The Guardian’s coverage of Thursday’s terror attack near Eilat, Palestinian rockets on southern Israel and Israeli responses continues the paper’s long history of anti-Israel bias. What about the Israeli victims? The 8 dead Israelis and dozens more who were injured in the terror attack appear to have gone unnoticed, with the focus of this article…
By Sunday August 21, hundreds of rockets had fallen on southern Israel following a terrorist attack near Eilat. Israel had responded with air strikes. No surprise then that the Washington Post’s editorial for the day focused on Israel. Yes that’s right – the WaPo chose to feature Israel’s recent demonstrations for social welfare, which had…
The events of the past few days have generated some horrendous headlines. Here are just a few that we spotted.
Why is it that the New York Times still cannot distinguish the moral differences between Palestinian terror and Israeli measures to defend its citizens?
In the hours after the terrible terrorist attack near Eilat that left 8 Israelis dead and many more wounded, what was the BBC’s headline story?
Syria says it’s allowing the establishment of political parties. The state news agency SANA said Monday the bill is part of a political reform program, and stipulates that parties cannot be based on a religious, tribal or regional basis. It also says new parties cannot be a branch of a non-Syrian group, or use violence…
I wish it weren’t necessary, but let’s face it: The IDF needs to explain why it’s going to intercept the Free Gaza flotilla. Good talking points.
Iran has been caught 10 times smuggling weapons to terrorists. I’m surprised we haven’t seen a video like this sooner.
Which headline’s sticks out like Mahmoud Abbas at a Jonathan Pollard rally? A scheduling problem? That’s kindest spin I’ve seen yet on the state of Palestinian reconciliation.
How does the media cover NATO air strikes in Libya compared to Israeli actions against Hamas?