BBC, CBS, CNN feature Hamas apologist presenting "hard-core propaganda"

War is deceit.

If Ham-ass hadn't forced Israel to defend itself by firing rockets into its territory, but had continued with its full implementation of sharia punishments in Gaza instead of having to focus on fighting the IDF, what would that scumbag doctor be saying about the women who happened to be stoned to death?

What would he say if he had to treat an amputee convicted of stealing for his wounds from the hand- and foot-chopping?

And doesn't he know what happens to homosexuals that make their sexual orientation public in Gaza and the West Bank?

Such hypocrisy, deception, double standards and lack of moral clarity are simply sickening.

If Israel does agree to a suicidal cease-fire with Ham-ass, the sharia blood-fest is 100% certain to resume in Gaza. Will then Dr Mengele from Norway condemn that, or will he just shut up to avoid offending his A-rab friends by criticizing their medieval mindset?

I saw Dr Gilbert (on FoxNews, I think) being interviewed about the "Humanitarian Crisis" in Gaza. He was dressed in clean surgical "green" and apparently was getting ready to go to work, or had just left it and changed into a clean uniform (for the interview?). He spoke at length about the casualties among women and children, but also about his medical center being unable to handle the numbers of critically wounded because of lack of personnel, equipment, and supplies. He stated that at that very moment people were dying while they were waiting for surgery, and that the reason they were dying was that their weren't enough doctors to do the work.

As I watched his interview, I wondered just what kind of doctor he was. He was wearing unsoiled surgical garb and giving an interview to reporters, and in that interview, complained many times about "people dying because of lack of personnel," while he, an apparent qualified surgeon, took up his time with reporters, while also apparently ignoring the critical needs of his patients.

Apparently he considered his interview to be more important than the lives of those only a few feet away who were dying because of the lack of his attention.

Also, I noticed several young men around him in civilian clothes who seemed most attentive to his words and two of them were apparently called aside by someone off-camera, as if their presence might be inappropriate. It seemed that these "extras" might have been coaching him or making sure that he said the right things.

In addition, in the background were many men in civilian clothing obviously not "medical personnel." Some of them seemed to obstruct medical personnel tending to the "wounded" in the apparent emergency room.

What kind of hospital allows just anyone to wander around critical treatment areas with no apparent concern for ordinary sterile procedures, getting in the way of medical personnel treating patients close to death, or the confidential needs of those patients?

What kind of hospital allows reporters and cameras into patient treatment areas, and allows video recording of those patients without their permission?

It seems that Dr Mads Gilbert has left his professional ethics in the locker room with his street clothes, but didn't forget to bring along his political imperatives, as well as his reporters and their cameras.

If he were truly concerned about those "dying because of lack of surgeons," then he would have made better use of his time and skills by working to save lives instead of giving an interview.

If Hamas is hiding weapons in this hospital, I'd add it to the aerial assault agenda. "Surgical strike" here means that surgeons like Mads, his jihadi patients, and weapons all come to a quick end.

For more on the two Norwegian doctors in question, click here:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/18875

Am I right in thinking this gemtleman would be entirely outraged by anything approaching torture at Gitmo while simultaneously supporting the rights of "The Oppressed" to kill all & sundry in random terror attacks on women & children because they have been victims of "Western aggression"?

How does one reason with someone holding this view?

From the article to which a link is given above:

"The source of most of the information coming from Gaza thus far has been from Palestinian representatives. One of the only non-Palestinian voices heard has been that of Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who entered Gaza on December 31 along with his colleague Erik Fosse ostensibly to provide medical assistance to Palestinians at Shifa Hospital. They have become media stars as the BBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, Independent, Sky News, and New York Times, among others, have turned to them as independent foreign observers to provide a presumably non-partisan perspective. They have been extensively interviewed in the Norwegian as well as the world press. In fact, Gilbert appears in so many interviews that one wonders how he has the time to provide medical help, never mind "doing surgery around the clock" as he claims.

In his interviews, Gilbert decries what he claims is Israel's "all out war against civilians." Condemning Israel for "deliberately targeting the [Palestinian] population" and causing "a man-made disaster," Gilbert and Fosse claim that Israel and the UN are lying about the civilian casualty count and feed the media their own alternate statistics ( "50% of the casualties are women and children"–CBS; "children made up 25% of the deaths and 45% of the wounded"–BBC). Gilbert is even quoted by the Iranian Press TV alleging the Israelis have used unconventional weapons against the Palestinians.

So are these Norwegians indeed non-partisan foreigners providing independent confirmation of Palestinian reports or do they have an agenda? Is Gilbert simply someone "who was allowed into Gaza last week to give emergency medical aid, and who has worked in many conflict zones," as the New York Times introduces him or someone with a partisan perspective?

