Reuters releases the dogs against the Jews

You're probably thinking; "What the heck does that headline mean?"

Reuters, in their desperate attempt to malign Jews and Israel are dredging up the bottom of the barrel for news.

In their article; "Israelis, Palestinians and a missing dog" they describe the sorrowful story of the missing dog, "Charlie", and the terrible treatment the foreign journalists received while searching for their dog from Palestinians and Jews (they used the word Jews instead of Israelies...)

All the examples are as follows, and I'm keeping score:

1. A group of Palestinians being held at a prison in northern Israel had called and left abusive messages, saying: "Why do you give a damn about a stupid dog? Why don't you stop wasting your time and instead help us get out of here." (2 points, multiple messages - Palestinians)

2. Others had called and just barked into the phone, laughing and shouting: "I'm Charlie, come and get me." (1 point - Implied Palestinians, this sentence comes on the heels of the previous one)

3. At one point some Palestinians living in a nearby street explained that if Charlie had run west -- that is, towards the Jewish side of the city -- she was bound to be in trouble. "Jews treat their dogs terribly, you know," one of them counselled in a conspiratorial whisper. "Jews steal everything and if they steal land, they'll steal your dog." (1 point - Palestinians)

4. The owners eventually enlisted a contact to put them in touch with the West Bank's most notorious dog thief. They travelled to a dingy spot on the outskirts of Ramallah one day to see what the man had in his pound.

In dozens of filthy cages there were scores of miserable, flea-bitten dogs, barely able to stand upright let alone bark for attention. But there was no sign of Charlie. The thief seemed vaguely amused by their passionate search. (1 point - Palestinians)

5. Jewish neighbours were equally severe. "If she's run towards the West Bank then there's not much hope. You know what the Arabs do to dogs, don't you?" one woman said, suggesting that if Charlie were caught by Palestinians she had every chance of being killed. (1 point - Jews)

Now, lets try to analyze this objectively. The score is 5 to 1, and yet, to "balance" an obviously biased article, Reuter's writes "Jewish neighbours were equally severe."

Where is the "equal severity"? Five to one seems to me like an easy win for Palestinian cruelty to dogs and their owners, no? Am I missing something?

I'm not a huge dog fan, but most Israelis I know are nice to their dogs, and will be sympathetic or even helpful to anyone if they lost their dog.

Despite the "holocaust anti-dog syndrome" there are thousands Israelis who are dog owners, and nice as well. (Provided of course, they aren't the bastards who let their dogs leave their droppings everywhere, and we know who they are...and will find them...and justice will be served).

I guess Reuter's has the same quality journalists working for them in Jerusalem as their photographers who covered the war this past summer.





Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael