Tuesday, April 17, 2007


Just a day or two after the news broke (but not in the Age) of the disgraceful assault on Israel by boycotting British journalists, The Melbourne Age today brought out its big guns in its own war on Israel.

In the first instance, it published an article by a Reuters journalist on billionaire George Soros' attack on the American Jewish lobby in the New York Review of Books (Soros takes Israeli lobby in Washington to task). Apart from this story being old hat (it broke in the U.S.A more than three weeks ago so why is it news here now?), it fails to mention that the basis of Soros' attack (some shoddy work by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt entitled "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy") was demolished utterly by respected Israeli historian Benny Morris in a piece published in The New Republic THE IGNORANCE AT THE HEART OF AN INNUENDO. And Now For Some Facts. Morris' article was published almost a year ago but the Age still hasn't caught up with it; nor should we expect it to do so in the near future.

Secondly, Ed O'Loughlin is back doing what he knows best. Turning a bad news story about the behaviour of some Palestinians into a not so subtle attack on Israelis. His story, Journalist death unconfirmed in Gaza, about kidnapped British journalist Alan Johnston is full of his usual syrup about the work of Palestinian security forces and those nice Palestinian journalists searching for the missing journo and isolates them from the nasties who claim to have kidnapped and killed him.

And just to make a point about who O'Loughlin believes the real bad guys in this whole scenario are, he throws in this line:-

"No foreign journalist or aid worker has been harmed by Palestinian militants since the uprising against Israel that began in October 2000, although several have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces."

Well, we won't mention that since October 2000 O'Loughlin's "Palestinian militants" have killed over 1,000 civilians inside Israel including overseas visitors and workers in cold blood by various methods ranging from suicide bomings, shootings and stabbing attacks including the disembowelling of pregnant mothers in front of their children.

We won't mention that most of the "several" O'Loughlin refers to were not deliberately killed or wounded by Israeli soldiers but died while putting themselves in harm's way and were caught in the line of fire while the Israeli soldiers were defending their own citizens from attacks by Ed's "militants".

And we certainly won't mention that among the aid workers that O'Loughlin writes about were people like Rachael Corrie who went to the region after being recruited by the Palestinian Solidarity Movement and its cover group the International Solidarity Movement to act as "human shields" for Palestinian terrorism. The ISM claims to be working for "peace" but it also openly boasts that it supports Palestinian armed struggle against Israel - which means it supports the ongoing war against Israel's civilian population and the Jewish State.

Just like certain journalists we know.

And that's a day's work for Ed O'Loughlin and the folks at the Melbourne Age.


Gulliver_on_Tour said...

While the Age is distorting, the Australian tells it like it is. Here's an excellent article from the Oz by Alan Gold:-


Anonymous said...

There was no reason for O'Loughlin to include that sentence about journalists and aid workers being killed by Israeli forces.

It's inclusion proves where he stands and why so many real news stories are supressed and stifled in the Age.

Anonymous said...

You probably also shouldn't mention the journalists, who whilst not killed, were kidnapped and held hostage by Palestinian terrorist groups.

the Gharkad tree said...

The inclusion by O'Loughlin of that one line was clearly politically-loaded propaganda on his part but don't blame him for it. He has an agenda, he supports the Palestinians and wouldn't want to suffer the same fate as Johnston if he had the courage to step foot into Gaza these days. He really has to write this shit for his own safety.

The editor of the newspaper is another thing altogether because if he had any pretensions to fairness in reporting he would have put his scissors through the line.