Because I haven’t picked on the Guardian in ages (mostly because I also don’t pick on children, stick my leg out in front of a blind person, or play mean tricks on animals, either), I thought I’d point out a particularly egregiously biased piece of crap that I found in its “reporting” on Israel.
Hamas has demanded that Israel free some of the 9,000 Palestinians it holds in exchange for Gilad Shalit, as Israeli corporal captured on June 25 during a raid on Israeli positions. Israel has insisted on his unconditional release.
Three weeks of air strikes and ground attacks have killed more than 80 Palestinians and an Israeli soldier, and have caused a huge increase in misery for Gaza’s 1.4 million residents. Yesterday 23 Palestinians, including a family of nine, were killed. While the capture of Corporal Shalit was an accidental by-product of the Hamas attack, Hizbullah said it had been planning Wednesday’s operation for four years.
Right. Asshats, let me explain something to you: The attack was conducted for the explicit purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Hamas and Hizbullah have been trying for years to kidnap Israelis.
But wait, there’s more:
Israel is using both crises to further other agendas. Its attacks on Gaza were linked to its battle against Hamas and the firing of rockets at Israel. In the same way, it has decided to force the Lebanese government to clamp down on Hizbullah and its autonomy in Lebanon.
Hizbullah was formed to push Israel out of Lebanon, but it plays a central role in Lebanese life. It is partly armed and funded by Syria and Iran, and accuses Israel of holding on to an area of Lebanese territory.
So let’s see if I have this straight. The cessation of missile attacks on your civilians and the cessation of terrorist attacks on your northern border are both “agendas” that are, like, I dunno, not worth pursuing? Or it’s not fair to pursue those “agendas” while going after, say, the terrorist that are the ones who are perpetrating the attacks?
You know, I’ve always thought the Guardian was a rag, but this is absolutely un-effing-believable bias in a supposedly objective news article.
This is why I don’t read the Guardian. My blood pressure can’t take it.
Update: Much more on the main page.
Sure, the Guardian is right, the kidnapping of an IDF Corporal is accidential in the case that Hamas would have perferred kidnapping an IDF General instead! However, since none was available…He would do.
Pingback: Pajamas Media