« Congressional Candidate Steve Beren: Another Ex-Lefty | Home | Fox News to Air "Obession" Special Throughout the Weekend »
November 04, 2006
Vanity Fair's Sickening Puff Piece on Haniyeh
In recent years, I've read more romanticized profiles of terrorist leaders in the mainstream media than I'd care to admit. But Vanity Fair's sickening puff piece on Palestinian prime minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh takes the cake.
Authored by David Margolick and titled, "The Most Dangerous Job in Gaza," the article is nothing more than a transparent attempt to make us feel sorry for the poor, beleaguered terrorist leader Haniyeh and the people who elected him. To hear Margolick tell it, if only Haniyeh didn't have to spend all his time escaping from Israeli bombs, he might just turn out to be the next Gandhi.
As usual, all of Israel's military actions are described in a vacuum, with little to no context as to what prompted them. That would be the ongoing war of extermination against Israel on the part of the Palestinians and the Muslim world as a whole.
For instance, Israel's justifiable military response in Gaza to the kidnapping of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit, not to mention the years of violence and provocation that preceded it, is painted as (horror of horrors!) nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of the Hamas regime. As Margolick puts it:
When Palestinian militants from Hamas and two other groups killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped a third, Corporal Gilad Shalit, in late June, it seemed like a minor skirmish, at least in the context of Middle Eastern carnage. But,in a land of such deep hatreds and hair-trigger sensitivities, the strike quickly prompted an enormous Israeli assault on beleaguered Gaza, ostensibly to free the abducted soldier and stop Palestinian rocket fire, but really to cripple, if not topple, the Hamas regime altogether.Get out the hanky and the violin because I think I feel a sob story coming on.
Indeed, it just gets worse. Here's how Margolick describes Israel's military actions in Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah-orchestrated kidnappings of two more of its soldiers:
Two weeks later, the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah staged a similar cross-border attack...It, too, prompted a colossal Israeli counterattack, one that devastated Lebanon and threatened an even wider war involving the two principal backers of the radical Islamic groups: Iran and Syria.And here I thought Iran and Syria's backing of Hezbollah's actions were what "threatened an even wider war" not Israel's response. Silly me.
The article goes on to do the usual handwringing over the fate of the much-anticipated Palestinian state without any mention of the fact that its failure lies in the hands of its own people. The very same people who elected, as Margolick proudly puts it, "Haniyeh, one of those rare democratically elected Arab prime ministers."
He laments the rubble of Gaza, which, as he describes it, is "only moved, never cleared away." Perhaps if the Palestinians were interested in actually creating a viable society instead of simply destroying Israel, the rubble would be cleared away, much as it is in Israel immediately following one of the many terrorist attacks on its people.
But that's too much of a leap of logic for Margolick, yet another weepy western dupe to the Palestinian "cause," to make. Instead, to quote a former column of my own, he extends his misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists.
Suddenly, Better Homes & Gardens' glowing profile of Adolph Hitler in 1938 makes a lot of sense.
Cross-posted at CinnamonStillwell.blogspot.com.
Cinnamon | 11/04/06 at 02:32 PM | Categories: - Useful idiots
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/5806
Blogs which link to Vanity Fair's Sickening Puff Piece on Haniyeh:
» Hamas in the Hamptons? from Pajamas Media
Kesher Talk fisks Vanity Fair's Haniyeh profile: "In recent years, I've read more romanticized profiles of terrorist leaders in the mainstream media than I'd care to admit. But Vanity Fair's sickening puff piece on Palestinian prime minister and Hamas ... [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2006 03:51 AM
» Haveil Havalim #93 from Soccer Dad
Well it's Haveil Havalim time. Much to my frustration, Verizon's been balky most of the day. Finally it appears to be working. (But don't blame me if I copy and paste this before saving just in case.) The Election The Town Crier, writes an extensive re... [Read More]
Tracked on November 12, 2006 05:47 PM
Comments
The really sad part about all this is that this guy Margolick is probably Jewish. Why are we always our own worst enemy?
Sarit | November 5, 2006 12:32 AM
Margolick just wrote a review of David Mamet's latest book on being a more confident Jew, and treats it very ambivalently.
On Israel, Mamet’s problem isn’t timing but oversimplification. . . . Not all Jewish criticism of Israel is self-hatred, and not all gentile criticism is anti-Semitic. Jews who sympathize with the Palestinians are not necessarily neurotic. Few Jews consider Zionism “criminal,” and are there any who condone suicide bombing? And, by the way, not all Israeli crimes are “imaginary.”
are there any who condone suicide bombing? Is he kidding? Has he heard of Adam Shapiro?
Read the whole review.
Judith | November 5, 2006 11:05 AM
Can you actually give a valid dispute of what Margolick said?
Pro-Israel hawks, Jew and gentile alike, do often use accusations of anti-Semitism as a club, with which to beat anyone over the head who dares to criticize any action of the Israeli government. Such hawks do also widely believe that any Jew who criticizes Israel must have a mental problem.
Cal | August 9, 2007 01:08 AM
Cal, then why in every article I read refuting anti-Israel critics, do the authors take care to restate that of course there is valid criticism of Israel. They then go on to state in painstaking detail why the arguments they are refuting don't fall under that category. Then they refute the argument.
I don't think I have ever read any defense of Israel that doesn't follow this formula. So I think the ball is in your court to take issue with the explanation for why that particular argument isn't antisemitism - for the most part, treating the Jewish state egregiously differently from other states, although there are other reasons that label is applied. You would have to treat each hawkish refutation on its own merits.
Judith | August 9, 2007 04:05 PM













![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)