Thursday, July 5, 2007

An Atrocity Within an Atrocity. Who ARE the “Terrorists”?

Israel is attacking Gaza without provocation again.

What Is a Militant?

Judging from this report, a “militant” is a person you kill when you invade his land, and if people fight back against your aggression, they are “gunmen”:

‘GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops and armor crossed into the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing seven Palestinian militants, including six from the Islamist Hamas group that controls the coastal territory.’

Why Are Israel’s Gunmen “Forces” while Their Victims Are “Gunmen”?

‘Israeli forces exchanged fire with gunmen in al-Maghazi refugee camp. . .’In addition, 13 people, including children, were wounded. The Israeli army did not disclose whether the children were “militants”, but an unarmed Hamas cameraman apparently was: He ‘was injured by what witnesses said was a tank shell and was seen later being shot in the legs from afar as he lay on the ground.’ Swissinfo reported that television footage showed gunfire aimed in his direction as he was lying on the ground, and that later, hospital officials said both of his legs were amputated.
(Lest we forget, the refugee camps exist because people driven earlier from their homes by the Zionists have to live somewhere.)

Why is that atrocity not treated as news in America even though it was funded there? Especially in light of other things reported by Swissinfo and other sources: ‘Israeli soldiers fired on a rooftop where several journalists, including a Reuters camera crew, were filming.’ In addition, Israeli soldiers violated the rules of war by grabbing Palestinian ambulance workers and using them as human shields in order to escape from the area. As always, the familiar refrain after Israel atrocities: ‘An Israeli military spokesman said: "After conducting a preliminary examination, we know nothing about such an incident".’

Hamas Gains BBC Journalist’s Freedom, but No Thanks Except from the Journalist

This latest unprovoked Israeli aggression on Gaza comes only a day after Hamas, the legitimate Palestinian government which is trying to survive the Israeli onslaught, arranged the release of a BBC correspondent who had been held captive by another group for almost four months. Hamas representatives ‘whisked him and the media off for breakfast at the home of the Hamas leader and former prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.’

‘The 45-year-old reporter showed his gratitude towards Hamas, saying the heat was on his kidnappers when the group took control of Gaza after fierce factional fighting with the western-backed Fatah faction. "Until the Hamas takeover, I felt that the kidnappers were completely relaxed and secure, but the game completely changed when Hamas took over," Mr Johnston said.’

So Hamas is a Hero, Right? Wrong.

The US/Israeli media have fallen all over themselves to be sure that Hamas should receive no appreciation, much less praise, because of its feat. ABC news trumpeted, ‘Hamas Takes Advantage of Johnston Release’. Apparently one “takes advantage of” arranging the release of a kidnapped person by virtue of having arranged the release.

The Chicago Tribune, instead of headlining credit for Hamas, complained:
‘Hamas seeks political gain from hostage's release
Faction touts freeing of Briton as evidence that it's a credible political and diplomatic partner
By Joel Greenberg

(“Touts”, in case anybody didn’t notice, is not a nice word. It is a negatively loaded word.)

The Tribune quickly lets us know that in spite bringing about the freedom of the journalist, ‘Hamas did not appear to win new credibility among its opponents. A U.S. official said Hamas "still has a number of obligations to meet before it can be a partner that can be counted on and worked with.”’

The Jerusalem Post likewise reports, “The United States said Thursday that Hamas's role in freeing British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston has not changed the world's opinion of the Islamic group. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, "I don't think the world views Hamas any differently as a result of this." (The “world’s opinion” is a really big opinion. Are you sure about that, Spokesman McCormack?)

So, Hamas is still “bad” no matter how much good it does, and Israel, always “good”, is once more doing what it does best, murdering people on their own land.

And speaking of kidnapping, why is it that Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is always described as “kidnapped” even though he was captured in a war situation, while people unlawfully hauled away by Israeli invaders are described as “arrested"?


Nabila Harb said...

Thank you, Fleming, for your thorough, ongoing coverage of the situation in Occupied Palestine. Gaza must be considered 'Occupied' in the circumstances, along with Ramallah and Haifa and every other village and dunum in Palestine, despite Zionist/American propaganda to the effect that the Palestinians have achieved self-determination in that very small area.

Fleming said...

Nabila, thank you for your support. I think we would agree that all of Palestine is occupied, and that no Palestinian is any more free than the occupant of an American or Nazi internment camp.