Posted on 02/13/2020 6:50:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Washington Post in their article, "How peace plan could dispossess Arab Israelis" (2/9/20) has dispossessed and manipulated the truth. The Post uses a device called a "straw man argument" to indoctrinate its readers.
In the article, which describes the recently proposed Trump administration peace deal, the Post states that "many [Israeli Arabs] say [the deal] would amount to a forced deportation from Israel, where their families have lived for generations." Who are these "many" individuals? Nonexistent straw men. No Israeli Arabs would be "deported" in the peace plan. The peace plan expressly states that no one would be deported, displaced, or transferred in any way. The plan merely contemplates redrawing (or more precisely, a drawing) of permanent borders. So there cannot be "many" Israeli Arabs who fear deportation. The Post's account is a deception.
The Post said Israeli Arab protests against the peace plan included a "march of hundreds," implying a big turnout. However, there are 350,000 Arabs in the area. "Hundreds" is a rather small turnout, especially for people who supposedly believe they are being "deported."
The article quoted several Israeli Arabs who recited a litany of grievances against Israel. One of the complaints revealed something telling about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. Mohammed Abu Majid offered this remark about the peace deal: "Maybe if they give us a real state with our land back and our dignity, yes, why not?" Did the Post bother to ask Mr. Majid what he meant by wanting "our land back"? As anyone familiar with the conflict (but the Post) knows, the Palestinians want all of Israel because they think it is theirs and will settle for nothing less — that's what he meant, and that is the crux of the conflict. The Palestinians want it all: Haifa, Beersheva, Ashkelon, etc.!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How is it possible that despite the half-dozen or so people the Post interviewed for the article, the Post was not able to find one person in favor of the deal or even neutral about it? Might it be because the benefits of the plan run counter to the Post’s views? Obviously, as there are people in favor of the deal. Interviewing solely those on one side of an issue while excluding the other side is another example of journalistic malpractice by the Post.
That would make me support it more.
That sounds more like a feature than a bug.
It will cost but a fraction of the money to repatriate the Muslim squatters to Muslim countries - whether their home countries or others. A major step forward if this is accomplished now. It’s long overdue
Too bad the Israelis are not endowed with prescient hindsight.
I agree. Big mistake. Big, big mistake.
The Washington Post never lets the truth stand in the way of a "let's hate __________" story.
An interesting side effect of these expulsions is discussed even less. Those Arab countries all suffered economic setbacks as a result because those bloodsucking Jooze were the people who actually knew how to run a modern economy. Imagine that!
The Post said Israeli Arab protests against the peace plan included a "march of hundreds," implying a big turnout. However, there are 350,000 Arabs in the area. "Hundreds" is a rather small turnout, especially for people who supposedly believe they are being "deported."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.