Guardian‘s Myopia Strikes LA Times

A post yesterday by my colleague, Adam Levick at CiF Watch, about the Guardian‘s myopic coverage of statements by Israeli politicians (Naftali Bennett, Danny Danon, Moshe Ya’alon) expressing skepticism about a two-state solution might just as well apply to the Los Angeles Times. Levick wrote about Harriet Sherwood’s June 17 article:

. . . . Sherwood included no context about Palestinian views to balance her report – nothing about statements by Palestinian officials at odds with not only a two state deal, but to the existence of a Jewish state within any borders. While there are hundreds of examples available of Palestinian leaders advancing rhetoric fundamentally at odds with peace and co-existence which Sherwood could have cited, here’s one mock Guardian headline which would accurately reflect a recent well-publicized example of Palestinian incitement and intransigence.

The story reflected in the fake headline above is based on a very real report by Palestinian Media Watch, and covered elsewhere in the media:

A official, Jibril Rajoub…praised the use of violence against Israel. During an interview on a Lebanese TV channel [on May 2], the host referred to “the negotiations game” with Israel, and Rajoub expressed the view that negotiations are held because the Palestinians lack military strength: ”I swear that if we had a nuke, we’d have used it this very morning.”

The Los Angeles Times, like the Guardian, completely ignored Rajoub’s statement saying he’d use nukes against Israel if he had them. Nevertheless, it found space for a 800-plus word story yesterday about the statements by Bennett, Danon, and Ya’alon. Batsheva Sobelman and Maher Abukhater report that Bennett’s:

comments are the latest in a series of remarks by members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government against the two-state solution, raising doubts about the prospects of peace talks the United States is trying to renew. . . .

But Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, accused the Israeli government of intentionally undermining U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“These are not isolated statements but a reaffirmation of political platforms and radical beliefs,” Erekat said of the spate of downbeat remarks. “Israel has officially declared the death of the two-state solution.” . . .

Nabil abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, described the statements, particularly Bennett’s, as “dangerous.”

“These statements are not only a message to President Obama’s administration, which is exerting nonstop efforts to revive the peace process, but also a clear rejection of efforts to save what could be saved,” Abu Rudaineh said.

But Rajoub’s incitement is not dangerous? The Palestinian Authority’s honoring of three terrorists serving 166 life sentences do not raise doubts about the prospects of peace? And none of these incidents, what most Israelis consider “a clear rejection of efforts to save what could be saved” are worthy of Los Angeles Times coverage?

Whether you say “double standard” with a British or American accent, it means the same thing.