by Emmanuel Navon
"Can the whole world be wrong?" asked Koffi Annan in April 2002. His was a rhetorical question meant to make a sophistic point: If the UN says black and
What Annan meant by "the whole world" was the UN, an organization numerically dominated by human rights violators. Similarly, what The Economist means by "the world" ("How Israel plays into Hamas's hands," June 5th 2010) are those European dhimmis who refuse to face what Islam is up to. So, yes, "the world" of Koffi Annan and of The Economist can indeed be wrong.
If you were still wondering why Europe is expressing outrage at Israel's act of self-defense while excusing Turkey's provocations, then read the op-ed published in The New York Times on June 10th by Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini, and Miguel Moratinos. Those three European foreign ministers provide a crystal-clear explanation for their hypocrisy: they need to appease Europe's Muslim citizens (here's the quote: "[the flotilla incident] must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in
The Economist's articles on the flotilla incident are so hypocritical that one wonders if this otherwise insightful newspaper shares the concerns of Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. True, The Economist is not a European politician running for office or trying to appease the car-burning mobs of Paris or Malmö. But its editorial line on Islam-related issues is baffling: It supports
Those claims defy logics. So does the fact that The Economist is surprisingly tolerant of Recep Erdogan. For a newspaper that has no qualms about exposing the buffoonery, incompetence, or brutality of heads of states and governments (its favorite and regular picks are Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe), one wonders why The Economist has nothing caustic to say about
Like most European newspapers, The Economist condemns the
In spite of the historical record, The Economist insists that the Palestinians are sincere about peace, but that
As for the
At the turn of the new millennium, The Economist "predicted" that oil would remain cheap and abundant in the coming decades. After oil prices went from $20 a barrel in 2001 to $145 a barrel in 2008, The Economist had to admit that its theory was wrong. But when it comes to the Middle-East, The Economist will never admit its mistakes. You don't even have to blame the facts. Blaming
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.