NOVANEWS
Just some comments on Gaza coverage.
1. But first, let’s go with a video. It’s been making the rounds but if you’ve not seen it and if you enjoy good righteous indignation, you may very like this one.
2. Okay, now back to some observations about Gaza coverage.
First let’s start out with the ubiquitous Abigail Hauslohner reporting currently for the Washington Post. In this article she points out some rather chilling things about Israel’s behavior in Gaza during it’s disgusting, illegal and immoral air and sea assault upon a captive and helpless population. After giving us the usual Zionist-Bullshit based assumption that attacking HAMAS is a perfectly acceptable thing to do:
“For the most part, the targets struck by Israeli warplanes and ships — government complexes, bridges, farms, smuggling tunnels, paramilitary training facilities and residences of suspected militants — had been connected in some way to Gaza’s Hamas-led government.”
She then points to a series of acts, typical Israeli behavior to anyone who has followed Israeli’s stupendously long list of atrocities before, during and after the Jews created their state in 1948, that ought to raise the eyebrows of her editors at the Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post.
She notes that during the final 24 hours of this Zionist assault the Israelis were even meaner. Here’s a sample: (red highlighting is mine)
“In what were among the final strikes, Israel targeted two bridges, including one that connected northern and southern Gaza over a valley used to funnel sewage into the sea.
“Other overnight airstrikes ripped through homes and farmland and reduced a major Interior Ministry complex to a wasteland of rubble the size of a football field.”
She then mentions Israel’s complete destruction of the al-Showa bank whose owner was actually part of the Palestinian Authority government in the past and who she presents as a guy who is not even tied to HAMAS. She notes that the residents of Gaza were astonished that the bank was flattened. But then she offers a theory as to why, the sort of theory one might find in decent alternative media, which is where she’s going to end up if she’s not careful.
“The only thing about Showa that might have drawn the Israelis’ attention, Gaza City residents said, was that his bank had recently started granting loans to Palestinians, whereas most other banks had stopped, afraid they would not be paid back.”
Sounds plausible to me since Israel is out to destroy the economy of Gaza.
But then her Washington Postness comes back to bite the reader (and the Palestinians) in the butt:
“Most of the strip’s 1.7 million people are refugees — the descendants of thosewho fled ancestral homes on the land that is now Israel during the war over the Jewish state’s creation in 1948.”
“Who fled”? Bullshit. But I bet she knows this. She may not have written it or her words may have been changed. It happens all the time.
Now this brings me to something else. A few days ago the Angry Arab published something that strikes me as odd. Not that I disagree with what he was getting at – he was making about his 10 millionth observation about the pro-Israel bias in the US press – but it involved Abigail Hauslohner in a rather interesting way.
He called his short piece “A US correspondent on biases US media” and said that a correspondent for a “major” US publication sent him “this”. “This” being a reference to an article by three writers for the Washington Post. The writers of the article are Karin Bruillard, Abigail Hauslohner and Debbi Wilgoren.
The article as cited by the Angry Arab is short and the complaints to him from the US correspondent about it are accurate. However, he did not identify that correspondent because “she” did not wish to be identified. That would be understandable. Especially if it were someone like Ms. Hauslohner herself. Just wondering. (That would really be cool.)
Now to the dark side. David Ignatious, the most boring commentator on the planet, decided this past week that he’d tell us what has been going on in the Middle East all these years. He starts off by lying to us.
His third paragraph:
“The first time I watched this movie was 1982. Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the rockets that were then harassing northern Israel. The invasion was called “Operation Peace for Galilee,” and the Israeli army rolled all the way to Beirut. With their massive firepower, the Israelis assumed the Palestinians would cut and run, as Arab armies had in previous wars. But the Palestinians stood their ground.”
The Israeli invasion was due to stop Palestinians rockets? What a bunch of fucking bullshit and he knows it, if he does not then he has no fucking business whatsoever pretending to know anything about the Middle East. Even Wikipedia, filled with Zionist bullshit as it is, makes this clear.
But Ignatious isn’t finished lying:
“Now it’s Hezbollah that poses the deadly rocket threat to northern Israel. Hezbollah suicide bombings forced Israel to invade Lebanon again in 1996 (“Operation Grapes of Wrath”), then to withdraw in frustration from Lebanon in 2000, then to attack Hezbollah once more in 2006 (“Operation Change of Direction”).”
Hizbullah “suicide bombings” had nothing to do with operation “Grapes of Wrath.” No competent historian would say anything so stupid. Nor was it suicide bombings that forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon after occupying southern Lebanon for 22 years. Hizbullah had worn them down to the point that Israel said “no mas” and then Hizbullah kicked Israel’s SLA collaborators out. And I can’t imagine anyone arguing that Hizbullah suicide bombings had anything at all to do with the insane Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 2006 where Israel re-discovered that there are, after all, some Arabs who can actually put up a fight. As any idiot knows, Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others in an attack that Israel used as its causus belli.
His article just gets worse and worse the more you read on. Don’t do it! This is not just a warning, it is a humanitarian gesture. I should set up my own 501(c)(3). But I digress.
If Ignatious is the best the Washington Post has, Ms. Hauslohner should end up doing pretty well.
