Following the elimination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a short speech reminding the world, in case there was still some confusion out there, the kinds of men they are fighting against. They are certainly not “moderate” or “pragmatic,” and nor do these devils deserve our sympathy.
When Netanyahu began his speech Wednesday, he thanked the Israeli security forces and the Israel Defense Forces and highlighted the precision of their attacks on what he said were “three fronts.” He didn’t specify what these three fronts were, nor had Israel even taken responsibility for the assassination of Haniyeh at that time, but the United Nations seems to suggest that these three fronts are Hezbollah (Shukar), Hamas (Haniyeh), and the Houthis (rebels).
In a clear effort to remind his global audience of the importance of these attacks, Netanyahu took the time to inform what he likely assumes is an undereducated public on the background of one of their successful targets, Hezbollah’s Top Commander, Fuad Shukar.
Shukar, he explained, was one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. Netanyahu listed some of the horrific acts Shukar was responsible for, including killing Israeli citizens and, more recently, the massacre of 12 Druze children in a soccer field in Majdal Shams, in northern Israel.
As if speaking directly to the United States and France, Netanyahu nudged his allies to recall that this one member of Hezbollah was responsible for the murder of 241 American and 58 French soldiers in Beirut in 1983, and it was the United States that posted a $5 million bounty for Shukar, a bounty that Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, now calls on the United States to pay to the families of the 12 children who died as a result of Shukar’s attack.
By stressing these points, it appears Netanyahu is lightly castigating the U.S. government, currently divided in its support of Israel. Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has chosen primarily to focus on the suffering in Gaza and a ceasefire deal with Hamas, both factors absolutely necessary to consider, but not at the cost of losing focus on the most urgent need to eradicate Hamas’ leaders, butchers for whom we should not waste an ounce of sympathy.
Mainly, Netanyahu’s short speech emphasized the importance of understanding the backgrounds of the individuals Israel, and by extension all democratic countries, are up against when it comes to Iran and the tentacles of the Islamic Brotherhood.
It would be nice if our own news sources were as clear and informative in regards to the backgrounds of these individuals, so that westerners could better understand exactly what is at stake.
Instead, some outlets chose to respond to the death of Hamas’s Haniyeh by filling the platform X (formerly known as Twitter) with articles and tweets expressing sympathy for the devil.
A recent Agence France Presse article, published in Montreal’s LaPresse, was retweeted by Pierre Poilievre because its headline, which has since been altered, originally referred to Ismail Haniyeh as “pragmatic.” Likewise, a Reuters article also changed its headline which had referred to Haniyeh as “more moderate.”
While it is believed that the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yaha Sinwar, was the mastermind behind October 7, and Ismail Haniyeh was seen as a moderating influence on Sinwar, Haniyeh praised the attacks — the murder of civilians at a music festival and in their homes — “a humiliating blow to Israel’s aura of invincibility.” Moderate by standards of barbarians, I guess. Isn’t that like quibbling over whether Goring was more moderate than Himmler?
This same “more moderate” Ismail Haniyeh praised Osama Bin Laden as an “Arab holy warrior,” and cozily watched the destruction of October 7 from afar in Qatar, safely receiving reports from his death cult from his couch.
And, as all “more moderates” would, upon hearing of the death of his three sons and grandchildren, he thanked God for being bestowed with the honour of their martyrdom.
Similarly, ABC published an article borrowed from the Associated Press that paints Haniyeh as a simple head of Hamas’ political bureau, their international face in self-imposed exile, somehow unaware of the October 7 plan and “marked for death by Israel,” anyway. Throughout the article, you wouldn’t think the AP was discussing the political leader of a group set on the destruction of Israel and Israelis.
If this wasn’t bad enough, the AP story ends by quoting Iranian media and Haniyeh positively and unironically. The news wire service points out that Haniyeh said the Palestinian cause has “costs,” and ends its article with the dead leader’s call to violence: “We are ready for these costs: martyrdom for the sake of Palestine, and for the sake of God Almighty, and for the sake of the dignity of this nation.” Yes. Murderous, moderate Hamas dignity.
We shouldn’t be surprised when we see headlines and articles like this coming from Iran or Al Jazeera, but what explains Western media’s sympathy for these devils? Why is Western media becoming increasingly indistinguishable from Islamic and Iranian outlets?
My guess is that some of this misplaced sympathy and confusion about what a moderate is comes from the state of journalism. Journalism is no longer a job learned on the beat as a technical craft. It is learned mostly in universities and therefore becomes infused with the activist goals and dogma of the current zeitgeist, which currently happens to be staunchly anti-Israel and pro- Edward Said.
There’s also journalism’s economic woes. It often relies on activist professors to give statements about issues, rather than longstanding well-versed correspondents. These would be expensive. How many foreign international news correspondents and media offices does Canada even have, anyway?
My guess is we are just passive receivers of international news and are particularly susceptible to the recycling of information, the creators of which may have their own goals and aspirations, as we saw with the Associated Press article recycled to ABC News and the France Media article recycled to LaPresse. Outlets are concerned with having a steady stream of articles, less so with their quality and whether or not they sympathize with devils.
I’ll end with this, since western media apparently needs reminding. Ismail Haniyeh was not moderate or pragmatic. He was an antisemite bent on the destruction of Israel at any cost, including the lives of his own family.
Terry Newman is a communication in engineering course lecturer at McGill University.