The Chronicle Shills for Hamas

When the residents of the West Bank and Gaza made the terrorist organization, Hamas, the majority party in the parliament of the Palestinian Authority, leaders from around the world reacted with shock. Both the United States and the European Union have since suspended aid to the government of the region now also known as "Hamastan".

Condoleeza Rice summarized the position of the Bush administration in this way: "Hamas has got to make a choice. If it is going to govern, it is going to have to govern on internationally acceptable standards and that means. [Hamas must] renounce violence and terrorism." Indeed, even the liberal Los Angeles Times, reacting to a recent suicide bombing, stated that, "If there was any lingering doubt that the U.S. and Europe were right to ostracize the Hamas government and cut off economic aid, it has been dramatically dispelled.

It certainly would appear that our media and our government may have finally come to their senses regarding "Palestine" and the "Peace Process". But this is only an appearance, as we shall see when we consider closely what amounts to an appalling example of pro-Hamas propaganda that appeared on the front page of the print edition of The Houston Chronicle today. Just beneath a picture of a young child in a hospital bed is the following tear-jerking paragraph.

Dr. Jumaa al-Saqqa was in a meeting discussing the problems facing Shifa Hospital when a nurse burst in. Cancer patients were being sent home because there was no more medicine for chemotherapy.

"Surely this will shorten their lives," al-Saqqa said in a quiet voice. "If you need six doses of radiotherapy and you only get one, the tumors will be more aggressive and metastasize all over the place. This is a disaster. We are completely unstable -- we don't know what tomorrow will bring."

This is indeed sad. Why is it happening? After lamenting that "It is a terrible time to get sick in the Gaza strip," the article goes on to explain that there has been a "U.S-led boycott" of foreign aid to the Hamastanis for the past two months, and that it is "causing severe hardships ... [for] nearly 4 million Palestinians, many already in poverty, fac[ing] a total breakdown in government services." And all this suffering is "designed to force Hamas, the militant Islamic group that won elections in January, to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel."

Buried several paragraphs into the story, and ensconced in a description of the dire straits of the Hamastanis, is the briefest possible explanation for why the United States (meaning you, as a taxpayer) is not sending as much money to enable a people (the ones who elected Hamas into office and fire home-made rockets into Israel) to continue to live (and so, for example, drive next to packed buses with bombs, killing and injuring passengers by the dozen).

The entire story continues in this vein, painting its portrait of human suffering in Gaza, while giving short shrift to the carnage wrought in Israel by Hamas, whom the "Palestinians" support. For example, reporter Gregory Katz, goes through great pains to outline how the government's inability to pay its employees has trickled down to cause a small businessman to have no calls for the past two weeks.

And yet, somehow, Katz did not see fit to paint a similarly humanizing portrait of, say, an Israeli family trying to make ends meet after losing its breadwinner in a terrorist attack. The businessman, obviously having failed to learn anything so far (and apparently confident he has a sympathetic ear), offers no apologies to Israel, saying instead, "[N]ow I have no work because the world doesn't want Hamas in power." One would think that that this man expects the West to relent -- even in a time of war -- upon hearing of his plight.

One would be correct. In fact, Katz quotes no less than six Hamastanis in his story. Several speak as if Hamastan is somehow entitled to Western aid, but not a single one aplogized for what Hamas -- his government -- has done to Israel. Indeed, the entire focus of the article is on the suffering of the Hamastanis, as if that fact negates all other considerations, and as if that fact is a legitimate claim to the mercy and treasure of the United States!

This would seem to be a spectacular act of evasion on the part of Katz, were it not for the fact that the government of the United States has already indicated that it follows the same moral code, altruism, as he does. After all, it has, in fact, not cut off all aid to Hamastan. Condoleeza Rice summarized the hypocrisy of the United States government in this way: "We are funding, however, very extensively, humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people because we do not have an argument (!) with the Palestinian people."

No argument?!?! These people freely elected Hamas, a terrorist organization and, ipso facto, an enemy of America during a war! Our government's feeble response -- to reduce their welfare payments -- to the fact that a people have chosen to ally themselves with our enemies and continue to attack a wartime ally is shameful.

The last time our government waged a war properly, during World War II, we would not have heard our Secretary of State saying "We have no argument with the Japanese people", or sending them humanitarian aid. What we did instead was to wage war ruthlessly. As President Truman put it:

The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan ... Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay ... We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces ... The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

We should be proposing similar terms for the Hamastanis now. They accept the aggressive, militaristic code of jihad as a moral ideal. This was evidenced on September 11, 2001 when they danced about in the streets, passing candy around after we were attacked by their al Qaeda "heroes". This has been evidenced during decades of terrorist attacks on Israel, including a bus bombing by Hamas, before the Hamastanis elected it to power, and by a bombing in Tel Aviv recently. This is evidenced now by a complete failure by the Hamastanis to own up to the fact that, whatever misery they may be suffering now, due to America's half-hearted boycott, they have caused much worse for much longer to Israel.

Gregory Katz, a reporter obviously sympathetic to Hamastan, knows that if he can stir up enough anger at the American government in America, it will probably relent. Why? Because both he and the Bush administration agree on moral fundamentals: that human suffering outweighs all other considerations -- be they the responsibility of a barbarous people for their crimes, or our national self-interest -- and that sacrifice is a moral ideal. A slap on the wrist -- which is what our sanctions amount to -- is not going to cause what is required for peace in the Middle East, which is the unconditional surrender of the Hamastani people, and their unequivocal rejection of jihad.

The picture of the boy in this article is sad, but the blame is misplaced. It lies squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian people, who have earned much more than the "end" of foreign aid to Hamas, and who have caused carnage far worse than the suffering they endure now.

-- CAV

Updates

5-1-06: Made a few stylistic corrections.