The New York Times has profiled Mohammad Allan, the Palestinian who recently made headlines with his two-month hunger strike. Throughout the article, Allan, a member of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, is the subject of quotes and anecdotes from admiring friends and family.
When confronted with rival Palestinian gunmen looking to take his home, Allan is “defiant.” And according to the New York Times:
During that standoff 10 years ago, Mr. Allan showed some of the fortitude he would demonstrate this summer when he nearly starved himself to death during a two-month hunger strike to protest his incarceration by the Israeli authorities without charges.
Later we hear that Allan was “energized by the fight against Israel during the second Palestinian intifada.”
Defiant. Energized. Fortitude.
These are all very positive adjectives to describe a member of Islamic Jihad. And while it is mentioned that Allan “was first jailed by Israel in 2006 for trying to recruit a suicide bomber to carry out an attack in Israel,” we are left with the impression that this is really a distraction from Allan’s true character as a man with radical thoughts, which he could never possibly take any further.
After all, as the article says:
Mr. Allan’s father said his son had on social media supported the Islamic State, as defenders of oppressed Sunni Muslims, but it never went beyond online missives. Mr. Allan claimed to support the brutal militant group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, only to be provocative, Mr. Hussein said.
Only “to be provocative?” In most Western countries, supporting Islamic State on social media is more than enough to warrant being detained by the security services. And, unlike the New York Times, which refers to the Islamic Jihad organization as a “militant group,” let’s remember what Islamic Jihad is:
Established in Gaza in 1980 by radical members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian Islamic Jihad is dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel and the unification of the Muslim world under an Islam “purified” of modern Western elements. Unlike the larger and better-funded Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad does not manage social welfare programs; it concentrates instead on spectacular attacks against Israeli civilians and military forces, sometimes using women and children as suicide bombers.
So unlike Hamas, Islamic Jihad has no ‘political wing,’ ‘social wing’ or anything other than a ‘military wing.’ A member of Islamic Jihad has no reason to be a member other than to promote terrorism and the murder of Israelis. This then is Mohammad Allan’s entire reason for being and something that the New York Times fails to enunciate.
Instead:
Mr. Hussein said he expected his friend [Allan] to recover and, once he is released from the hospital, to return to his activism, practicing law and sharing his fiery opinions on social media.
Ultimately, the New York Times has turned Allan into a social media activist with some radical views. If Mohammad Allan lived in the U.S. and not Israel, the New York Times would not be so sympathetic. But only when a terrorist is taking on Israel does the New York Times treat him like a heroic opposition figure.
[sc:graybox ]You can send your considered comments to the New York Times – [email protected] – remembering to include your address and phone number to stand a chance of publication on the letters page.
