Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Robert Fisk continues to tell it like it isn't

...

Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land — just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all — so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

...

Fisk truly a man who cannot see his own prejudice. The area Israel occupied after the 1967 war is truly disputed. That he denies the Israeli claim to this area does not many the Islaelis or their supporters have to accept his position. In fact they vigorously dispute his denial. Therefore to call that area "Arab land" is to take sides in this dispute. Fisk also ignores the fact that the Israelis would not have built the fence at all if the Palestinian Authority had lived up to its responsibilities under the Oslo Accords and stopped the use of their territory as a base for murdering Israelis. Fisk is a guy who has taken the Palestinian's side in their war with Israel and want s the language to relflect their point of view. Why the LA Times thought his point of view was worth publishing raises questions about their own news judgment.