Two recent articles by Ruth Eglash reveal a clear bias.
The first seven paragraphs of an article about Palestinian homes being torn down in the Jordan Valley in the March 9 paper presents the issue purely from the Palestinian perspective. It is not until the 8th paragraph that mention is made that the Jordan Valley is a strategic territory for Israel. Other than saying that it is strategic, nowhere in the article is an explanation offered as to why the area is strategic and the security threat and challenge it presents to Israel.
The article quotes a Palestinian whose home was demolished, a European critical of Israel’s action, Sarit Michaeli, an Israeli critic of Israel (several times), a B’Tselem report critical of Israel and the head of a local Arab council. The article also cites the charges of “activists who monitor alleged Israeli violations.” The only explanation for Israel’s position is a quote from Interior Minister Gideon Saar who is not quoted explaining Israel’s position, but only as saying that “Jewish settlement in the Jordan Valley will remain and prosper for generations to come.”
This is one of the most one-sided unfair articles I have read in the Washington Post for quite some time. She did not even attempt to offer any meaningful context, history, balance or explanation.
Nowhere in her dispatch the next day of only 11 paragraphs, on page 6, about the seizure by Israel of Iranian missiles headed for the Gaza Strip does she mention that the rockets had the capacity to wreak serious damage upon the entire country. It was a relatively perfunctory report, devoid of any sense of why this shipment was such a significant act, of the gravity of the threat it presented, or of the implications for the veracity of Iranian professions of turning away from destructive nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, there was no accompanying photo of the captured weapons.
I would hope that her future articles will not reflect her personal bias, but will report the news in the Middle East in a less subjective fashion.