Taghreed El-Khodary: on her own (justifying Israeli killings)

So the NYT's token Arab correspondent from Gaza, Taghreed El-Khodary, was today permitted to write an article on her own, without the (visible) collaboration of the White Man. How could they not give her that privilege? She has spent days only focusing on the plight of the Palestinian collaborators in Gaza, and then chased the people of Gaza hoping to obtain confirmation of hostility toward Hamas, not to Israel. I received an early tip that she will be writing this piece, but I did not hold my breath. I knew that she would not disappoint in disappointing me, and in disappointing every person who cares for peace and justice (and I use the word peace not in the context of speeches and articles by lousy Dennis Ross: the peace he wants is the peace I don't want, and vice versa). Taghreed (who really deserves a medal for fanatic Zionist reporting from the Jabotinsky Institute) did not wait long to start vomiting Israeli occupation propaganda: "that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security." First, she tells you causually that civilians are killed regularly and that you should not accordingly give a shit. Secondly, she tells you that Gaza is densely populatated, and for that you need to blame the death toll in Gaza not on the Israeli bombings but on the population density. Taghreed, you see, agrees with Itzhak Rabin, that a segment of the population of Gaza (or the entire population according to dead war criminal Rabin) should just be pushed into the sea. Thirdly, Taghreed tells you that Israeli terrorist bombings (and the use of fighter jets for..."assassinations") are called "military operations". When you use military operations, you accord ultra-Weberian legitimacy on the killings by Israel. By the same token, would Taghreed refer to car bombings by her enemies (I mean, the Palestinains) as "military operations", although they kill far less than the terrorist attacks by the Zionist entity (or entitity, as Libyan diplomat `Abdus-Salam At-Turayki used to call it). Fourthly, as if all this justification of Israeli killings are not enough, Taghreed volunteers that those killings of women and children (according to new standards by the New York Times, Palestinian males can never be civilians) are "essential for its security." With that, the reader is expected to cheer Israeli killing and agree with the Israeli public that more killings of Palestinains are required by the standards of Israeli security. But then Taghreed feels compelled to report the UN estimates of civilian causualties: "Among the total dead — between 320 and 390, according to the United Nations — Palestinian medical officials say that 38 were children and 25 were women. The United Nations agency that helps Palestinian refugees said 25 percent of those killed had been civilians. Israel said it knew of 40 civilian deaths but that it was still checking." So Palestinian men over 80 are considered combatants by the cute standards of Taghreed, and it was particularly cute that she reports to me that Israel is "still checking." Let me know what they find out, would you o Taghreed? Far from treating Taghreed's article as an article on the plight of civilians in Gaza, this article should be treated as an article focused on justifying Israeli killings of Palestinain civilians, and this explains why Taghreed's name was allowed to be attached to the article, without the escort of the White Man. These are her words: "On the issue of civilian casualties, Israeli officials maintain that they do not take aim at civilians and do everything possible — like using precision-guidance systems, up-to-the minute intelligence, leaflets and phone calls to targeted areas — to avoid hitting them. They say killing and wounding civilians only undermines their primary mission: to stop Hamas from firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel." And is if this is not enough, she then add full quotations from an Israeli military occupation propagandist. But Taghreed does not think that there are limits to services to Israeli military occupation's terrorist propagnda. She adds: "Further complicating matters is that fact that Gaza is the size of Detroit, with one and a half times as many people. The military and government facilities of Hamas are intertwined with buildings where Gaza’s civilian population lives and works. Israelis say Hamas fires rockets at Israel from civilian neighborhoods." With the comparision to Detroit, Taghreed wants the reader to yell: to call on Israel to kill more Palestinain women and children and terrorist men--since all Palestinian males are terrorists by Taghreed's standards. But that is not all, Taghreed tries every possible trick or ploy to ensure that the readers fully accepts Israeli justifications for the killing of Palestinian civilians: "The United States military has also faced much criticism for killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite what officials say is the utmost precaution against doing so." So would Taghreed add that comparison to US wars, if Palestinian groups were to engage in attacks that kill Israeli civilians (all of whom are armed of course, unlike the Palestinians?) And Taghreed's pro-Israeli propaganda does not stop there. She really can't stop herself (I predict that her current services will get her the Nieman fellowship* at Harvard next year, mark my words): "In the debate over civilian casualties, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes a military target." Tell me more, Taghreed. Children's beds, ambulances, bakeries, mosques, schools, and colleges are not "clear" in their designation. You mean to say that it is not easy for Israel to know whether a nursery is military or not, right? I get your point. With this lousy most callous article, I only wished that Taghreed would specialize instead in focusing on the plight of Israeli collaborators who concern her a great deal.
* It was pointed out to me that Taghreed was awarded the Nieman fellowship two years ago. So I stand corrected.