Here’s something you don’t see every day: an Arab leader complaining about Al-Jazeera being biased.
Yet, that's what happened Sunday according to Agence France-Presse (emphasis added throughout, h/t Charles at LGF):
A senior Palestinian official on Sunday accused pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television of favouring Hamas in its coverage of the battles between the Islamists and rival Fatah.
Al-Jazeera favoring a terrorist organization in its coverage? Somebody pinch me:
"Al-Jazeera is an accomplice in the crimes committed by the (Hamas) militias... against our people," Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, told Palestinian radio.
Seems safe to say that Al-Jazeera has been an accomplice to many crimes committed against Americans in Iraq. But I digress:
"It has become a mouthpiece for these militias and has remained silent about their crimes," said the close ally of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, the leader of Fatah.
Abed Rabbo accused the Qatar-based satellite channel of "encouraging the putschists' crimes by covering these extreme terrorists and not covering their crimes."
He said the popular international broadcaster has given wide coverage to "isolated acts" committed by Fatah loyalists against Hamas in the West Bank and "marginal" coverage "to the atrocious crimes committed in the Gaza Strip."
We feel your pain, Abed.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Al-Jazeera is a pro-terrorist
June 17, 2007 - 18:29 ET by ThisnThatAl-Jazeera is a pro-terrorist organization -- but I guess now one has to be concerned about which flavor of terrorism is involved?
The PLO is a terrorist organization. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Duh. Here's a chance for the U.S. to not take either side -- let them fight it out, then destroy the winner.
Al Jazeera
June 17, 2007 - 18:35 ET by Cool ArrowWasn't Al Jazeera that guy in the 80's who sang "We're In This Love Together"?
Cool Arrow
June 17, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Noel SheppardCool,
Yes, but the real title radio couldn't divulge at the time was "We're in this Jihad Together." :-) ns
thou dost protest too late
June 17, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Pragmatic-ManSuddenly, thou dost protest, and thy name is terrorist. Too bad. You fed the arab propaganda monkey too. Now your own media tool has begun throwing its poo at you.
Pragmato, spot on
June 17, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Cool ArrowJazeera is gonna side with the money which will always be the side that seems to hate Jews more.
It's gonna be sick how the MSM blames the President for this and demands we pour relief into the lives of these poor families.
They'll have the nearest thing to a European (Christianne Amanpour) reporting "these pooowa pooowa Palestinians must live on expense accounted gruel shipped in from Hampstead Village.
oops.
June 17, 2007 - 20:01 ET by Dave Roops.
oops again.
June 17, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Dave Roops again.
I just joined NB last week
June 17, 2007 - 20:08 ET by LighthouseJI just joined NB last week so this is my first comment.
I thought we all kinda got the notion al Jazeera was sympathetic to the islamic extremist position when the al Qaeda selected it to air the videos of UBL and al Qaeda after 9/11.
Hamas
June 17, 2007 - 22:08 ET by Parker1227Hamas has provided much needed services to the Palestinian people - just like Adolph Hitler made the trains run on time in pre-WWII Germany.
If a majority of the people elect a proudly bigoted and genocidal leadership - then they must live (and die) with the choice they have made. Democracy (sans a rational constitution to guide it) doesn't always bring positive results, but it does bring clarity. Now we just need the world to open its eyes.
Parker
June 17, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Noel SheppardParker,
Interesting analogy, and a largely valid one. However, the difference is that Hitler also managed to unify his people, and create a robust economy. Hamas has been able to do neither.
Of course, the left blames this on America withholding funding to the region. Do you remember Hitler needing American money to build Germany's post-Depression economy into one of the strongest on the planet? :-) ns
Of course, the left blames th
June 17, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Dave ROf course, the left blames this on America withholding funding to the region.
Same gripe (excuse) the left forwards for the horrendous conditions in Cuba.
As for Hitler, he didn't need any help from us, as nothing helps an economy like a massive military build-up (coupled with slave-or near-slave labor, of course).
Noel, in all my readings on Germany in Hitler's time, most all of the references to their economy implied that, though it appeared to be rather robust from the outside, the reality was quite different.
As I see it, their largest economic handicap was their utter lack of natural resources, as well as a lack of access to the sea, which is what drove Hitler into Poland, France, etc., and eventually even into Russia.
Do you agree that the German economy was not as strong as many think?
Dave
June 17, 2007 - 23:07 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Tough to say. I haven't studied the post-Depression economy of Germany since I was in school decades ago. Many decades. :-( So, I'd mostly be wingin' it.
Was it likely based in smoke and mirrors? Well, there are many bears in this country and around the world that make the same claim about our economy today. In fact, there are many liberals who feel this way, wouldn't you agree?
In the end, Hitler took a country in the midst of one of the worst economies in history and quickly turned it into a powerhouse. Whether it was all smoke and mirrors seems somewhat irrelevant. ns
Whether it was all smoke and
June 17, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Dave RWhether it was all smoke and mirrors seems somewhat irrelevant
Agreed.
And had Hitler not gotten sidetracked for a few weeks and had launched Barbarossa when he had originally intended (after all, the lead elements of his army were literally in sight of the spires of the Kremlin when winter set in) he may well have gotten control of so vast an amount of natural resources that, even if their economy was largely based on BS, it wouldn't have mattered.
Had Hitler managed to accomplish that, the war in Europe might very well have ended somewhat differently.
Dave
June 17, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Yes, he learned NOTHING from Napolean! Schmuck. :-)
Noel,It's funny you mention N
June 18, 2007 - 00:09 ET by Dave RNoel,
It's funny you mention Napoleon and his similar result upon his invasion of Russia, given the earlier discussions here about those who choose to ignore history.
Hitler not only ignored the lessons provided by that up-tight Frenchman Mr. Bonaparte, but just twenty years before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Kaiser found himself in a two-front war as well, one that Hitler had himself served in as a member of the List Regiment.
The Bohemian Corporal may have been, as many have described him, a political genious, but he was a military imbicile.
"The Bohemian Corporal
June 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by ThisnThat"The Bohemian Corporal may have been, as many have described him, a political genious, but he was a military imbicile."
Hitler's generals would all agree to this, at least later in WWII. In the early goings, Hitler was very bold and took a lot of chances that won the early battles. It was later in the war that he began to make key mistakes, and I agree with your comment on the invasion of Russia -- Hitler was sidetracked for a while before making the fateful decision to invade -- several weeks later than planned. There were a number of key decisions like this throughout the war that could very well have resulted in a totally different outcome.
But on to another thought -- in WWII, we sought to destroy the enemy's communications and in so doing, didn't worry about the causalties. This war is different -- we are leaving the key communications/propaganda alone; we don't go after the radical clerics; and we worry incessantly about civilians. This is the war the U.S. populace wants -- minimilistic, precision, etc. But, this type of war also drags on -- and on -- and on. The U.S. doesn't seem to understand this, and now everyone "wants the war to end". Seems to me you can't have it both ways. And this is a lesson we need to analyze for not only this conflict, but for future conflicts.