Soccer Dad: Voices for terror

July 23, 2006

Voices for terror

Well the Washington Post, having given Ismail Haniyeh a platform, has now given a platform to a Hezbollah apologist. Hezbollah's Apocolypse Now by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is by a fellow who claims to be "...a scholar who has devoted much of my career to following Hezbollah." But to read the article is to read a brief for Hezbollah.

I'm sure that Hezbollah had envisaged, though perhaps not expected, a response of this kind. By provoking its southern neighbor, Hezbollah knew it would present Israel with a ghastly choice. Hezbollah is a popular social movement, and it is well aware that it can be destroyed only if the Israeli army is prepared to commit mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing -- use whatever unpalatable term you will -- against the entire Shiite community.

Now for those with a slightly broader view of things, say Gen Moshe Yaalon, see Hezbolalh reacting to orders from its Iranian masters. Of course, by presenting Israel's choice in such stark terms it gives ~~Mr.~~ Ms. Saad-Ghorayeb the opportunity in a few months to declare that Israel didn't achieve its goals.

Of course for Israel to achieve its goals, it will have to kill a lot of people. It will have to capture or destroy many weapons.

Destruction is terrible but it is sometimes necessary. Israel has a hostile terrorist force on its northern border. For some time that force, Hezbollah, has been gaining strength. Armed by Iran and Syria it's been a proxy army on Israel's border using its host for immunity from effective retaliation.

But now Israel has struck back with the goal of destroying Hezbollah, or, at the very least, destroying its offensive capability. How does Saad-Ghorayeb view this possibility?

Leaving Israel to significantly weaken Hezbollah's military infrastructure would have equally perilous consequences. If there is anything more dangerous than a strong Hezbollah, it is a weak Hezbollah. One can only imagine what would happen if the organization were left bereft of leadership, clinging to its remaining weapons and operating underground, while the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer. As one Hezbollah member said, "All hell would be let loose."

This is one of those non-sequitirs that is so often passed off in the media as sagacity. Of course a weakened Hezbollah is less of a threat to Israel than a strong Hezbollah. A weakened Hezbollah has fewer planners, fighters and weapons. It can accomplish less. Only in the Washington Post's world where motive is more important than means or opportunity does this make any sense.

The only reason for publishing such tripe is to give a voice to Hezbollah. Give them a sense of legitimacy. Of course the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell denies that is what is going on.

In a Mideast Maelstrom of Complaints Howell wrote about the hazards of reporting on the Middle East. She gets lots of angry letters. My, my.

Still she insists that the Post's coverage and editorial policy is on the up and up.

The Post's editorials have expressed concern that Hamas and Hezbollah not be given legitimacy; that Israel not overplay its military hand; that Syria and Iran's influence be curtailed; and that the United States, its allies and the United Nations should be involved to find a way toward peace.

Of course given today's Outlook article and the Haniyeh op-ed it is clear that giving Hamas and Hezbolah legitimacy is not something that concerns the editors of the Post. They gave a voice to a terrorist and to terror apologist. As I pointed out in my e-mail to Howell the Post never gave Slobodan Milosevic a chance to speak on their pages.

She defended last week's disgraceful op-ed by Richard Cohen

Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking.

Yes but they should at least be historically literate. Cohen's op-ed was definitely not.

As far as defending last Sunday's article about Walt and Mearsheimer in the Washington Post Magazine Howell writes

One could also say that piece couldn't have been more aptly timed.

One could say that. If
(1) one believed that that the Post were an honest broker. But Howell notes something at the end of her defense that is very telling

There were a few letters from readers critical of Israel.

I love how newspapers (and other media) defend their even handedness by noting that they receive complaints from both sides. Here Howell implies that the vast majority of complaints were directed towards the Post by supporters of Israel. Doesn't this give lie to the claim that the Post's coverage is fair.

(2) one believed that the sole reason for supporting Israel is because its lobby has twisted the minds of the country's leaders. Of course we this in the Post's reporting. Pillage Idiot made an excellent observation about a recent Post article. But there were some disturbing aspects to that article. After the part that Pillage Idiot quotes, the reporter writes

Many Mideast experts warn that there is a dangerous consequence to this worldview. They believe that Israel, and the United States by extension, is risking serious trouble if it continues with the punishing air strikes that are producing mounting casualties. The history of the Middle East is replete with examples of the limits of military power, they say, noting how the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in the early 1980s helped create the conditions for the rise of Hezbollah.

The reporter then goes on to quote a representative of the New Israel Fund whose military expertise is never mentioned and Robert Malley the Arafat apologist who blames the failure of Camp David on PM Barak. (See whose story is it anyway for an example.)

Given that the Post's editorial premises - followed slavilshly by reporters - include (according to Howell) "that Israel not overplay its military hand" an article exaggerating the influence of AIPAC, is very appropriate.

While I believed that Howell is a step up from her predecessor Michael Getler, my esitmation of her is quickly falling. Israel is being attacked on two fronts by terrorist organizations - the election of one the Post supported.

Pointing to a Charles Krauthammer article as a sign of balance is a very weak defense for giving aid and comfort to Israel's enemies.

Technorati tags: Washington Post, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah.