 |
 |
 |
A platform of lies
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/12335
Comments
1
.
Ilana Rosen
said:
The Washington Post is not the only paper to support Israel's enemies. The good old Guardian in the UK is another. They printed an article by Khalid Mishal of Hamas yesterday, which was an attempt by him to justify Hamas and its aims.
I wrote to Ian Mayes reader@guardian.co.uk, and got a reply. Copies of exchange of emails as follows:-
Dear Ian
Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You have, as you say put forward the view of one of the "protagonists" in the conflict - but all we seem to read in the Guardian is one-sided - articles by the likes of Ghada Karmi and of course Khalid Mishal. I read The Guardian regularly - and I have never seen an op ed or a comment written by an Israeli, or somebody who supports the existence of Israel. Do people have to ask to have comments etc. published, or do you invite them to put forward their views? I would be interested to know.
I am of the view that to attempt to understand why the atrocities of 7/7 happened and "to probe the minds and motivation of the bombers" is a fruitless exercise, and only gives their cause more publicity. People in the West live their lives in an atmosphere of tolerance and intelligent debate - terrorists (because that is what they are - not "militants") are the product of a totally opposite environment - they see our attempts to understand and probe as weakness, and they despise it.
For their "cause" any action and manipulation is seen as justified - including writing articles in British newspapers. As a Jew living in Britain, who knows families who are affected by what Hamas does - seeing an article like Mishal's felt like a betrayal.
As for writing letters for publication in the paper - I have done this countless times but never had one published. That is why I wrote to you - and at least I have been listened to.
Yours sincerely
Ilana Rosen
>From: reader@guardian.co.uk
>Reply-To: reader@guardian.co.uk
>To: "Ilana Rosen"
>Subject: Re: Khalid Mish'al - Yesterday's "Guardian"
>Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:20:16 +0000
>
>Dear Ilana ,
>
>The Guardian comment pages are dedicated to the principle expressed years
>ago by its most famous editor CP Scott when he said "Comment is free". The
>widest possible span of opinion is to be found on those pages. The opinion
>of the Guardian is separately expressed in the leader columns. Sometimes it
>may coincide with that of writers on the comment pages. In a great many
>cases it doesn't. It is well to recognise the distinction. To say that an
>effort to understand (in your example) the IRA was to show disdain for its
>victims is nonsense. Was it showing disdain for the victims of the recent
>London bombings to try to probe the background and motivation of the
>bombers? Of course it wasn't. Neither is it expressing disdain for anyone
>to seek to understand why so many Palestinians voted for Hamas. That is not
>showing disdain for any of the Israeli citizens who have died in the
>conflict. How can it be a question that anyone can afford not to be
>interested in? One could cite a great many other examples. If an argument
>is not informed by the views of all the protagonists then there is no
>sensible argument.
>
>Have you thought about expressing your views in a letter to the editor for
>consideration for publication: letters@guardian.co.uk
>
>With best wishes
>
>Ian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ilana Rosen"
>
> k> cc:
> Subject: Khalid Mish'al - Yesterday's "Guardian"
> 01/02/06 03:44 pm
>
>"We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid
>
>Palestinians voted for Hamas because of our refusal to give up their
>rights.
>But we are ready to make a just peace
>
>Khalid Mish'al
>Tuesday January 31, 2006
>The Guardian "
>
>For the attention of Ian Mayes
>
>Dear Sir
>
>“The Guardian” has truly scraped the bottom of the barrel by allowing the
>article by Khalid Mis’hal to appear. It would seem that Hamas has
>legitimacy in its aims and ambitions, as far as this paper is concerned.
>This action cannot be excused or explained away “in the interests of free
>speech and the right to know”. At best, it smacks of bias, and at worst of
>
>something much more sinister. When the IRA was at the height of its
>murdering spree – “The Guardian” gave column space to its message, thus
>showing its disdain for this country and the IRA’s victims. The paper has
>proved that it is disdainful about Israelis and their right to live free
>from fear of murder by this man’s organisation. By allowing his email
>address to appear at the foot of the article, they have further compounded
>this idiocy and bias by allowing him to spread his twisted message. For
>shame, “The Guardian”.
>
>I look forward to an explanation.
>
>Yours faithfully
>
>
>Ilana Rosen (Mrs)
Posted by: Ilana Rosen on February 1, 2006 04:24 PM
A platform of lies
Why does the Washington Post support Israel's enemies?
There were a number of excellent responses to the Washington Post's ill considered decision to give prime editorial real estate to a "political" leader of Hamas. (via memeorandum)
Unfortunately the Washington Post has offered the prime real estate of its op-ed page to Mahmoud Abu Marzook for "What Hamas is Seeking". The blogs mentioned above all have well argued briefs against the Washington Post for allowing Marzook a place to make his case as well as some refutations of his arguments. But I'd like to quote one other:
There's a lot to recommend this quoted editorial. And if its authors believe that "...staying silent can spell complicity" what do they believe giving a platform to such ideas means?
Actually, the mystery editorial is the view of the Washington Post. (It was titled "Renegade Austria" and was dated Feb 2, 2000) But the subject, before I edited it, was Joerg Haider and his ascendancy in Austria. The editorial encouraged Europe to take the necessary diplomatic steps to show its displeasure of the Austrian government including someone such as Haider. And by the way, as far as I've been able to tell the Post didn't give Haider an op-ed opportunity to pretty himself before its readers. Apparently those who wish to kill Jews are given an extra chance to defend themselves.
The Post has gone down this road before. In two circumstances that I recall, it has allowed Israel's enemies to distort current events and history to demonize Israel.
On January 16, 2002, the Post gave Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the Al Aqsa war against Israel a soap box to write "Want Security? End the Occupation" and claim
In a few months, Barghouti was to be arrested and eventually tried and convicted of five counts of murder stemming from several terror attacks. The legal proceedings gave lie to his claim of opposition to targeting innoncence. The existence of the "Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades" proves his claim about Fatah equally false.
Yet the Post allowed him to present his views.
A few months later the Post gave op-ed space to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi Ambassador to the United States to explain "Why Israel must stop the terror" (This link does not go to the Washington Post's website.)
We know now that the "Al Aqsa Intifada" (or more correctly Oslo War) started not by opposition leader Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. It was orchestrated by Yasser Arafat. We know that the war was financed in part by Saudi Arabia. So it was chutzpah for Ambassador Bandar to blame Israel such undiplomatic (and false) terms. But it was OK with the Washington Post.
One last note, Abu Marzook pines for the days when Islam protected the Jews in its midst
His memory must be very selective because the record shows that Jews were barely tolerated in Arab lands. And given his organization's desire to start taxing Christians one can assume he's not being especially honest about the wonderful times ahead for Jews living near a new Hamas run state.
Technorati Tags: Hamas, Abu Marzook.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at January 31, 2006 11:49 PM