Sinn Fein, Hamas, and Political/Media Hypocrisy

Tonight while driving home I listened to a NewsTalk 106 repeat of a Carol Coleman broadcast which appears to have first aired during the week.
I missed it then.
Perhaps you heard it.

In this program - a special from Israel - Miz. Coleman was heard browbeating an Israeli Government Minister about his governments decision to withold funds from the newly elected Palestinian government, constituted of the HAMAS party.

HAMAS are a self proclaimed group of terrorists created in 1987 from the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians. Hamas's charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamist State.

The Israeli minister kept his cool rather well under Miz Colemans angry interview technique. He repeatedly asserted that Israel would not fund HAMAS in its declared war of extermination against the Jews of Israel.

Incidentally - the EU has also withdrawn funding from the Palestinian government since it fell into HAMAS' hands.

The thing which struck me most about the interview was the vehemence with which Coleman defended the murderers of HAMAS, and the manner in which she asserted their right to funding as they were a democratically elected government. To say she was passionate in their defense would be a gross understatement!

I had to contrast this with the situation here in Ireland, where Sinn Fein - a democratically elected party which has declared its commitment to the peaceful resolution of the conflict in NI - receives a rather different welcome from Miz Coleman and her journalistic colleagues.
Sinn Fein representatives are usually vilified or mocked on the radio, in Newspapers, and (admittedly less often) on TV.

Now, before I'm accused of being a 'Shinner' (there we go!) I pose this question in a completely PHILOSOPHICAL vein, not as an apologist for either party....can someone PLEASE explain to me how the media in this country can castigate one set of (ex) terrorists, while actively defending another set of (active) terrorists? Is the IRONY utterly lost on them?
What is going on???

I'm not sure if your final question is rhetorical or not. I presume so. Your point is a very broad one, you might as well ask why double standards exist in any walk of life, the answer will be the same.

I have always regarded the notion of state approved violence as completely on a par with any other kind of violence. Terror created by a state sanctioned armed force is still as terrifying as that created by an illegal organisation and vice versa. Are Hamass worse than the Israeli army? They have both taken the lives of many people in the pursuit of their end game and they both regard themselves as defenders of their people's cause. If you remove the underlying root of it all (a tad easier said than done!), the actions of both are on a par. They kill, maim and destroy.

The situation in here in Ireland is quite odd. The black and white reality is that part of the country is still under the power of another state. This presents more than a few interesting problems. One of which is the awarding of blame Are the people who have used violence to be removed from the debate? If so there will be no-one left to talk to anyone else. All sides have blood on their hands.
I think that the Irish media reflects a greater sense of "had-enough-ness" that the wider public feels. The vast majority of Irish people can live happy full lives without the Northern situation ever directly touching their lives, as a result the troubles are as foreign as a 5 baht coin. This might not be ideal for many Irish people but it is a staus quo that we have learned to live with. While many may have a problem with UK rule over 6 Irish counties, the reality is that the UK is maintaining its rule and not looking to expand it. This is not the case in Palestine. They are faced with an opposition that is striving to grow. That's a difference on a pretty massive scale.

In conclusion, you're never going to find any media outlet that will always show both sides of the argument that you believe should be shown. If that's all you want you should just write your own newspaper!

I agree with you thats its complete and utter hypocricy. I've noticed in the Irish media that there seems to be a lot of sympathy for Palestinian terrorists. Irish people think they can identify with Palestinians and therefore almost justify terrorism as if its the only option yet they treat Sinn Fein in a very different way. My personal opinion is that Sinn Fein are rightly mocked or vilfied in the media as although they claim to want peace they do this in the same way that Yasser Arafat did it for years. On the one hand they say they don't believe in terrorism but on the other refuse to condemn terrorist or criminal activity. So basically I see thats it hypocricy but its a case that BOTH HAMAS and the Sinn Fein-IRA movement should be vilified and castigated as the low lifes that they are.

I think that legitimate concerns about American foreign policy have been simplified to “America Bad”, and by association “Israel bad”, by most of the Irish media. Therefore anyone who opposes Israel must a “geed guy”.
Icarus, to suggest that there is no distinction between military actions sanctioned by a government that is accountable to its people and constrained by a constitutional legal system that is consistent with international norms and bombings carried out by groups that are funded through extortion and crime that target civilians in order to instil fear in the general population is wrong headed in the extreme.
The position taken on Israel by the majority of the Irish media is utterly hypocritical. It is bordering on racist and ignores the historical realities that have lead to the current unfortunate position that many Palestinians now find themselves in. The only country in the Middle East that offers its Palestinian population full and equal citizenship is Israel.
Why is the reality that Jordan was created to house the Arab and Palestinian population of Trans-Jordan but the Hashemites (King Abdullah’s family) didn’t let them in? Why is the oppression of the Palestinians in Syria never highlighted? Why is the reality that the Arab countries of the Middle East don’t want a solution and use the current situation as a political tool ignored?
The answer is that we are still caught up in a post colonial mind set that romanticises those who struggle for their freedom, even if their methods are ghastly and their struggle is spurious.

