So al-Reuters reported on a protest in Gaza of the sort which takes place every Friday after khutba.* This protest was unusual (and therefore newsworthy), however, because the demonstrators had “expected to be joined by 1400 foreign peace activists” who were refused permission to cross into Gaza by the Egyptian authorities.
As for these “peace activists,” Reuters, seemingly determined to provide the most one-sided coverage possible, conveniently failed to report on their Hitler salutes and screaming for intifada.
They did, however, manage to show terrorist sympathizers in their best light while providing them with a platform from which to spout their anti-Israel rhetoric, such as the following soundbite:
“People in Gaza are starving! The conditions are really bad and the siege here, and the demonstrations … global demonstrations as well as the demonstration here is to raise awareness to say this must stop!”
Yes, we know what those “demonstrations” typically call for.
By “anti-Israel rhetoric,” I am also referring, of course, to the repeated and unchallenged use of the word “siege” in reference to Israeli … something. It is such a nonsensical slur that I honestly do not know whether these “peace activists” are referring to the blockade (which allows legal aid in and keeps terrorist aid out) or the small, targeted military actions on Israel’s part which must be carried out in order to maintain some semblance of peace in southern Israel.
Either way, nobody is starving and no other nations are bending over backward to let Hamas within their borders. This is about old-school leftist anti-Semitism, not some deep concern for the well-being of the people in Gaza or promoting actual peace. They want to cross into Gaza to deliver aid to an international terrorist organization whose ideological foundation is largely rooted in genocidal intentions.
The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza, shown in the linked video, is Code Pink, by the way.
Reuters does manage to mention that the crossing from Egypt is also closed, although they present this as an anomalous event rather than the status quo, which it actually is.
So in Reutersland, these poor, oppressed “peace activists” were barred from delivering aid to terrorists humanitarian aid, but apparently no blockade normally exists on Egypt’s side, and if it did, I somehow doubt that it would qualify as a “siege.”
Why don’t these “peace activists” condemn Egypt for cutting off international terror organizations, the very people whom these moonbats are there to aid? Their fellow terrorist sympathizers were right across the border, prevented from entering. Israel is not to blame for that. But don’t expect al-Reuters to raise basic questions like this.
Read more at NewsReal Blog
Posts
