by saying Netanyahu is facing a “tough election.” The Post then states that Netanyahu “might consider” this a good time to “escalate” with Iran. And that Netanyahu “may also” feel that President Trump will not have a problem with it. The piece finishes with, “Unfortunately, on the latter point, he’s probably right.”

So the Post takes layers of suppositions and draws a conclusion as if those suppositions are facts -- when they are not. Poor journalism at its finest.