The Financial Times trumpets its “authority, integrity and accuracy.” So why is it legitimizing the absurd propaganda of a terrorist organization?
Transcript:
Readers should wonder why the Financial Times is legitimizing the absurd propaganda of a proscribed terrorist organization.
The Financial Times trumpets its “authority, integrity and accuracy.”
So why is it legitimizing Hezbollah propaganda?
Contributing editor Kim Ghattas characterized Israeli strikes in Lebanon as the “sixth Israeli military campaign against it.”
But Israel’s military campaigns have been against terrorist organizations which violated the sovereignty of the weak and divided Lebanese state as a base to attack Israel—not against Lebanon itself.
In 1982, Ghattas contends, the US entered the “Lebanese quagmire” and “became a target of bombings for the first time in the Middle East.”
But who targeted America?
Ghattas withholds from readers that it was Hezbollah who, in April 1983, murdered 63 people at the US Embassy in Beirut in a suicide bombing.
It was Hezbollahwho, just six months later, blew up the US Marines and French Army barracks, killing 241 Americans and 58 French.
It was Hezbollah who, in September 1984, bombed the US Embassy annex, killing 24.
It wasn’t a quagmire that targeted America. It was Hezbollah.
Ghattas caps off her op-ed with the claim by some unidentified “others” that “if it weren’t for the deterrent of such guerrilla militants, Israel would have already levelled Beirut.”
But the only ones framing Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah as a deterrent defending Lebanon from Israeli aggression are, of course, Hezbollah itself and Iranian leaders.
Polls showing nearly 80% of Lebanese saying that only the Lebanese Army should be allowed to maintain weapons in Lebanon suggest that the overwhelming majority don’t see Hezbollah as their “defenders,” but want them out of the country.