Hamas Public Radio
By Mitch Berg
Last week, as Israel began its ground offensive, National Public Radio ran an interview with a “Norwegian Doctor” who sounded as if he might have been Mike Malloy, or maybe Vanessa Redgrave. They introduced the fellow as a “doctor”, without elaboration, as he fiercely and horrifically condemned the consequences of Israel’s attack.
I thought I smelled a rat.
I’m fairly sure the rat was this guy:
International media reports, including those from the BBC, CBS, CNN and FOX’s sister station Sky News, present Gilbert as an ordinary doctor.But a look at his record shows that Gilbert, 61, is a political activist and member of the Norwegian Maoist “Red” party, and he has been involved in solidarity work for the Palestinians since the 1970s. He has criticized the international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts.
Gilbert volunteers at the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza with the Norwegian Aid Committee (NORWAC), an aid organization funded by the Norwegian government, and he has been interviewed by the media on a variety of issues. Israeli government officials have said Hamas hides weapons in the hospital where Gilbert works.
I’m ashamed to be Norwegian-American today.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:32 am
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/280821.php
Mads Gilbert, the radical Marxist Norwegian doctor that was the focus of a Fox News report earlier today for being an anti-Israeli Hamas apologist, has been positively identified as one of two doctors caught faking CPR on a Palestinian boy that “died” in video featured today on CNN.
The segment with Gilbert shows him and another doctor badly faking chest compressions and other life-saving measures on a live boy faking death in what can only be described as political theater. The video claims to be filmed by the brother of a Palestinian teen that claims the boy was one of two purposefully killed by a missile fired at them by an Israeli drone as they played.
Lawhawk, has more on why the fake CPR is so pathetically obvious to those with actual CPR training.
CNN editors who swallowed the story of the poorly-acted video unquestioningly—no doubt because it fit the anti-Israeli narrative familiar to CNN viewers and critics—have now pulled the video without explanation, correction, or retraction.
It has also been determined that the videographer who filmed his brother’s “death” is the general manager of a company that hosts web sites for Hamas.
Dr. Gilbert was allowed into Gaza by the Israelis just 2 days ago to provide medical care. He was involved in faking war crimes less than 48 hours later.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
There’s a reason some of us have to remember to deliberately refer to it as NPR rather than National Palestinian Radio, you know.
January 11th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Israel’s Gaza action has caused immense civilian suffering and devastation. Listening to NPR only gives the smallest inkling of the disgust felt internationally, in response to the Gaza conflict. Israel appears to have timed the Gaza venture so as to take advantage of the US political cycle. If some Norwegian leftist faked a news report, I entirely support exposing the fake–but we’d be fools indeed to allow this small facet to color our analysis of the larger event. The Gaza conflict has caused–and is causing–immense human suffering. It is most regrettable–and extremely bad for the US.
January 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Israel isn’t “causing” the suffering in Gaza. That’s caused by:
a) Arab governments telling people to flee Israel in the forties and fifties,
b) making sure that the camps stay poor and miserable – like keeping a tight lid on a pot of boiling water – even to the point of…
c) expelling “Palestinians” from their own countries (Jordan fought a small war to eject their refugees in 1971 – and Jordanians are ethnically closer to Palestinians than anyone else), because they needed the “Palestinian” camps to serve as…
d) incubators for terrorism against…
e) Israel, whose existence all of them have historically wanted to terminate by any means necessary, including four wars – and when those failed, by…
f) relentless terrorism launched from the camps started in (b).
Given Europe’s history and, indeed, present when it comes to dealing with minorities in their own countries (to say nothing of their history from, ah, six or seven decades ago, their opinion and “outrage” is of no value whatsoever.
January 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
‘Is Israel causing the suffering in Gaza, or are Gazans causing the suffering in Gaza?’ If we took an international poll, Mitch, who do you think would win? Perhaps you feel that–while Gavin’s right about the hypothetical poll (that your viewpoint would be shown persuasive only to very small minorities)–it doesn’t matter. And that’s fine, though I wish you could admit that–were we to make arch-Likudnik historicism US policy (as you advance, above)–that that will have real costs, vastly complicating our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, I think it would be great if you could comment on the timing of this attack, Mitch. Isn’t it even a tiny bit irritating that Israel would seek to take advantage of our interregnum in this manner? I mean, is that any way to treat the USA?
January 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Gavin:
Actually, the timing of this wasn’t the Israeli’s at all: Hamas precipitated this new round of violence by bombarding southern Israel.
Isn’t is even a tiny bit irritating that Hamas would seek to take advantage of our interregnum in this manner? Especially since their [i]real[/i] goal is to attempt to provoke international outrage by creating a situation where ‘innocent civilians’ will suffer?
Refer to the first paragraph. You’ve fallen for their bait, hook line and sinker. ‘Eyes have they, yet they see not.’
January 12th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Gavin,
what Buq said.
The left’s support of Hamas is based on an extremely faulty understanding of current events, to say nothing of history.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Gavin, imbedded in your post is the strange notion that Israel should, in making self-defense decisions, defer to the US, and that it is “taking advantage” if it goes on a schedule where the future US administration doesn’t have a veto.
Why would either of those be so? Do you expect that Obama will be calling Jerusalem or London to get permission — as opposed to confer — with such allies when he makes whatever decisions he does?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I’ve continued this discussion–somewhat voluminously, as is my wont–at http://www.gavinsullivan.com — and very much appreciate the contributions above. Thanks lads!
January 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Well, yeah, it was a voluminous post. Outside of a Glenn Greenwald article, rarely has so little been said in so many words.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I think I made a number of penetrating points, Joel. Among them–that war advocates are willfully avoiding easily accessible, key information on the assault, and that they are not even addressing most of the plan’s most obvious shortcomings: http://tinyurl.com/gaza-assault-drawbacks — relying instead on the traditional righty crutch: McCarthyism.