the New York Times manages to use 16-year old Daniel Viflic, who died on Sunday night as a result of wounds inflicted by an anti-tank missile fired by ‘Palestinian’ terrorists on April 7, to turn Arrigoni into a hero.
On the front page below the fold, Fares Akram and Isabel Kershner began their report with these sympathetic words:
For Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian pro-Palestinian activist who friends said fought peacefully for justice, the end was as violent as it was incongruous. (“Killing of Pro-Palestinian Activist in Gaza Deals a Blow to Hamas,” Apr. 16, 2011)
Supporting Hamas is fighting peacefully for justice? A few days ago, on April 7, Hamas fired a highly advanced and deadly anti-tank missile (a Russian supplied Kornet) at an Israeli school bus – a clearly marked yellow schoolbus – injuring the bus driver and gravely wounding the only passenger, 16-year-old Daniel Viflic.
Is this the peaceful justice that the Times credits to Vittorio Arrigoni by uncritically quoting his friends? And considering the extreme violence practiced by Hamas, not just against Israelis, but also against fellow Palestinians, such as those from the rival Palestinian Authority, how could the Times possibly term as “incongruous” any violence involving Hamas rule?
In contrast, the Times has quoted no such kind words about Daniel Viflic, the schoolboy who was so gravely wounded in the Hamas bus attack a few days ago. In fact his name has never graced the pages of the New York Times (according to Nexis and google searches). The Times did mention the bus attack in their article on Arrigoni, but only as a vehicle to generate more sympathy for the Italian, who was worried that the attack by his Hamas friends would provoke a response from the Israeli army:
In an e-mail to [a friend], he wrote, “I am very tense, exhausted, if [the Israelis] don’t kill anyone in the next 24 hours, I am getting out Thursday. Your V.”
So for the morally obtuse New York Times, a terror attack against a schoolbus that left a young boy fighting for his life ends up being used to evoke sympathy for a defender of the terrorists who carried out the attack.
Here’s hoping that those of you who still subscribe to the Times will cancel it.