the US government's (failed) strategy is to hurt the people of Gaza (mainly through Israeli state terror) so much that they turn on Hamas and accept a "moderate" leadership. "moderate" means, in US news-speak, that these leaders are ready and willing to betray the interests of their own people to make the US government happy. the palestinian authority leadership fits this bill. therefore, the US has sought to use collective punishment against gazans to get them to fall into the arms of the corrupt group it once railed against (when arafat led it).
frankly, issues of morality aside, this strategy is really really stupid. does anyone really believe that gazans don't know that it is israel and the US blockading and bombing gaza? and don't they know that the "palestinian authority" is simply a puppet of these two enemies? why, therefore, would any gazan with a brain in his or her body decide that salvation lies with the enemy? or even the friend of the enemy?
in line with US government strategy, all the mainstream media reports accordingly. even if the story is ostensibly on gaza's hospitals filling up with wounded or on israeli invasion ("incursion"), the aim is always to justify, or attempt to justify, american and israeli strategy. or at the very least take the edge of a story about palestinian suffering by "balancing" it with a story on nerve-wracked israelis and their sirens and shelters. below i discussed CNN anchor eric harris' macho effort to tack on a pro-israel ending to what was a horrible story of gaza's plight. here i discuss another attempt, taken totally at random (after all, any time one listens to either msnbc or cnn anchors or reporters on this issue, the same cons show up). the anchor is Alex Witt of MSNBC. i saw her at about 9:30 am, Sunday January 5th.
she asked the al-jazeera reporter, "obviously nobody wants to be engulfed in chaos, but. .is there any kind of split in how people feel about this?"
the al-jazeera reporter answered that of course gazans had a diversity of opinions, but after all, the force of reality (and bombs) was pushing them to line up behind hamas -- a reaction which a fool could predict.
witt then asked more explicitly: "ideologically, are people one hundred percent behind hamas?"
in short, what was happening in gaza (ie, the news, it used to be called) was secondary to this US fantasy narrative about gazans opening their eyes to their tormentors (israel, the US) and seeing the error of their naughty wish for national independence and sovereignty in the pre-1967 borders.
to think that her opening statement should be "nobody wants to be engulfed in chaos" but not "nobody wants to be invaded" is amazing. in fact, this statement of hers was simply a dismissal of this (israeli-made) chaos in favor of her real point: were gazans ready to desert hamas already and let the US and israel show them how to be civilized?
her wording in that first exchange was opaque and vague to the point of meaninglessness, but the al-jazeera fellow was sharp enough to know what she (and all US anchors) are after, and answered accordingly. i mean, on the surface of her question, it seems as if she is asking if there is a "split" in how people are feeling about the "chaos" -- ie, are some of them enjoying it and some not? are there some that like it with ranch and some with italian?
one does not have to look like an extremist to be a proponent and justifier of invasion. one need only look like affable, intellectually lightweight, george bush -- or msnbc anchor alex witt, who probably thinks of herself as a good person because she is nice to her kids and husband and tips well at restaurants.
but without critical thinking skills, one gets so easily duped by the state's orwellian language. we have to kill palestinians to save them. where have we heard this logic before?