Sunday, July 13, 2014

Saving Hamas

Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously called for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. To be clear, it was a statement, not a resolution.

The Associated Press reported the story:

After days of rocket fire between Gaza’s Hamas militants and Israeli military forces, the United Nations Security Council called Saturday for a cease-fire. A statement from the council, which was approved by all 15 members, calls for a de-escalation of violence, restoration of calm and a resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine to achieve comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution. The statement does not give a time frame for when the cease-fire should take effect, though Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour said that Palestinians' understanding is that it should go into effect immediately. He warned, however, that Palestinians will be watching Israel closely to see if it adheres to the U.N.’s call. If it does not, he said, “we have a lot of tools in our arsenal.” 

This means that Israeli operations have gained a measure of success against Hamas terrorists. If the Obama administration was willing to accept this statement, one must believe that it is trying to save Hamas.

Note well: the AP only quotes the Palestinian envoy in its story, making it appear that Hamas aggression against Israel and Israeli reactions to it are morally equivalent.

The New York Times does the AP one better. It slants the story to make Israel look bad. And it does so while ginning up empathy for the Palestinians.

The Times headline declares that Israel bombed a mosque and a clinic. Times reporter Erlanger goes on to mention that the mosque was suspected of being an arms depot:

Israel bombed a mosque, which its aerial photos indicated was harboring a weapons cache, and a center for the disabled, killing two residents and wounding three, as well as a caretaker.

Was there or was there not a weapons cache in the mosque? The Times allows us to imagine the worst.

Were there or were there not rockets in the center for the disabled. The Times makes the Israelis look like they are indiscriminately killing helpless civilians.

The Times slants its story to make it appear that Hamas is merely responding to Israeli aggression. By contrast, Erlanger makes it appear that Hamas rockets are harmless attention-getting events:

In response, Hamas fired a barrage of rockets at Tel Aviv, Israel’s largest city, garnering much attention despite causing no deaths or injuries, as three of them were intercepted.

Next, Erlanger reports in detail about the horrors that were visited on the center for the disabled, thereby provoking empathy for the Palestinians and making the Israelis out to be barbarians. 

Was the Times as empathetic when Palestinian parents were cheering the murder of three Jewish teenagers?

In the following peculiar sentence Erlanger seems to be sympathizing with the difficulty Hamas has been having. What difficulty would that be? That would be, its inability to penetrate the Iron Dome missile defense system and kill Israelis:

The difficulties for Hamas and its allies in Gaza were also on display on Saturday as they fired at least 90 rockets at Israel, causing no deaths or injuries, two of them even falling into the West Bank towns of Hebron and Bethlehem.

And Erlanger adds a remark from an imam who denied that there were any weapons at the mosque. This makes it appear that God is on the side of the Palestinians. Obviously, Erlanger was quoting a reliable source:

Mr. Hamad said he had found a Quran open to a page with a particular sura that he felt had special meaning. “Victory is imminent for those who remain steadfast,” he read.

Why Jewish New Yorkers continue to support the New York Times is beyond me. And not just me.

It is fair to mention that the latest polls show President Obama's support among Jews waning. It does show that he enjoys the full support of American Muslims.

If you think that Israel has no support for its operation, you would be wrong. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been praised in Egypt and in other Arab states for trying to destroy a the military arm of their nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood.


Over the past week there are voices coming out of Egypt and some Arab countries -- voices that publicly support the Israeli military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

They see the atrocities and massacres committed by Islamists on a daily basis in Iraq and Syria and are beginning to ask themselves if these serve the interests of the Arabs and Muslims.

"Thank you Netanyahu and may God give us more [people] like you to destroy Hamas!" — Azza Sami of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.

As America and its Western allies try to save Hamas, the Egyptian authorities see things differently:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi has thus far turned down appeals from Palestinians and other Arabs to work toward achieving a new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas telephoned Sisi and urged him to intervene to achieve an "immediate ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas. Abbas later admitted that his appeal to Sisi and (other Arab leaders) had fallen on deaf ears.

