Today's Melbourne Age contains an Op Ed piece from the public advocate for "Australians for Palestine", Michael Shaik who argues that peace in Iraq is inextricably linked to a Palestinian settlement. What Shaik is saying is that if only the Israelis bowed to all Palestinian demands then the killing in Irak would end and presumably so also would the murderous acts being wreaked upon communities in many other regions on the face of the earth.
Poof! Just like that.
Those people from within the Islamic world who are doing nasty things to other people in various parts of the earth from New York, Bali, Chechnya, London, Glasgow, Madrid, Bombay, Thailand and in Israel itself would end the carnage and start treating women and other minorites with dignity and equality if only the Palestinians got their way on everything.
The evidence however, suggests that no rational person should believe what Shaik says for a single instant. For starters, his argument runs counter to what Palestinian and other Islamic terror groups have to say often and in a loud voice i.e. that their aim is to destroy the Jewish State and to kill those of its inhabitants who happen to be Jews.
Shaik concludes his rant by highlighting Israel's "colonisation of the West Bank" and he suggests that should this "continue, the US will find itself defending what former US president Jimmy Carter has described as a regime of apartheid in which Jews and Palestinians living in the same area are subject to different laws and differential access to resources. Should America succumb to Israeli pressure to isolate Iran, it will lose the war in Iraq."
It's not clear how this all ties in together or even what "different laws" Shaik refers to - does he mean Palestinian laws that mandate a death penalty for Muslims who sell land to Jews? Is that Shaik's idea of Apartheid?
In typical Age style, the same edition backs up Shaik's incoherent rambling with an equally one sided news item from Steven Erlanger - Israel's 'separation road' unveils dual exit strategy. There's no mention of course, of the reason for what is described as an "ominous map of the future" and how it came to be be conceived. Threats of terror and annihilation against the Israeli people and the carrying out of such threats on its innocent civilian population are generally irrelevant to the reporting of much of what goes on in this region from the Age. That is perhaps why it has a credibility rating of zero in the eyes of many observers.
Poof! Just like that.
Those people from within the Islamic world who are doing nasty things to other people in various parts of the earth from New York, Bali, Chechnya, London, Glasgow, Madrid, Bombay, Thailand and in Israel itself would end the carnage and start treating women and other minorites with dignity and equality if only the Palestinians got their way on everything.
The evidence however, suggests that no rational person should believe what Shaik says for a single instant. For starters, his argument runs counter to what Palestinian and other Islamic terror groups have to say often and in a loud voice i.e. that their aim is to destroy the Jewish State and to kill those of its inhabitants who happen to be Jews.
Shaik concludes his rant by highlighting Israel's "colonisation of the West Bank" and he suggests that should this "continue, the US will find itself defending what former US president Jimmy Carter has described as a regime of apartheid in which Jews and Palestinians living in the same area are subject to different laws and differential access to resources. Should America succumb to Israeli pressure to isolate Iran, it will lose the war in Iraq."
It's not clear how this all ties in together or even what "different laws" Shaik refers to - does he mean Palestinian laws that mandate a death penalty for Muslims who sell land to Jews? Is that Shaik's idea of Apartheid?
In typical Age style, the same edition backs up Shaik's incoherent rambling with an equally one sided news item from Steven Erlanger - Israel's 'separation road' unveils dual exit strategy. There's no mention of course, of the reason for what is described as an "ominous map of the future" and how it came to be be conceived. Threats of terror and annihilation against the Israeli people and the carrying out of such threats on its innocent civilian population are generally irrelevant to the reporting of much of what goes on in this region from the Age. That is perhaps why it has a credibility rating of zero in the eyes of many observers.
2 comments:
Did anybody notice that al age didn't publish any letters the following day?
Responding to the Palestinian propaganda..Funy that Huh? . Am I just being cynical
What an appalling hypocrisy this article is from the authors and from the Age newspaper.
Do these bastards really believe for example that the massacre yesterday by their insurgent heroes of 200 innocent civilians in Irak was done for the benefit of the Palestinians and that they were murdered only because the Palestinians have a grievance that isn't cpable of being settled?
Post a Comment