Three things are evident in the editorial coverage of the Israel/Hamas ceasefire:1) There is undeniable innuendo that the glory of Obama's inauguration caused the tanks and rockets to fall silent; this was necessary so that the entire world could watch the Bush-to-Obama transformation unfettered.
2) There continues to be this absurd insinuation that Hamas is a multi-headed beast with a frail body; that if you chop off the heads (Yassin, Rantisi, Siam... someday Zahhar, Haniyeh, Meshal) that the body will fall over and decay into humus from which will rise the body of a docile farm animal agreeable to Western palates.
3) One shouldn't drink hot coffee while reading the National Post; there's a dangerous potential to burn one's nasal passages.
In the Toronto Star, Monday's editorial painted a monochrome portrait of destruction/relief in Gaza, then panned to Obama's side of the court with a plea that the new prez bring his change to the peace process. But then, columnist Martin Regg Cohn urged Obama to direct the peace process status quo ante. Well then, good thing there's another Clinton on the field.
The Globe and Mail's Friday editorial was the cause of some chortling at the Tuque Souq; Hamas, it said, should accept the inevitability of defeat, in perpetuity, forever. Unfortunately, the very reason that Hamas now sits before the typewriter of the Palestinian national narrative is because it won't accept defeat. And this, in a perversely cyclical way, is the reason it picks a fight with such an unbeatable military force. Recall Hamas's campaign slogan from 2006: "One hand builds, the other resists." There will be a lot of building to do in Gaza now.
An op-ed in Monday's Globe said that among the victories that Israel can take from this war are a) that now Israel in unquestionably militarily superior to Hamas; and b) that now it is revealed that Hamas's promises and proclamations are empty rhetoric. 'Duh' journalism at its finest.
The Montreal Gazette parsed the "hate-mongers" amongst the more legitimate protesters, but over at the National Post, well, now it's time to laugh:
“Many [supporters of the Palestinian side] were the genuinely good-hearted college sophomores, possessing naiveté and Che Guevara T-shirts, claiming to “understand” the “root causes” of suicide bombers, while still regretting their toll on humanity...Postmodernists?
In Gaza today, with no real 'occupation' to resist, and Hamas’ organized attacks against Israel, those supporting the Palestinian side have a much harder time arguing ethical equivalence...
Relatively moderate voices, and the let's-get-along crowd, with less to say, and probably less motivation to say it, are crowded out by those who loudly root against Israel as a general rule: postmodernists, hard-edge Islamists and old fashioned anti-Semites.”
1 comment:
You may enjoy the War Nerd's take on Gaza, especially in relation to Obama.
First, he notes that Gaza isn't a traditional war, so it doesn't much matter who has more equipment if they are fighting a traditional war, so the Globe has it wrong, "a) that now Israel in unquestionably militarily superior to Hamas; and b) that now it is revealed that Hamas's promises and proclamations are empty rhetoric."
Second, the War Nerd perfectly predicts the cease fire in Gaza, corresponding exactly with the Obamaration, to wit, "So the planets aligned perfectly for Israel, not so much Age of Aquarius way as Zero Hour, last chance to blow up Gaza before Obama comes in."
An indispensable resource, that War Nerd is.
Post a Comment