If the Melbourne Age ever lets go of its Middle East correspondent Ed O'Loughlin there is always a job available for him in the Hamas PR machine.
In today's Age, O'Loughlin literally gushes his way through an "analysis" of the repercussions of the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas movement's role in securing the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston from the clutches of a rival Islamic fundamentalist group (aka Hamas' partner in crime in, among other things, the abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit).
He is able to make Hamas look good because he has avoided reporting on the Hamas cavalcade of dirty deeds including its role in the recent internal Palestinian violence and bloodshed including the slaughter of innocent civilian bystanders and the incitement to violence against Israel and Jews as epitomised by the Farfour affair. It was no surprise therefore that this news only made it to the blank pages of the newspaper.
O'Loughlin's take on the West's boycott of the Hamas government is scandalous -
"Since Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament in January last year, the 3.6 million people of the West Bank and Gaza have been subject to a crippling economic and political boycott, intended to force Hamas from power or to make it moderate its hardline anti-Israeli platform."
This is simply untrue.
In the first instance, notwithstanding the boycott, the Palestine Authority has received more international aid since the election of Hamas than it ever did under Fatah.
Secondly, the boycott is not intended to force Hamas from power as he asserts. It is intended to ensure that Hamas recognises previous international agreements made by the Palestinian Authority including its recognition of the State of Israel.
On this issue, surely, the Age can do better than provide us with analysis from sycophantic cheerleaders for Hamas?
In today's Age, O'Loughlin literally gushes his way through an "analysis" of the repercussions of the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas movement's role in securing the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston from the clutches of a rival Islamic fundamentalist group (aka Hamas' partner in crime in, among other things, the abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit).
He is able to make Hamas look good because he has avoided reporting on the Hamas cavalcade of dirty deeds including its role in the recent internal Palestinian violence and bloodshed including the slaughter of innocent civilian bystanders and the incitement to violence against Israel and Jews as epitomised by the Farfour affair. It was no surprise therefore that this news only made it to the blank pages of the newspaper.
O'Loughlin's take on the West's boycott of the Hamas government is scandalous -
"Since Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament in January last year, the 3.6 million people of the West Bank and Gaza have been subject to a crippling economic and political boycott, intended to force Hamas from power or to make it moderate its hardline anti-Israeli platform."
This is simply untrue.
In the first instance, notwithstanding the boycott, the Palestine Authority has received more international aid since the election of Hamas than it ever did under Fatah.
Secondly, the boycott is not intended to force Hamas from power as he asserts. It is intended to ensure that Hamas recognises previous international agreements made by the Palestinian Authority including its recognition of the State of Israel.
On this issue, surely, the Age can do better than provide us with analysis from sycophantic cheerleaders for Hamas?
2 comments:
This wouldn't interest him either -
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459198627&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"Hamas's threat to open fire at throngs of Palestinians stranded in Egypt has thwarted Israeli plans to open the Kerem Shalom crossing to southern Gaza on Wednesday to let the travelers return to their homes, defense officials told The Jerusalem Post."
Anyone who promotes these barbarians as responsible in government is a barbarian himself.
This article sums it all up about the "courageous" Mister Ed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/middle_east/6592055.stm
But many foreign journalists covering Palestinian issues are nervous about returning to the Gaza Strip, which they once visited freely.
"I'd be very slow to go back to Gaza," said Ed O'Loughlin, a correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper.
"Up until now there has always been the assumption that there will be protection from the Palestinian authority or from Arabic and Islamic customs on treating guests. Now that trust is gone."
"But if the story was worth it, I'd go back. The days, however, of routine visits are over."
Post a Comment