Can you imagine the Times saying that earlier this year when China crushed Tibet? No, you can't. The first paragraph of the Times editorial on Gaza (who needs to read more):
And more than 385 Palestinians were just killed. You wonder why the internet just surpassed newspapers as an information source. You wonder why the late Arthur Hays Sulzberger was "deeply opposed to Zionism."
Related posts:
- ‘New Yorker’ Editor: Israel and Lobby Bear Responsibility for Iraq War
- An English politician watches Israeli soldiers lose control at a peaceful demonstration and vows to bear witness
- video crackdown (in Tehran yes, and in Israel too)
- The Left: Are We (Secretly) Pulling for the Insurgents?
- Crackdown: ‘JPost’ fires Naomi Chazan






{ 4 comments }
In other threads someone (I forget which poster – SOG? Witty?) asked why Hamas wasn't renounced by Phil and others on this site. I have found that there are far more fanatical Zionist sites that are considered in the mainstream of Zionism. There are so many of them that it would be a full time job renouncing them (if that was even considered in the 1st place).
Have a gander at the 'path to peace' as offered by the site, Samson Blinded : http://samsonblinded.org/
It kind of gives me a glimpse as to what Hamas is up against.
~
"And Hamas must bear responsibility for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory."
Back to Looking-Glass Land, I see.
Worst of all, Lance, is that Palestinians are up against the American media. From Rachel Maddow to Arianna Huffington, and all those to their right, Palestinians find themselves in a no-win situation.
From Lance's kahanist SamsonBlinded site:
""Most Jews adhere to an exceedingly rigid code of conduct, prescribed by their Law, which prohibits immoral actions (usually) even toward gentiles."
… usually … even toward gentiles. You couldn't make this stuff up. :)
Comments on this entry are closed.