Media Six-Pack

===== (1) FISK GETS STONED =====

We don’t like seeing reporters being beaten up — even if it is the rabidly anti-Israeli Robert Fisk of the UK Independent. Fisk, 55, said that he narrowly escaped death last week when his car broke down in Afghanistan last week and a group of refugees beat him repeatedly on the head with stones and fists, leaving him “bleeding and crying like an animal.”

Fisk writes a 2,500-word account of his ordeal, in which he — incredibly — sympathizes with his attackers. “I couldn’t blame them for what they were doing,” writes Fisk. “In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any Westerner I could find.”

Understand this clearly: Robert Fisk is advocating the lynching of innocent civilians. Robert Fisk even says he would do so himself.

Now we begin to understand the warped psyche of a man who has defended Palestinian violence for years, and in his own words, “has spent more than two and a half decades reporting the humiliation and misery of the Muslim world.”

Comments to:

===== (2) I SMELL A RAT =====

The Israeli media reports that one of the suicide bombs that exploded in Jerusalem (Dec. 1) contained chemical poison, apparently rat poisoning. The area around the bomb was checked after police detected an odd smell.

According to Israel’s internal security minister, Uzi Landau, the bomb contained large quantities of poison, but most of it burned up in the explosion. Otherwise, many of the 180 wounded by bomb fragments would have suffered from a direct injection of the poison, which can cause lethal hemorrhaging.

Did your local media report the fact that Palestinians are now introducing chemical weapons into the conflict?


Click the link below, then scroll down to see a BBC photo of Yasser Arafat looking completely befuddled. For BBC to publish this photo, it says a lot about how far Arafat has fallen in the eyes of the world media. All the more so is the caption, which reads: “Arafat’s credibility has reached rock bottom in Israel and the US.”


Reuters cashes in with another report that looks like it’s straight from the Palestinian Propaganda Office. This article, written by Nidal al-Mughrabi, refers to “President Yasser Arafat.” Surely Reuters knows that the title of “president” is reserved for sovereign heads of state. Last we checked, “Palestine” was not a state, and Arafat’s official position was chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

The Reuters article also says that the recent wave of Palestinian suicide bombings “avenged Israel’s killing of a Hamas leader.” Notice this not-so-subtle Palestinian slant: Reuters does NOT say that “Palestinians CLAIMED that the bombings were AIMED to avenge.” No, Reuters just glumly states it as fact: the bombings avenged.

Comments to:

===== (5) HOUSE ARREST? =====

An editorial in The New York Times (Dec. 7) begins: “Give Yasir Arafat credit for some encouraging first steps against Hamas, the group that claimed responsibility for last weekend’s deadly terrorist bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa. Placing Hamas’s spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, under house arrest sent a clear message to Hamas supporters, who have responded with angry protests.”

The Times editorialists ought to check out their own newspaper’s news article, which reports that the “house arrest” consisted of Palestinian “police” posted two blocks away from the sheik’s home. The “police” had told the sheik “that they were trying to protect him,” the Times news article reports.

The terms of the sheik’s arrest were that he would give no interviews, make no telephone calls and receive no visitors outside his closest family. The Times news article reports that Sheik Yassin was receiving a “steady parade of visitors,” a clear violation of the house arrest.

And the Times calls this Arafat’s “clear message” against Hamas!?

Letters to:


===== (6) WRONG “TIME” =====

In Time Magazine (Dec. 4), Tony Karon reports: “Israel is Not America, Arafat is Not the Taliban: Why comparing Sharon’s war on terror with Bush’s war on terror is misleading and dangerous.”

If anything, it is Karon’s article that is “misleading and dangerous.” He asserts: “The first step to eradicating Palestinian terror attacks is recognizing that they are a response — however morally abhorrent and politically senseless — to Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.”

Karon is mistaken to think that Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks are a response to “occupation.” Arabs sought to destroy Israel long before 1967, and these groups do NOT speak about “liberating the territories,” they speak about the full annihilation of the State of Israel.

Comments to: