Shallowest View of Terror: Globe & Mail

 
Hamas, under the leadership of Khaled Meshaal, dispatched no shortage of suicide bombers, fired thousands of rockets, violently took over the Gaza Strip, stymied Palestinian unity, kidnapped Gilad Shalit, and is in bed with both Iran and Sinai jihadis.

But when it was reported in February that Meshaal considered stepping down as the Hamas politburo chief, the Globe & Mail‘s Patrick Martin painted him as a pragmatic individual whose moderation was needed more than ever.

Martin also depicted lulls in violence to Meshaal’s loftiness, not Israeli security measures. But as Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Shalah conceded in a moment of candor, the lack of terror was due to the lack of Palestinian ability, not desire. He told Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV:

For example, in the West Bank, there is the separation fence which is an obstacle to the resistance. And if it were not there, the situation would be entirely different.

By the end of 2012, Palestinian rocket fire escalated, leading to Operation Pillar of Defense. Meshaal returned to Gaza and gave a fiery speech saying he would never concede anything to Israel, and that “Jihad and the armed resistance is the only true path to liberation.”

If that’s moderation, what would the Globe & Mail consider “radical?” As liberal American columnist Michael Tomasky pointed out after the speech:

But I ask you how any progressive person can fully support a movement like Meshal’s. Granted, the world doesn’t always offer us clean choices. We must prioritize, and the clear priority here is opposing occupation and working to end it.

But secular liberal people must also have the fortitude to demand that leaders of the occupied move away from destructive positions like Meshal’s, which just make for a downward spiral to nowhere.