1. But first, let’s go with a video. It’s been making the rounds but if you’ve not seen it and if you enjoy good righteous indignation, you may very like this one.
2. Okay, now back to some observations about Gaza coverage.
First let’s start out with the ubiquitous Abigail Hauslohner reporting currently for the Washington Post. In this article she points out some rather chilling things about Israel’s behavior in Gaza during it’s disgusting, illegal and immoral air and sea assault upon a captive and helpless population. After giving us the usual Zionist-Bullshit based assumption that attacking HAMAS is a perfectly acceptable thing to do:
“For the most part, the targets struck by Israeli warplanes and ships — government complexes, bridges, farms, smuggling tunnels, paramilitary training facilities and residences of suspected militants — had been connected in some way to Gaza’s Hamas-led government.”
She then points to a series of acts, typical Israeli behavior to anyone who has followed Israeli’s stupendously long list of atrocities before, during and after the Jews created their state in 1948, that ought to raise the eyebrows of her editors at the Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post.
She notes that during the final 24 hours of this Zionist assault the Israelis were even meaner. Here’s a sample: (red highlighting is mine)
“In what were among the final strikes, Israel targeted two bridges, including one that connected northern and southern Gaza over a valley used to funnel sewage into the sea.
“Other overnight airstrikes ripped through homes and farmland and reduced a major Interior Ministry complex to a wasteland of rubble the size of a football field.”
She then mentions Israel’s complete destruction of the al-Showa bank whose owner was actually part of the Palestinian Authority government in the past and who she presents as a guy who is not even tied to HAMAS. She notes that the residents of Gaza were astonished that the bank was flattened. But then she offers a theory as to why, the sort of theory one might find in decent alternative media, which is where she’s going to end up if she’s not careful.
“The only thing about Showa that might have drawn the Israelis’ attention, Gaza City residents said, was that his bank had recently started granting loans to Palestinians, whereas most other banks had stopped, afraid they would not be paid back.”
Sounds plausible to me since Israel is out to destroy the economy of Gaza.
But then her Washington Postness comes back to bite the reader (and the Palestinians) in the butt:
“Most of the strip’s 1.7 million people are refugees — the descendants of thosewho fled ancestral homes on the land that is now Israel during the war over the Jewish state’s creation in 1948.”
“Who fled”? Bullshit. But I bet she knows this. She may not have written it or her words may have been changed. It happens all the time.
Now this brings me to something else. A few days ago the Angry Arab published something that strikes me as odd. Not that I disagree with what he was getting at – he was making about his 10 millionth observation about the pro-Israel bias in the US press – but it involved Abigail Hauslohner in a rather interesting way.
He called his short piece “A US correspondent on biases US media” and said that a correspondent for a “major” US publication sent him “this”. “This” being a reference to an article by three writers for the Washington Post. The writers of the article are Karin Bruillard, Abigail Hauslohner and Debbi Wilgoren.
The article as cited by the Angry Arab is short and the complaints to him from the US correspondent about it are accurate. However, he did not identify that correspondent because “she” did not wish to be identified. That would be understandable. Especially if it were someone like Ms. Hauslohner herself. Just wondering. (That would really be cool.)
Now to the dark side. David Ignatious, the most boring commentator on the planet, decided this past week that he’d tell us what has been going on in the Middle East all these years. He starts off by lying to us.
His third paragraph:
“The first time I watched this movie was 1982. Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the rockets that were then harassing northern Israel. The invasion was called “Operation Peace for Galilee,” and the Israeli army rolled all the way to Beirut. With their massive firepower, the Israelis assumed the Palestinians would cut and run, as Arab armies had in previous wars. But the Palestinians stood their ground.”
The Israeli invasion was due to stop Palestinians rockets? What a bunch of fucking bullshit and he knows it, if he does not then he has no fucking business whatsoever pretending to know anything about the Middle East. Even Wikipedia, filled with Zionist bullshit as it is, makes this clear.
But Ignatious isn’t finished lying:
“Now it’s Hezbollah that poses the deadly rocket threat to northern Israel. Hezbollah suicide bombings forced Israel to invade Lebanon again in 1996 (“Operation Grapes of Wrath”), then to withdraw in frustration from Lebanon in 2000, then to attack Hezbollah once more in 2006 (“Operation Change of Direction”).”
Hizbullah “suicide bombings” had nothing to do with operation “Grapes of Wrath.” No competent historian would say anything so stupid. Nor was it suicide bombings that forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon after occupying southern Lebanon for 22 years. Hizbullah had worn them down to the point that Israel said “no mas” and then Hizbullah kicked Israel’s SLA collaborators out. And I can’t imagine anyone arguing that Hizbullah suicide bombings had anything at all to do with the insane Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 2006 where Israel re-discovered that there are, after all, some Arabs who can actually put up a fight. As any idiot knows, Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others in an attack that Israel used as its causus belli.
His article just gets worse and worse the more you read on. Don’t do it! This is not just a warning, it is a humanitarian gesture. I should set up my own 501(c)(3). But I digress.
If Ignatious is the best the Washington Post has, Ms. Hauslohner should end up doing pretty well.
