The economist’s questionable endorsements of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Buhari
Written by R. George
I read through the Leaders section of The Economist magazine of February 7, 2015 and couldn’t but have a good laugh. The truth is that I saw it coming; I just did not know that it will come so soon. The Economist in that opinion column titled “The Least Awful,” suggested that General Muhammadu, the flag-bearer of the APC, is a better candidate; only after describing him as “a former military dictator with blood on his hands.” It also described the former despot as a “nasty, brutish and mercifully short,” but then went ahead to suggest that such a man is the best candidate amongst all the aspirants to be president of Nigeria in 2015, even after admitting the exceptional performance of the Nigerian economy under Goodluck Jonathan.
The magazine condemned President Jonathan for not doing enough in confronting the Boko Haram menace that has claimed almost 18,000 lives and for not doing enough to tackle corruption. Just the same kind of narrative you hear from Lai Mohammed, the spokesperson for the main opposition party, the All Progressives Congress.
First, you must understand the politics. The Economist is openly anti- Israel. Then also remember that the UN Security Council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years after Israel and the US crucially intervened to persuade Nigeria to abstain from voting. So, The Economist, like some other radical supporters of Palestine, considers that Nigeria is responsible for that shattering defeat.
In a popular Arutz Sheva Oped “Giulio Meotti Takes on The Economist,” Meotti, an Italian journalist who writes for The Wall Street Journal and Arutz Sheva, wrote that “in the Middle East, The Economist has a radical anti-Israel agenda.”
In 2004 The Economist hosted a debate in London on the motion “The Enemies of Anti-Semitism are the New McCarthyites”, meant to demonize the few journalists and professors who denounced the rampant anti-Semitism in the UK.
Last March, the week after the massacre of Fogel’s family in Itamar, The Economist published a cartoon comparing Israel’s construction of 400 apartments in the “settlement blocs” to Qaddafi and Assad, who massacred their own people. In the same number, The Economist denounced “the new, supremacist form of Israeli ‘Jewishness’”.
While the magazine has no problem with “IRA terrorists” or “Kurdish terrorists”, it does not say “Hamas terrorists”. The difference is not accidental. There is a semantic and a legal distinction between branding a group terrorist and merely charging it with terrorist acts.
Says The Economist: “Palestine does not fit the September 11th template. For this is terrorism harnessed to a deserving cause: the independent statehood that America itself has taken pains to say it supports”.
Finally, if you are still trying to believe what you are reading, see this:
The Economist magazine endorsed General Buhari’s namesake, Muhammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt just a week to the Egyptian general elections in 2012, because the magazine was convinced he was the one that could fight Israel.
Beyond any shade of doubt, The Economist has endorsed Buhari not out of love for Nigeria, but out of hate for the state of Israel.
R. George
Article culled from Elombah.
The entire Palestine, Arabs, middle east and their apparatus of propaganda can endorse anybody for all I care but they don’t possess our permanent voter’s card (PVC). So their endorsement remains on the pages of their magazines which am sure most members of the real Nigerian voting public can’t afford. These children of Ishmael can never cease to amuse me. They fight for everything. They fight to protect their god and prophet as if this god and prophet are weaklings. Their lives are ruled by ignorance and blind devotion which nothing by way of sound intellectual reasoning can make them take peaceful life saving actions. The Nigerian 2015 election will provide evidence that truth triumphs over falsehood.