 |
| Barghouti the killer arrested. Western lefties are as fascinated with him as young women with serial killers. |
While in Israel I saw Barghouti's wife on CNN. She was complaining about torture of her husband, lack of medical attention and illegal detention. I know people in Israel who have worked in that system, and who deny all of those accusations. From what I've read and seen over the years, I'd give credence to the Israeli views on this, not the Palestinian. While CNN gave plenty of time to her, it gave a nodding glance to the Israeli position only at the end, and in passing: that Barghouti is a convicted mass killer of innocent civilians.
See an earlier post of mine on how they speak with two tongues: how nice and peaceful they are to Trump and the west; how bloodthirsty to kill jews to their own audience.
Gilead says:
The idea that Marwan Barghouti is a political prisoner is no less a fantasy than the idea that Abbas accepts Israel’s Jewishness.
The New York Times' decision to publish an article by a convicted killer hasn’t been particularly well received. The author of the op-ed, Marwan Barghouti, is serving multiple life sentences in Israel for his involvement in terrorist attacks targeting Jews. But readers were given no indication that Barghouti has the blood of five innocent people on his hands. Instead, Times opinion editors characterized him merely as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.”
This sanitized description, which fit rather too neatly with Barghouti’s attempt to cast himself as a political prisoner, prompted waves of criticism. Even the Times’ own public editor faulted the newspaper for withholding “details that help people make judgments about the opinions they’re reading.” (One such judgment readers might have made, if only they had been properly informed, is whether a man willing to murder Israelis might also be willing to lie about them in a newspaper column.)
This sanitized description, which fit rather too neatly with Barghouti’s attempt to cast himself as a political prisoner, prompted waves of criticism. Even the Times’ own public editor faulted the newspaper for withholding “details that help people make judgments about the opinions they’re reading.” (One such judgment readers might have made, if only they had been properly informed, is whether a man willing to murder Israelis might also be willing to lie about them in a newspaper column.)
