Amazingly, on January 6, the L. A. Times gave ample space to a Hamas terrorist to "explain" how the current Gaza action is all Israel's fault. Mousa Abu Marzook the purported "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas," the group called an "Islamic Resistance Movement," shamefacedly claims that Israel's actions shattered "any incentive by Palestinian leaders to enforce the moratorium on rocket fire."
First of all, these Palestinian "leaders" have for the last seven years now expended little effort to stop the incessant rocket fire into Israel to which he so blithely refers. So I don't know who this Marzook fellow is trying to kid? I suppose he's trying to kid the L.A.Times and it seems they have fallen for it.
The truce thus shattered, any incentive by Palestinian leaders to enforce the moratorium on rocket fire was gone. Any extension of the agreement or improvement of its implementation at that point would have required Israel to engage Hamas, to agree to additional trust-building measures and negotiation with our movement -- a political impossibility for Israel, with its own elections only weeks away.
Israel has been trying to engage in "trust-building" with the various and sundry Palestinian groups for decades. It is the Palestinians that have steadfastly maintained that Israel has no right to even exist. How is it that "trust-building" can occur when one side simply wants the other dead?
This so-called deputy of the political bureau of the terror agency Hamas engages in one lie after another in this piece. He peels off one after another accusations of Israel's culpability after each excuse for his own people's failures.
But, perhaps no lie is bigger than this paragraph:
This week's war is not an attack on the Izzidin al-Qassam units -- our movement's military wing -- but is simply aggression targeting the people, infrastructure and economic life of Gaza, designed to sow terror and loose anarchy; it aims to establish new "facts on the ground" -- that is, heaps of rubble with bodies trapped beneath -- in advance of the coming American administration.
Wow, just wow. The lies piled on lies here is breathtaking.
In fact, there are so many distortions and lies in this thing it is impossible to critique each of them in turn. It would take reams of discussion and many hundreds of links to various news reports refute each of them. But that has been the Palestinian way, hasn't it? Present so many bold faced lies that your opponent simply tires of the argument.
The sad thing is that the L.A.Times has treated this terror agency as a legitimate voice among the nations of the world.
Thanks L.A.Times for giving terrorists the legitimacy they crave.
(Image credit: L.A.Times)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Further proof...
January 8, 2009 - 08:22 ET by BronxBomberThat the LA TIMES gives this lying terrorist a platform to spew his lies is further proof to me the world is upside down...<:~(
We gotta find a new planet...
What's doubly disturbing is
January 8, 2009 - 08:39 ET by SpaceManSpiffWhat's doubly disturbing is the comments left after the article [at the Times]. It's about a 50/50 split either denouncing the Times for being a mouthpiece for Hamas, or pro Hamas/anti-Israel. You can really tell who's buying this garbage, and who isn't.
Warner, please be careful
January 8, 2009 - 08:43 ET by bubbatech01Okay, I know its your job to report on bias, but I would be careful in criticizing Hamas (stick to LAT). This website is big enough that it will come up on their radar. These people dont care about you and will kill you and your family as sure as they will kill Israelis.
As my father said once (a decorated war veteran): You dont insult the only guy in the room with a gun.
Amusingly enough..
January 8, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Warner Todd HustonAmusingly enough, while my own father (a life long policeman and long time chief) is proud of my work in writing, he has also warned me many times about those out there that would truly try to harm me for my work. He even urged me to write under a false name, but I told him that I could never be taken seriously if I did that. This isn't Mark Twain's day.
okay, but be careful
January 8, 2009 - 09:37 ET by bubbatech01I wish you the best. These people are pure evil and would not think twice about killing an innocent child, much less a journalist.
@ Bubba
January 8, 2009 - 13:52 ET by UndercoverConservativehe ain't the only guy in the room with a gun.
Besides, that illustrates the goal of terrorism right there. it's bad enough people are afraid to act against terrorists in Gaza, and now people are advocating we can't even *talk* against them?
Truly depressing.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
NO BAILOUT FOR THE PRINT
January 8, 2009 - 08:56 ET by rimskyNO BAILOUT FOR THE PRINT MEDIA!!!!
Bailouts = no
January 8, 2009 - 09:18 ET by NL207Bailouts = no accountability. No bailouts of any kind. Let them declare Chapter 11. Most of these businesses will not vanish, but they WILL be reorganized and the mopes who ran them into the ground will be fired. A great many of the workers involved will remain in their current positions, but perhaps not at the same bloated wages.
Warner, you're a ...
January 8, 2009 - 09:30 ET by SentryDanWarner, you're a good man. It is to bad that so many people in this country have given in to the terrorists. What is especially troubling is that our elected politicials (the liberals) have put the rest of in danger. Apparently, the oath of office that the liberals have taken doesn't mean to them (the liberals) what is actually says.
The prime directive of the U.S. Constitution is to protect "We the People". The oath of office for the politicians (and the military) is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. By inference then the job of the politicians is to protect "We the People". How then, is giving in to the terrorists protecting "We the People"?
Apparently, the liberals are not bothered with honoring their oath of office and therefore cannot be considered honorable men/women.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
The Jews in a position of
January 8, 2009 - 09:34 ET by nadadhimmiThe Jews in a position of power in LA and America denigrate the US Military and it's allies even as they depend upon those forces for their very survival. Think Streisand, Geffen, Katzenberg, Speilberg et al. They feel avant garde and very chic and dangerous, it gives them a thrill to feel "out there". If their Hamas buddies gain power, these Jews will find themselves and their children horribly murdered in a craze of racial hatred seen only once before. All the while, the denigration of the Military proceeds and will accelerate under a usurper named Hussein. In formerly Great Britain, the muslims have already disseminated a death list of the top 100 Jews there.
Think Streisand, Geffen,
January 8, 2009 - 10:27 ET by Hunter12Think Streisand, Geffen, Katzenberg, Speilberg et al. They feel avant garde and very chic and dangerous, it gives them a thrill to feel "out there".
If you want really crazy, there was a Holocaust survivor on one of the boats that ran the Gaza blockade to take aid to Hamas back in October.
"In August, two Greek boats --carrying high-profile people such as Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Hedy Epstein, a Holocaust survivor-- arrived in the populated coastal region in defiance of an Israeli blockade for the firs time."
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Warner, I have to disagree
January 8, 2009 - 09:39 ET by KC MulvilleWarner, I agree with you about this guy himself, and about the situation in Gaza.
Where I disagree is when you say: "The sad thing is that the L.A.Times has treated this terror agency as a legitimate voice among the nations of the world." Here's why I disagree: I don't want the LA Times deciding who deserves a voice. Distasteful as they may be, I think it's prudent journalist policy to present views from all the people involved. They should present the views, but I don't want the LA Times judging them. Frankly, I don't think they're qualified to judge whether it's good or not.
The LA Times isn't qualified to judge whether a terrorist has a "legitimate" point of view, and I don't want them thinking they can judge that. Instead, the LA Times only needs to verify whether this guy and his group is involved in the fight. That's what makes the story, and that's why we want to listen to the guy.
I'm open to counter-argument, of course, since I'm not a journalist. My argument is based on my own belief about what I want from the media here. Obviously, others will think differently about the media's role, and I'd like to hear those opinions.
L.A. Times = Al Jazeera
January 8, 2009 - 11:55 ET by sguild2L.A. Times = Al Jazeera
Do I smell the making of
January 8, 2009 - 14:32 ET by UtherpendDo I smell the making of another Yasir Arafat. I am sure the MSM is looking to create another "spokesman" like Arafat since he is not longer around to give out lectures to the press.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."