How the Times SugarcoatsTerrorism

 If its coverage of the explosions in Lebanon of  booby-tapped pagers and radios hasn't been implicitly admiring of Israel's technical "prowess" in causing at least two dozen deaths and thousands of gruesome injuries, the New York Times added insult to injury by proclaiming that Hezbollah militants are feeling mighty "embarrassed" for having been such unwitting dupes of Israel.

In framing the atrocity in in such a "was my face red!" manner, the Times has tried to deflect readers' attention from the actual blood streaming down all those faces and from the fact that many of the victims literally had their faces blown right off their skulls.

I thought I was beyond feeling shock and disgust at how the pro-Zionist New York Times regularly dehumanizes the targets of this settler-colonialist apartheid state. But its coldly clinical coverage Israel's latest sadistic mass murder went beyond the pale, even for the Times. The Gray Lady has exposed herself in all her ghoulish nakedness.

Nowhere in the rapidly dwindling  coverage does the paper describe the carnage as an act of terrorism On the contrary, it is an act of counterterrorism.  You see, It's only terrorism if Arabs and Muslims do it. Or maybe if a white guy like Putin does it. I can assure you that the coverage would be very different if Russia had sent explosive devices to Ukraine and thousands of innocent people had been torn apart.

So the Lebanon massacre must be downplayed at all costs. One article headlined "Waves of Small Explosions Cause Chaos Inside Hezbollah" served both to minimize the horrific injuries and to give the false impression that only militants were injured. Israel apparently possesses so much technical prowess that the throngs of passersby were magically erased right out of the picture. As is its wont, however, the Times did deign to mention the death and funeral of one child.

As "eye-catching" as  the carnage (Israeli prowess) certainly was,  writes reporter  Patrick Kingsley in another article published on Wednesday, the usual experts in the statecraft biz are very confused as to why Israel has not capitalized" on it. It was a tactical success but not the ultimate victory over the entire Middle East that warmongers of all nations crave.

Because if nothing else, Kingsley grotesquely writes, the mass slaughter in Lebanon "has restored some of the prestige and aura that Israel’s intelligence agencies lost on Oct. 7, when Hamas led a surprise attack on Israel that the Israeli military failed to predict or prepare for." (Sadly, the nearly year-long genocide in Gaza has failed to impress the more discerning among connoisseurs of cruelty as not being sufficiently prestigious.)

That Israel has foresworn bragging rights is just the Times being its cute disingenuous self again. Why would Israe boast and dish on all the details when it has as its partner  the United States do it for them? For the most powerful and lethal fighting and intelligence force the world has ever known and feared, the US sources dishing to the Times certainly seemed instantly aware of every detail of the planting of explosives in the hand-held devices, despite their claims of having no knowledge of the booby-trapped devices and terror attacks in advance.

The terror is, of course, the whole point. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. It can happen to us. It's just a short step from surveilling us and censoring us to physically mangling us. Look at  how easily, to give you just one example, that the FBI was able to  crack iPhone security without Apple's help.

I don't think  I was being overly paranoid when I fleetingly wondered why my iPad gave out a cheery little ding the other day.

***

Books don't explode, thank goodness, despite the reactionaries wanting to ban them. So I am reading a lot these days, fiction and nonfiction. This passage from a book by James Baldwin that I just finished really hit a nerve in me, so allow me to share it with you:

"The wretched of the earth do not decide to become extinct. they resolve, on the contrary, to multiply. Life is their only weapon against life, life is all they have. This is why the dispossessed and starving will never be convinced (though some may coerced) in hte population control programs of the civilized. I have watched the dispossessed and starving laboring on the fields which others own, with their transistor radios on their ear, all day long: so they learn, for example, along with equally weighty matters, that the Pope, one of the heads of the civilized world. forbids to the civilized that abortion which is being, literally, forced on them. the wretched. quite coldly and deliberately. znd do not intend to change the satus quo; they are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement' rain down their bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their "vital interests" are menaced. and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the "sanctity" of human life. or the 'conscience' of the civilized world There  is 'sanctity' involved with bringing a child into this world: it is better than bombing one out of it. Dreadful indeed it is to see a starving child, but the answer to that is not to prevent the child's arrival, but to restructure the world so that the child can live in it: so that the 'vital interest'' of the world becomes nothing less than the life of the child."