If you want to take advantage of the Wall Street Journal’s subscription offer you may, from any countries around the world. Interestingly, in the Mideast one has the option of “Israel” or “Palestine”. One must wonder which areas of Eretz Yisrael are viewed as Palestine by the WSJ.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
Jaffa, Haifa, Acre.
This would have expected from new york times. not from a journal of objective reporting
The Wall Street Journal is consistently, vocally, pro-Israel. They probably used a list from a 3rd party provider and while they should have been more careful about it, this in no way reflects their editorial policies.
Probably based on postal address, meaning the Palestinian autonomous territories, which has its own postal service. Subcriptions focus on mail service. If you send a letter to “Tel Aviv, Palestine” or to “Nabulus, Israel” you might have trouble getting it delivered.
Exactly one year ago, May 20, 2011, I corresponded with the WSJ, and discovered that the newspaper many of us have long regarded as solidly pro-Israel, can no longer be relied upon to provide objective, factual news regarding the sovereign Jewish state of Israel.
After the following exchange, I researched the ownership of the WSJ’s parent company, News Corp., and discovered that Saudi Arabia purchased the second largest block of voting shares in February 2011.
Here is what I wrote in full to the WSJ on May 18, 2011:
“Would you please explain the editorial policy that describes the Northern Ireland Republican Army as “terrorists” who “threatened to disrupt the [Queen’s] visit” (05-18-11), while characterizing a fatal bomb attack in central Jerusalem as the handiwork of Palestinian “militants” (03-23-11)? Thank you.”
Here is what the WSJ Style Editor Paul Martin, Sr. responded to me, in full, on May 20, 2011:
“Your note about the use of “terrorists” and “militants” in the Journal was referred to me. Your implied point is well taken. As a general rule, militants qualify for the label of terrorists when they commit acts of violence, especially against noncombatants. But in cases like the ones you mention, reports are often contradictory or ambiguous regarding the perpetrators, and one person’s terrorist may in fact be another person’s freedom fighter. Too much focus can be put on labels such as militant, terrorist, insurgent and suicide bomber, in my view. Of course, any such labels should be applied consistently, without any bias. But we would do better, and our readers would be better served, to represent the demonstrators or attackers by their actions, rather than any applied labels, which often just befog the facts. Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Paul Martin, WSJ stylebook editor”
I found Mr. Martin’s response to be highly offensive. The WSJ style guide editor confuses WHAT a terrorist is, with his subjective approval of WHY a terrorist acts.
Perhaps the Saudi’s stake in the WSJ has had an influence on the WSJ’s editorial style guide, which now defines Palestinian terrorists as either “militants” (Joshua Mitnick’s reporting), or worse, “freedom fighters” who are justified in their attacks against Israeli noncombatants, because “reports are often contradictory or ambiguous” and because accurate, descriptive labels “just befog the facts.”
I sent this information to CAMERA, Honest Reporting, and several other media sites, with no response. And then I cancelled my WSJ subscription.
I’d guess a fair number of WSJ subscribers are Jews. If enough of us cancelled our subscriptions and cited the above exchange as the reason for doing so, perhaps we could convince the WSJ editors to restore factual objectivity to their news reports. And to remove any references to a non-existent so-called “Palestinian” state.