The Economist's Questionable Endorsements Of The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, And Buhari

By: Ross Alabo-George Port Harcourt. I read through the Leaders section of The Economist magazine of February

7, 2014 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 ” ” 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 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 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, consider 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.” He stated further: 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. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economist-has-endorses-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-this-weekends-egyptian-election-2012-6

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.

The post The Economist's Questionable Endorsements Of The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, And Buhari appeared first on Pointblank News .