NYT fawns over 'moderate' Abbas and Fatah

In its Aug. 5 edition, the  New York Times runs an article by Isabel Kershner about the start of Fatah's party congress in Bethlehem that neatly expunges the terrorist past of Fatah and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and neatly sanitizes their threats to resume a war of terror if they fail to achieve a peace deal on their terms, "Abbas Urges 'New Start' at Fatah Conference," page A5.

Kershner starts her piece by gushing that the Fatah parley is the "first ever on Palestinian soil" -- a somewhat questionable assertion since this "Palestinian" soil has yet to be encompassed within a Palestinian state.

Kershner then endows the conference with a symbol of a dawning peace by stressing that it's being held in a school "near Manger Square."   Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men evidently must be in the offing.  After all,  according to Kershner, these folks are "the more moderate Palestinian forces."

And presiding over the deliberations is Abbas, "a stickler for law and order,"  again according to Kershner.  How does she reaches this conclusion?  "Mr. Abbas also proudly noted that Palestinians now wear their seat belts or face being fined."  And to add to his positive credentials, Kershner vouches that Abbas "has proved to be a reliable leader."

So what's the conference up to, according to Kershner? 

Rank-and-file party members want "new blood" in the leadership.  And to what purpose?  Well, many delegates want Fatah to threaten a new terror war and even Abbas might oblige them.   But that's not the way Kershner reports it.

To cleanse Abbas of any sins, Kershner informs Times readres that he was only involved in "armed struggle" in his early years.  A neat euphemism for his direct involvement in the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

Abbas boasts about his close collaboration with Arafat, Kershner reports, and expresses pride in having been on Arafat's side "in making a decision to begin an armed struggle in 1965."   Again, not the slightest suggestion in Kershner's piece that this "armed struggle" involved the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and, furthermore, began at a time when Jordan and Egypt -- not Israel -- occupied what are now called Palestinian territories  -- the very areas these "moderate" Palestinians now say they want in their quest for statehood.     No explanation by Kershner of why there would have been any reason for an "armed struggle" against Israel TWO YEARS  BEFORE  Israel captured these territories in the Six-Day War in 1967.

And when Kershner finally acknowledges in her own euphemistic way that resort to violence is a major topic at the conference, she merely refers to the desire of many delegates to push "the concept of the armed struggle" and for Fatah "to remain a liberation movement."

"Armed struggle," "liberation movement" -- these are Palestinian-speak formulations for terrorism.  And, with Kershner's reportage, they also become New York Times-speak.

Orwell must be chortling in his grave.
In its Aug. 5 edition, the  New York Times runs an article by Isabel Kershner about the start of Fatah's party congress in Bethlehem that neatly expunges the terrorist past of Fatah and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and neatly sanitizes their threats to resume a war of terror if they fail to achieve a peace deal on their terms, "Abbas Urges 'New Start' at Fatah Conference," page A5.

Kershner starts her piece by gushing that the Fatah parley is the "first ever on Palestinian soil" -- a somewhat questionable assertion since this "Palestinian" soil has yet to be encompassed within a Palestinian state.

Kershner then endows the conference with a symbol of a dawning peace by stressing that it's being held in a school "near Manger Square."   Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men evidently must be in the offing.  After all,  according to Kershner, these folks are "the more moderate Palestinian forces."

And presiding over the deliberations is Abbas, "a stickler for law and order,"  again according to Kershner.  How does she reaches this conclusion?  "Mr. Abbas also proudly noted that Palestinians now wear their seat belts or face being fined."  And to add to his positive credentials, Kershner vouches that Abbas "has proved to be a reliable leader."

So what's the conference up to, according to Kershner? 

Rank-and-file party members want "new blood" in the leadership.  And to what purpose?  Well, many delegates want Fatah to threaten a new terror war and even Abbas might oblige them.   But that's not the way Kershner reports it.

To cleanse Abbas of any sins, Kershner informs Times readres that he was only involved in "armed struggle" in his early years.  A neat euphemism for his direct involvement in the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

Abbas boasts about his close collaboration with Arafat, Kershner reports, and expresses pride in having been on Arafat's side "in making a decision to begin an armed struggle in 1965."   Again, not the slightest suggestion in Kershner's piece that this "armed struggle" involved the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and, furthermore, began at a time when Jordan and Egypt -- not Israel -- occupied what are now called Palestinian territories  -- the very areas these "moderate" Palestinians now say they want in their quest for statehood.     No explanation by Kershner of why there would have been any reason for an "armed struggle" against Israel TWO YEARS  BEFORE  Israel captured these territories in the Six-Day War in 1967.

And when Kershner finally acknowledges in her own euphemistic way that resort to violence is a major topic at the conference, she merely refers to the desire of many delegates to push "the concept of the armed struggle" and for Fatah "to remain a liberation movement."

"Armed struggle," "liberation movement" -- these are Palestinian-speak formulations for terrorism.  And, with Kershner's reportage, they also become New York Times-speak.

Orwell must be chortling in his grave.