Gilbert is a radical Marxist and a member of the political Red (Rodt) party, a revolutionary socialist party in Norway. He has been a pro-Palestinian activist since the 1970's and travelled to Lebanon in support of the Palestinians during the first Lebanon war in 1982. He has long been a vocal opponent of Israel and the U.S. Gilbert has acknowledged that he cannot separate politics from medicine, stating, "there is little in medicine that is not politics." He even criticizes the group Doctors Without Borders for providing medical assistance to both sides in a conflict instead of taking a strong stance and supporting only one party. In a 2006 article in Nordlys, journalist Ivan Kristoffersen lamented the fact that Gilbert allows his humanitarian efforts to be politicized by his radical agenda.

The extent of Gilbert's political agenda and animus toward Israel and the U.S. is best evidenced by his radical support for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:
The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created. It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:
Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned. (Sept. 30, 2001).

Fosse worked as a doctor for the Palestine Committee in Lebanon in the 1970's. He now leads NORWAC, the Norwegian Aid Committee. According to Aftenposten, Fosse's passion to work on behalf of Palestinians was sparked by his time in Lebanon.
According to Verdens Gang, the largest Norwegian daily, Gilbert and Fosse's current trip to Gaza is funded by the Norwegian foreign ministry.
Given the partisan — and in Gilbert's case, radical — perspective they represent, Fosse's and Gilbert's testimony must be weighed with extreme caution."

An article to be found here:
http://newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/16045

is reprinted below:

Cleaning Bush House

The BBC should release the report about its anti-Israel and pro-Muslim bias that it has sat on for some time. This report, because it is not about the Asian service but about the BBC's world-wide service, including the execrable World Service with which Americans are horrifiedly familiar -- the horror comes whenever the Middle East is being discussed or merely mentioned -- is much more important a matter than the complaints by disgruntled employees about job prospects or of whether the music played is "too" Hindu and "too" Sikh.

In the Asian service, no doubt, the non-Muslims -- Hindus and Sikhs -- have a good idea of what Muslims are up to, and why their coverage would be so obviously biased that it would offend the very audience the BBC Asian Service most wishes to reach. If the BBC wants to have a separate Muslim service, for Muslim and by Muslims, very well then, but to have them infiltrate, and dominate the coverage of news of the subcontinent, as they have been allowed, along with non-Muslims most willing -- see Orla Guerin (married to a "Palestinian" Arab and showing it in every word), see Barbara Plett (weeping for Arafat), see the hard-voiced Lyse Doucet (with her vicious coverage of Israel), see Robin Lustig, see this one and that one, with their "occupied" this and that, and their consultations with Azzam Tamimi, the hysterical Hamas supporter in London, and all the rest of it, including John Simpson, great admirer of that anti-Israel (I'd call it antisemitic) conspiracy theory book by Simpson's friend Peter Hounam (who was himself once jailed by the Israelis), the grotesque "Cyanide Conspiracy" -- a book presented as non-fiction.

The BBC as a whole has a great deal that needs to be investigated for its pro-Muslim bias in its coverage, top to bottom, in what is broadcast to its home audience and everywhere else -- with the possible exception of the one part of the BBC that is now being complained so noisily about, complaints that no doubt will be treated with much greater solicitousness than have any of the complaints made along the lines of those I have offered. Trevor Asserson and others for years have steadily toted up examples of extraordinary bias; they got, they have gotten, nowhere. The BBC is a scandal, and at a time when the British public has decided to begin to inform itself about Islam, having been betrayed by its own media and political elites for so long, the BBC can't continue in this vein much longer, without someone coming along and harnessing public unease and fury and causing bodies to be dropped out of Bush House, as they should have been long ago. A defenestration devoutly to be wished.

Here is Azzam Tamimi, who, like Mads Gilbert, is someone the BBC likes to bring on as an "expert" on what the BBC calls the "Israel-Palestine conflict":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6q02J6dJk

There is a difference between Mads Gilbert and Azzam Tamimi. For example, one has a beard and the other doesn't. And they express the same general attitude, but in different ways, with different decibel levels. That's about it.

jockaira

thanks for those very astute observations.

As you said: if they were really so very short of doctors, he should not have been giving an interview at all, he should have been in surgery.

Just as, when reading a book or article, one must learn to 'read between the lines', to think about the silences, about what might reasonably be expected to be said and yet is not, one must, when looking at photos or video, look not only at what the person behind the camera clearly wants you to see, but at the background, around the edges, at the sides; looking always for the discrepancy, the oddity; and also comparing what is being said, with what is being shown, in case they don't in fact match up.

You have given us all a very good lesson in how to do that.