"Israel courts Syrians with humanitarian aid on border" (9/12/17) is yet another Washington Post article that tells a true, touching story yet spins it 180 degrees because of the paper's antipathy toward Israel.  Israel takes in its neighbor's war casualties and is vilified for the deed.  Talk about no good deed going unpunished! 

The article admits that "[m]ore than 600 Syrian children have been bused to Israeli hospitals for treatment in the past year."  And "Israel has now treated more than 3,000 wounded Syrians, military officials say, though a Syrian medic on the other side of the border said the number traveling for care appeared to be higher." 

But then there are the digs.  "Israeli officials stress the humanitarian aspect of the program, but it has another aim: to create a friendly zone just inside Syria as a bulwark against Israel's arch enemy."  The Washington Post provides no evidence to support this. 

The headline of the second page of the article on A13 reads, "Israeli aid to Syrians is humanitarian and strategic."  But even according to the Post's own reporting, "[i]t was in 2013, Israeli military officials say, when the first Syrians approached the Israeli fence on the Golan Heights."  The Post provides no evidence that contradicts Israel's official report.  The Post then adds its own spin by saying Israel's motive for helping the wounded was "strategic."  In a court of law, such conjecture would be deemed inadmissible.  Further, if the Syrians initiated the plea for help, what does that say about the motivations of the Israeli people?

According to the Post, "Israel has transferred 360 tons of food, nearly 120,000 gallons of gasoline, 90 pallets of drugs and 50 tons of clothing as well as generators, water piping and building material, the IDF says."  Israel also has given supplies and medical care in areas ranging from as far away as Haiti and most recently Florida (See here.)  Was this also strategic?

Moreover, is this reporting of Israel consistent with how The Washington Post reports on other countries providing humanitarian aid or disaster assistance?  Or does The Washington Post single out Israel when it comes to this sort of critique?  Without a doubt, the latter!

The Washington Post can't help but be negative on Israel.  The Post states, "Israel has been in a state of war with its northern neighbor [Syria] for nearly 70 years."  Hardly!  The truth: Syria and most surrounding Arab or Muslim nations have been at war with Israel for nearly 70 years.

Israel can't get a break at The Washington Post.  Israel is less than 1% of the Middle East, and the moment it declared independence in 1948, five Arab armies and the local Arabs, now known as Palestinians, attacked the nascent Jewish state with the goal of genocide.  And they didn't hide that goal!  They bragged about the impending genocide.  Fortunately, the Jewish state won.  Had it not, it would have meant back-to-back Holocausts for the Jewish people.

The Post described a seven-year old girl whose mother said a Syrian "local commander told them to go to Israel" for treatment.  Does this sound like a plot hatched by Israel for disingenuous reasons?

Even the Syrians who were treated by Israel understand the situation better than the Post.  The article ended with this: "'At first I was afraid, but then I saw that the treatment was superb,' the 36-year-old woman said.  'We were told they are the enemy, but in reality, they are friends.'"