Josh said: Your views on the issue are however clear and the news sorce which to all who had eyes was far from neutural gave the causual observer there first clue.

Oboler said: Josh, I hate to say it but... I have a problem with your attitude to JPost. It's like saying people can't post article on ednet that came from the Times, and only the Guardian will be accepted (though I note you haven't indicated what IS acceptable).
Israel has a very free press. In this case the Jerusalem Post was first with the story because they had a reporter sitting outside ALL DAY talking to people, getting comments, sending things through to their chief editor etc. Your preference for a defact boycott of a member of the free press because it's based in Israel is worrying.

Hmmm.

What's your problem with Josh's viewpoint of the Jerusalem Post, Oboler? He didn't say he had a problem with JP because it was based in Israel. It was your inference alone which led you to that conclusion.

As Israel's oldest English Language Journal, it started off it's life as the 'Palestinian Post', back in 1932, and was originally very liberal in it's editorial stance.

How times have changed!

These days, alot of Jews who choose to remain outside of Israel view the 'Jerusalem Post' as a right-wing shmata, pro-Occupation, dehumanising of Palestinians, and promoting smears and generally unsupportive and often destructively critical of Israeli Peace Movements and individual figures.

It was the Jerusalem Post which called "published an editorial calling for Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to be killed. Entitled "Enough," it read: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."

The Jerusalem Post also features articles from the infamous Daniel Pipes, the man who runs 'Campus Watch' in the USA. Pipes is vehemently anti-Arab, and his 'Campus Watch' organisation, tracks down university professors who are perceived to be anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Islamist, and prides itself publishes all their personal details in National Front 'Redwatch' style and generating hate-mail, regardless of whether these accusations are well-founded or not. (Any bells ringing yet?)

The Jerusalem Post definitely has a right-wing bent, and can in no-way be seen as a honest critic of Israel-Palestinian current affairs, when it encourages violence like this. This isn't the worst of it either. In essence, the Jerusalem Post delivers ideological journalism which promotes specific views rather than delivering the information and allowing the reader to form their own judgement.

By supporting and linking to a right-wing rag such as this and using it's reports constantly on ednet, you are exposing ednet readers to some of the most extreme of Israeli right-wing polemicists.