The 'Scuffle' 2

Remember Lincoln's adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time"?

Apparently, the msm think you can.

The other day it was the Sydney Morning Herald and Associated Press doing the fooling when they described an armed Israeli thug torturing a Palestinian kid as a "scuffle." (See my 31/8/15 post The 'Scuffle' 1.)

Well, today, in Peter Beaumont's 'analysis' of the incident in the Guardian (Nabi Saleh images illustrate changing asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian conflict), it's still a bloody "scuffle" !!!

Then there's this:

"Seen in different ways by different commentators with different agendas..."

FFS, this is not a matter of 100 flowers blooming.

There are only two agendas here: that of the victim, and that of the perpetrator.

And only two possible commentaries: that of those who understand that if your child is being mugged, you go to his aid. No ifs or buts. You just fucking do it!

And that of those who heart the INVASION, OCCUPATION and COLONIZATION of someone else's land, particularly if it's Israel that's doing the INVADING, OCCUPYING and COLONIZING.

Which side is Peter Beaumont on here? 

"... the only thing they could agree on was that the images represented a vivid summation of some idea: of the brutality of occupation; of the weakness of the soldier involved..."

The weakness of the soldier involved? So the marauding, military thug is on the same level as his victim? The deluded and aggressive spawn of an INVADING, OCCUPYING, COLONIZING power is on the same level as his INVADED, OCCUPIED, COLONIZED and clearly terrified victim?

Frankly, the only weakness here is the collusive, faux balancing act of Peter Beaumont.

"... of the need to use more or less violence on demonstrators..."

What about the need to END the OCCUPATION by sanctioning the bejesus out of the OCCUPYING power until it gets the fuck out of the OCCUPIED territory, lock, stock and settler barrel?

"... of the use by Palestinians of children as a propaganda tool."

So Palestinians children, described by Israel's 'justice' minister as "little snakes," are realistically supposed to sit on their hands at home while their parents go out to protest the seizure of their land? Should their parents tie them up or shackle them perhaps?

Too bad then if some Israeli settler terrorists come along and firebomb their homes, I guess. What will Peter Beaumont say then, I wonder?

"Amid the disagreements, a pressing question has emerged: what did the images show? The reality is as complex as it is unsettling and contradictory."

Oh yes, what did those images show? Now that's a hard one.

Way too hard, it seems, for Peter Beaumont and the Guardian.