Tuesday, July 11, 2006
One of the more surreal reading experiences I've had in awhile is this op-ed by the leader of Hamas, a group dedicated to Israel's destruction, complaining that Israel and the US aren't being respectful of the Palestinian Arabs' choice of leadership. Astounding. That a major newspaper would publish such a thing as-is without response is...sadly not surprising, actually. Print space for terrorists to spread lies and propaganda...no, not surprising at all.
Washington Post: Aggression Under False Pretenses by Ismail Haniyeh
The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year. It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to "reconsider" her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment. The "kidnapped" Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago...
Update: Haniyeh's piece is what's called "ripe for fisking," and Captain's Quarters does an outstanding job of it, here: We Know The Truth -- And That's The Problem [h/t: Grantman]
And Meryl responds, here. Did Haniyeh have help?
I read about this on LGF earlier. Going to the WaPo site, I browsed their blog links and read the Captain's fisking of the article. As always, he's great and right on target.
It is *beyond irresponsible* for the Post to print this. Who the hell approved this? And will there be a bunch of "Keller Moments" in which Leonard Downey (is he the guy?) tries to get out of a very obvious and serious mistake.
What did Walt Kelley say so many years ago? "We have met the enemy and he is us."?
Thanks for the suggestion of CQ's fisking. Found it and will update the post.
I guess that the Washington Post wasn't satisfied with merely slanting the news in favour of the Palestinians. Now it has to print Op-Eds by their terrorist leaders, too. Unbelievable...............
"Kidnapped" Gilad Shalit? Israeli invasion of Gaza?
They must be living in a parallel universe. Or writing very much tongue-in-cheek.
"Kidnapped" Gilad Shalit? Israeli invasion of Gaza?
They must be living in a parallel universe. Or writing very much tongue-in-cheek.
Just because the Washington Post published it in the Op-ED section, doesn't mean that they endorse it. Ok, Hamas is full of bullshit, but let people atleast hear that bullshit unfiltered and figure it out on there own. The Washington Post is a newspaper, and a newspaper is supposed to expose us to the world, the good and the bad. Wether you like it or not, this is how Hamas and many Palestinians think. We need to be exposed to this kind of stuff so we can understand and respond to it. That's what makes us better than them. And besides, the WaPo has printed plenty of pro-Israeli editorials. Don't censure something just because you don't like it.
That assumes people *can* figure it out on their own. Newspapers don't just dump anything on the pages and leave it up to the reader to sort out -- at least, they're not supposed to. They have to take some responsibility for their editorial decisions and for fact-checking -- even on the op-ed pages.
This isn't about balancing "pro" and "anti" Israel positions. It's about truth versus falsehood. It's about giving *unanswered* column space to an anti-American, anti-Semitic (like the part where he talks about all the "Semitic" people?) known (and legally defined) terrorist. Would the Post give bin Laden op-ed space? No. It's irresponsible, and not a service to readers.
Sean,
In proper approach would be not to give Haniyeh a platform but to interview him to extract his thinking and opinion.
They should have followed Der Spiegel's way and interviewed the guy.
Just read
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/008645.shtml
and pay attention to the questions Spiegel asks.