The Hamas P.R. Miracle Continues
The New York Times today delivered a lead editorial attacking Hamas. A perfectly good editorial -- one that underlines the point I've made in the past, which is that the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian government is a great thing from a propaganda standpoint.
As a matter of fact, I think that this perfectly reasonable (I'm amazed to find myself using that word) editorial contained a definite note of frustration. The Times, remember, is blatantly pro-Palestinian. So Hamas's endorsement of Monday's suicide bombing was not, in the view of the Times, simply immoral. It was "dimwitted."
It was almost as if the Times was saying, "Come on Hamas! Give us something to work with." Hamas won't play the hypocritical game, first begun by Yassir Arafat, of condemning terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. These guys endorse terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. Hey, that's honest! You got to give them credit for that.
You could see the agony over at the primary Palestinian terrorist mouthpiece in this country, the Electronic Intifada. There, of course, the bombing in Tel Aviv was a nonevent, and the lead article was (I must pause while I reach for my handkerchief), "Hamas is Being Forced to Collapse." Oh no!
EI reported that "the newly elected Palestinian government led by Hamas has already started to show an impressive level of pragmatism, however, Israel and the U.S. seem to not be interested."
Now, in the past, pap like this would ordinarily be found in the editorial pages of the New York Times and other newspapers. Today, you had to turn to EI to find the usual justifications and excuses for Palestinian terrorism. Even an obligatory op-ed in the Times on the Israel lobby was half-hearted and pro forma.
Even the odious BBC gnashed its teeth and reported that "Hamas's refusal to condemn the Tel Aviv bombing will have only reinforced the view of many in the West that the new Palestinian government must be treated as a pariah."
Oh, and whatever one might think of Ehud Olmert's reaction -- I tend to agree that it was inadequate -- you have to admit that, again from a strictly P.R. perspective, it was brilliant. No strong Israeli reaction to cloud the image of a Hamas government endorsing terrorism. The Israeli government, by pausing, let that image sink in.
So, onward, Hamas, with your "honesty is the best policy" policy. Say what's on your mind, guys. Don't be shy. And keep up the good work.
------------------
To read the most recent items in this blog, click here!
To donate to Mediacrity, click here!
As a matter of fact, I think that this perfectly reasonable (I'm amazed to find myself using that word) editorial contained a definite note of frustration. The Times, remember, is blatantly pro-Palestinian. So Hamas's endorsement of Monday's suicide bombing was not, in the view of the Times, simply immoral. It was "dimwitted."
It was almost as if the Times was saying, "Come on Hamas! Give us something to work with." Hamas won't play the hypocritical game, first begun by Yassir Arafat, of condemning terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. These guys endorse terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. Hey, that's honest! You got to give them credit for that.
You could see the agony over at the primary Palestinian terrorist mouthpiece in this country, the Electronic Intifada. There, of course, the bombing in Tel Aviv was a nonevent, and the lead article was (I must pause while I reach for my handkerchief), "Hamas is Being Forced to Collapse." Oh no!
EI reported that "the newly elected Palestinian government led by Hamas has already started to show an impressive level of pragmatism, however, Israel and the U.S. seem to not be interested."
Now, in the past, pap like this would ordinarily be found in the editorial pages of the New York Times and other newspapers. Today, you had to turn to EI to find the usual justifications and excuses for Palestinian terrorism. Even an obligatory op-ed in the Times on the Israel lobby was half-hearted and pro forma.
Even the odious BBC gnashed its teeth and reported that "Hamas's refusal to condemn the Tel Aviv bombing will have only reinforced the view of many in the West that the new Palestinian government must be treated as a pariah."
Oh, and whatever one might think of Ehud Olmert's reaction -- I tend to agree that it was inadequate -- you have to admit that, again from a strictly P.R. perspective, it was brilliant. No strong Israeli reaction to cloud the image of a Hamas government endorsing terrorism. The Israeli government, by pausing, let that image sink in.
So, onward, Hamas, with your "honesty is the best policy" policy. Say what's on your mind, guys. Don't be shy. And keep up the good work.
------------------
To read the most recent items in this blog, click here!
To donate to Mediacrity, click here!
posted by Mediacrity at 8:01 AM
<< Home