Follow by Email

Monday, April 8, 2013

The Ongoing Zakaria/Hiatt/Washington Post Saga

Here is my response to Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, e-mailed on April 8, regarding Fareed Zakaria's prevarication (see:

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

I have not heard back from you.

I went to the trouble of providing you with an undisputed factual description of the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations in 2008, refuting Zakaria's fabrication that Israel has not "offered" the Palestinians "a state for 40 years." Is it still your contention that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's offer to Abbas of a state, including East Jerusalem, was not an "offer"? Sure, the Palestinians also wanted the Israeli settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and were not ready to accept a "swap" of other Israeli territory for these settlements, but an offer was made.

Do you prefer to continue to hide behind the platitude that the "history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious"?

Okay, you don't want to embarrass Zakaria, a plagiarist. But at a minimum, it would be "nice" if someone at your newspaper were to write back and say, "Yes, Jeffrey, you have a point, and we will consider publishing a rebuttal."

But heck, this is 2013, and why should undisputed facts, as acknowledged by both The New York Times and al Jazeera, get in the way of Zakaria's opinions?

And why should you go to the trouble of responding in a meaningful way to an undisputed factual recital of events in 2008 from a Washington Post reader?


Meanwhile, this abysmal conduct on the part of The Washington Post is described by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary (

Hiatt has yet to respond to my April 8 message.



    This Washington Post front page photo and accompanying headline "Israel Aircraft Pounds Gaza" from November 15, 2012 caused irrefutable damage to Israel public image.

    When a United Nations report found that the infant in the photo, Omar Mishrawi, may actually have been killed by a Hamas rocket, Max Fisher, the reporter who authored the original article finally wrote a very reluctant retraction (not an apology), but only 5 months later.

    Too late. The damage was already done. Most readers never get past the photo and the headline, or for that matter, bother to read the 'corrections' section.

    Unfortunately, Zakaria's written words will soon become spoken words on University campuses which in turn will shape the minds of future foreign policy makers.

  2. re:F. Zakaria
    Mr. Hiatt,

    Why will you not respond to Jonathan Tobin's communication. Zakaria SHOULD be held accountable for his dishonest reporting. Why do you continue to give him a pass?

  3. Once again, Jeff, you are dealing with thugs. I would call them "prostitutes" but someone correctly pointed out that this would be unfair toward prostitutes who work hard to help humanity, are honest about the nature of their work and don't pretend that they are ladies, grey or not, unlike ...
    On Sunday, I had a brief conversation with a woman whose husband works in publishing and she complained that the economics are not there - shrinking, laying off, etc. She didn't mention SELLING OFF, but I filled the gap. So, you have prostitutes (sorry prostitutes) who firmly believe that pecunia non olet (I always wonder how the Romans knew that oil countries would have so much money) and pretend that they are ladies.
    Sad, very sad.

  4. Ah, I am back and a correction follows
    I meant of course: "She didn't mention SELLING OUT"
    Sorry about this mistake