Firstly I think it is Karen Coleman you're referring to and not Carol Coleman, the former RTE Washington correspondent who annoyed President Bush some time back.

And even though I did not hear the exchange referred to, it sounds like a typical Karen Coleman interview. She has a particular viewpoint and is unable to bring objectivity to her work. In another thread, I posted as having heard her accuse someone as pro-apartheid in response to that person declaring herself as being anti ANC.

There is a wishy-washy kneejerk liberalism prevalent in Irish mainstream media and these journalists are, ironically, the most rabidly illiberal when a view counter to their own is expressed. Each Friday George Hook allows a US talkshow host a soapbox to promulgate his US neocon views and to slag off the UN and the EU and anyone else in his firing line. And every Friday he refers to getting a load of text messages condemning the station for allowing these ideads to be expressed.

FWIW I disagree with this guy most weeks but agree with his right to speak.

Yes you're right, it was KAREN Coleman.

Maybe that guy on the George Hook show (Michael Grant) is a counterfoil to the anti-semitism and hypocrisy of the likes of Coleman and the Islamists who are given free reign on the airwaves.

Karen coleman is totally blinded by her anti-american/anti imperialism views,she must be the most biased "News Correspondent" in the land.But as RTE are just as bad it's hardly any wonder,in fairness to george hook he always makes a point of saying he's an out and out leftie and for balance he has Michael Grahem?? on the show,you can't ask for fairer than that.The rest of them are just a joke !.

Purple:

Icarus, to suggest that there is no distinction between military actions sanctioned by a government that is accountable to its people and constrained by a constitutional legal system that is consistent with international norms and bombings carried out by groups that are funded through extortion and crime that target civilians in order to instil fear in the general population is wrong headed in the extreme.

Click to expand...

Tell that to anyone who has just lost a child under American fire in Iraq. Or perhaps the families of the countless South Africans killed and tortured under rule of apartheid. Or the descendants of Jews massacred in Auschwitz. The suffering of violence is not diluted one bit by a paper trail. It is deplorable in any form, state approved or not.

Icarus said:

Tell that to anyone who has just lost a child under American fire in Iraq. Or perhaps the families of the countless South Africans killed and tortured under rule of apartheid. Or the descendants of Jews massacred in Auschwitz.

Click to expand...

I think it is ludicrous to suggest that either the South African apartheid regime or the Third Reich were (in Purple's words) "accountable to its people and constrained by a constitutional legal system that is consistent with international norms".

I also think it is dubious in the extreme to treat the deaths in Iraq as being in the same moral category as those in apartheid-era South Africa and the Holocaust.

Whatever about the legality of the initial invasion of Iraq (with which I profoundly disagreed at the time), the fact remains that the occupation of that country is legal under international law, and there is no basis to reasonably suggest that lives would be saved if the international forces withdrew until the country achieves some sort of stability. It is a sad fact that innocent people are killed and maimed in every war, regardless of whether the war was justified. The parents of a child killed in the liberation of Kosovo 6 or 7 years ago hardly felt any differently than those who experienced similar tragedy in Iraq more recently.

We all have our own moral view points and we all think that they are as right or more right than anyone elses. Even those of us whose views fall into a minority.

Laws, even more so then the history books, are written by victors. Does victory always automatically fall to those with the moral high ground? Not quite.

I believe and respect the laws of my society but that doesn't mean that they are always right 100% of the time. A state sanctioned death and an illegal death are equally heinous. While one may sit a little lighter with our morals it may also profoundly offend the morals of others. Is one right because it adheres to the greater consensus? I personally don't think so. But that's just me.

Icarus said:

Laws, even more so then the history books, are written by victors. Does victory always automatically fall to those with the moral high ground? Not quite.

Click to expand...

Isn't it history that is written by the victor? All societies have laws. I don't see how your point is relevant to the issue in question.

Icarus said:

I believe and respect the laws of my society but that doesn't mean that they are always right 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

There are very few absolutes in the world, that's why your proposition that all state sanctioned killing can be equated with all terrorist sanctioned killing is preposterous.

Icarus said:

A state sanctioned death and an illegal death are equally heinous. While one may sit a little lighter with our morals it may also profoundly offend the morals of others. Is one right because it adheres to the greater consensus? I personally don't think so. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

So you think that the execution of a child serial killer in the USA, after due process, is the same as the systematic rape and murder of Bosnian women in the lat Balkan war? If so I beg to differ. While I disagree with capital punishment I see no moral equivalency between the two examples above.