In "Even after partnership, Israeli government stalls" (4/4/20), the Washington Post calls the recent national Israeli elections "ugly."  In a part of the world where elections aren't even apparent, the Post's choice of words is ironic.  We see article after article debating the positions of the Israeli candidates, their wrongdoings and "rightdoings" — but what is missing in the Post’s reporting is the lack of existence of elections in nearly every other country in the region.  Presently, there are no (real) elections in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, the UAE, Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Gaza. Did I miss one?

Truth is, aside from Israel, there is nearly no daily reporting at the Post on Middle East countries except during wartime.  Is it that the Post figures, "What's the point about writing about dictatorships and monarchies" — as if little goes on there that is newsworthy?  We know that's not the case with all of the extreme human rights violations that are well documented there.

The point is that in a country like Israel, the Post has free access to write about any topic it wants — the good, the bad, and the "ugly."  Should Israel always be given such a hard critique, as we see almost daily at the Post?  Context is everything.  Post readers rarely get to hear the "ugly" about the aforementioned non-free countries and authorities — the press is not free there.

Should Israel be penalized for its freedom?  The Post believes so.  Applaud Israel's elections process — it is a light in the region!