The President of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, gives a deeply anti-Semitic speech before an audience of terror financiers and war criminals. The media, amid filing dozens of reports on the future of the "peace process," chooses to ignore it. Or worse still, they selectively edit his remarks.
Not long after they ignored anti-Semitic rhetoric by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, the media got a second chance. Another speech, with more outlandish vitriol, followed. Did they seize the opportunity?
The Washington Post continues to rely on anti-Israel sources, while omitting the rejectionism and anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders and those who, like The Post itself, enable them.
CNN completely whitewashed Mahmoud Abbas' dramatic policy speech, entirely skipping over the Palestinian Authority President's hateful and false statements about Jews as well as his call to arms .
In Abbas's Op-Ed, there are lies, distortions, and a broader message: that Palestinians possess no moral agency and their leadership shares no responsibility for their state of affairs.
A New York Times Op-Ed by Elhanan Miller speaks of Abbas having accepted a Jewish state, and goes through contortions to mislead readers on this point.
The AP purports to set the record straight on statements by David Friedman to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearings for ambassadorship to Israel. But the AP "fact-checker" counters Friedman's fully accurate facts with misleading half-truths.
Two-thirds of the Palestinians interviewed in a recent poll want Mahmoud Abbas to step down as President of the Palestinian Authority. The poll, which highlights problems in Palestinian society that hinder peace, has been ignored by most media outlets.
Thanks to a US abstention the UN Security Council has passed Resolution 2334, asserting that Israeli settlements have "no legal validity" and are a "flagrant violation under international law." Will the resolution be counterproductive, like the settlement freeze President Obama imposed on Israel in 2009? Or will it help advance the cause of peace?
In his coverage of recent UN speeches by Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, the new New York Times bureau chief erased key distinctions with a "both sides do it" cliché, but made inappropriate distinctions by editorializing about a "brash" Netanyahu.