Sisi's decision not to intervene in the current crisis did not come as a surprise. In fact, Sisi and many Egyptians seem to be delighted that Hamas is being badly hurt.

Apparently, some people take the fight against Islamist terrorism seriously.

The Egyptians today understand that Hamas and other radical Islamist groups pose a serious threat to their national security. That is why the Egyptian authorities have, over the past year, been taking tough security measures not only against Hamas, but also the entire population of the Gaza Strip.

These measures include the destruction of dozens of smuggling tunnels along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization.

True, there are still many Egyptians and Arabs who sympathize with Hamas, mainly because it is being targeted by Israel. But over the past week, there are also different voices coming out of Egypt and some other Arab countries -- voices that publicly support the Israeli military operation against the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip.

This is perhaps because a growing number of Arabs and Muslims are fed up with the Islamist terrorists who are imposing a reign of terror and intimidation in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq and Syria. They see the atrocities and massacres committed by Islamists on a daily basis in Iraq and Syria and are beginning to ask themselves if these serve the interests of the Arabs and Muslims.

Sisi and other Arab leaders are now sitting on the fence and hoping that this time Israel will complete the job and get rid of Hamas once and for all. Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah are certainly not going to shed a tear if Hamas is crushed and removed from power in the Gaza Strip.

So, the Obama administration, Western governments, the Western media, especially the New York Times are trying to save Hamas. 

On the other side of the political spectrum, the government of Israel has forged an implicit, if uneasy alliance with Egypt and, by extension, other Arab states.

Go figure.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I love the deep morality and sophistication of those at the United Nations. The resolution is as meaningless as it is silly. I mean, really, who would vote against a cease fire resolution except for the belligerents? Good grief. Is this what the U.N. offers the world?

If you think me wrong, or obtuse, or uncaring or all of the above, please consider the following thought experiment: If you were President of the United States of America, and a unanimous condemnatory United Nations resolution directed at U.S. policy/action crossed your desk, what would you think, say our do?

Tip

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

http://news.yahoo.com/clashes-paris-thousands-march-against-israel-offensive-201808294.html

My head hurts. It never ends.

Dennis said...

I don't give any money to UNICEF. In the past so much of that money wound up in the hands of terrorists who were and are perfectly willing to teach and use their children to be human bomb carriers and martyrs. The UN has only perpetuated wars by constantly injecting itself into problem areas that in many ways only exacerbates a solution. IT is a political organization.
I would posit that negotiated settlements only create enough time for the combatants to rearm with better weapons to build up more hatred and the desire for revenge. Peace has become the lull between the next war.
My wife and I were talking and we both wondered what the Jews have done to become such pariahs to so many people. We seriously doubt it has a connection to the death of Christ. Is it because they were successful almost anywhere they resided? The only thing we could come up with that made sense it is like many people who work hard and do well are now constantly portrayed as the enemy by the Left and those who suffer class envy. The ones who succeed are a constant reminder of the failures of other so instead of improving one's lot in life they want to punish the achievers or worse yet kill them.
One would hope that a significant number in the Mid East begin to realize that when one starts a fire and stands by and watches it burn that there is a high percentage chance that that fire will consume them.

Sam L. said...

Does anyone LIKE the Palis? If so, why are they "refugees"? Why were they not taken in by their fellow Arabs, Muslim brothers, back in '48? Or '49, when the Israelis beat back the Arab armies, and it was clear the Palis who left picked the weak horse(s)? (And the Complainers post that preceded this--seems highly relevant to me in this case.)

Anonymous said...

http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-megaphone-used-anti-israel-rant-122717445.html

Sneaky son of a bit**.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone LIKE the Palis? If so, why are they "refugees"? Why were they not taken in by their fellow Arabs, Muslim brothers, back in '48?"

Maybe for the same reason most nations didn't take Jewish refugees during WWII.