In a message dated 2/26/02 10:09:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


>
>
>
>     Daniel Pearl: Should His Editors Have Sent Him There?
>     By Alexander Cockburn
>
> Daniel Pearl's dispatches reminded me somewhat of Peter Kann's in the days
> when he was the Journal's most light-heartedly stylish reporter, before
> assuming the imperial purple and becoming the company's CEO. It was Kann,
> back in the late 1970s, who traveled to Afghanistan, reported that the
> place was a dump covered with flies and that it was hard to understand why
> any Great Power would want any truck with the place.
>
> Ironically, since his captors charged him with being an agent of the
> American Empire and of Zionism, Pearl was not afraid to file reports
> contradicting the claims of the State Department or the Pentagon or even
> of the mad dogs on the Journal's editorial pages whose ravings fulfill on
> a weekly basis the most paranoid expectations of a Muslim fanatic. Just
> about the time they were killing Pearl, had they paused to buy a copy of
> the Wall Street Journal, his killers would have found a reprint on the
> editorial pages of a particularly feverish article from Commentary,
> in-house periodical of the American Jewish Committee, stating flatly that
> to be to be opposed to Israel was to be anti-Zionist, and to be
> anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic. It's the familiar two-step logic of
> the Israeli lobby: oppose the sale of Apache helicopters to Sharon or the
> bulldozing of Palestinian homes means you are a co-conspirator in the
> Holocaust.
>
>

 Very good, Galliher. You have admirally captured the essence of blaming the
victim!:-) And who said there was a real difference between the 'left' and
the 'right'. Thanks for the example:-)
Yours,
Issodhos