Why Do The World, UN And Media Support Genocide?

Put the case of a war between a genocidal, terrorist dictatorship, with its origins in Nazism, that attacks a neighbor that is a democracy, that has been seeking peace, and that is an island of human rights in a region dominated by tyrants. Then ask yourself who the world will be rooting for? You would think the answer would be the democracy fighting in self-defense for its survival against a genocidal, terrorist aggressor. But you would be wrong. Most of the world, almost all of the media, and the United Nations are supporting the genocidal, terrorist, dictatorship.

Where Does The World Stand?

With the terrorists! That sounds too strange to be believed. But it is not so strange, if you understand what’s going on with the world, the media and the U.N.

Why is the position of the world squarely behind genocide, terrorism, and tyranny? Why is the world seemingly on the side of the moral low ground and firmly against the nation on the moral high ground?

Here’s an answer to that question brilliantly formulated by Victor Davis Hanson, a syndicated columnist and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution. He said the question is not why the world supports the tyrants but rather why the world would support the democracy:

“After all, the world is mostly authoritarian in Russia, China, and much of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America; when has it ever been a barometer of morality? If it had been, some would have rallied to stop the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, or stopped the Rhwandan killing or the Cambodian genocide. Only the US and its NATO allies put an end to Milosevic, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam — mostly to world criticism …

“I was amused by the Hamas spokesman who just warned that Israel followed ‘the law of the jungle’ — this from an organization that legalized crucifixion, sends rockets into schools, and executes dissidents — and of course enjoys global support.”

The world is almost united in protest calling for an end to the Israeli attack. But it had no time to protest years of Hamas’ savagery, rocketing civilians, in violation of international law; shielding its murderers with civilians, in violation of international law; or disguising its terrorist fighters as civilians, in violation of international law. The world seems to be able to countenance any atrocity or illegality of Hamas, but it can’t stand Israel’s defending itself against terrorism and genocide.

For those reasons, unlike President-elect Barack Obama, I don’t want to be a citizen of the world. I want to be a citizen of the United States, which truly seems to be the last great hope of humanity. I also want to be sure America sticks to its founding principles, and not to please that international mob which stands four-square behind terrorists and advocates of genocides. That is doubly important in a time when the title of Mark Steyn’s classic book seems eerily prophetic — America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

Where Does The Media Stand?

To answer that, let me offer a strange but telling hypothetical. If the reporters and editors of The New York Times were on the job during World War II, here’s what they would have been reporting on their front-page:

• Germans suffering as Allies continue to bomb Berlin and other major cities.

• Front-page pictures would show buildings in Germany damaged by bombing and wounded and dying in hospitals.

• There would have been stories demanding humanitarian aid desperately needed as food and supplies in short supply in Germany.

• The Times would have created an obligation on the U.S. and Britain to supply the Germans with needed food, medical supplies and all other humanitarian aid.

• Other stories would have focused on German hospitals overburdened with the injured and in desperate nee d of more medical supplies and personnel.

• Human rights organizations would be reported on with their protests as civilians are being killed and non-military targets are being hit.

• Spokesman for the Third Reich would be extensively quoted saying the allied response is disproportionate and there should have been more negotiations. Even if the Germans had a record of lying, exaggerating, and telling the big lie, The New York Times would have accepted their pronouncements at face value.

• And if the United Nations existed then it would have been calling for a truce as soon as possible.

• The United Nations would have officially condemned uprising in Warsaw Ghetto as a disproportionate response.

This was all inspired by a fictional New York Times front-page circulating on the Internet, but the above captures in more detail exactly how biased, dishonest, fraudulent and ridiculous The New York Times coverage is of the Israeli attack on the terrorist organization Hamas. As the leading expert on terrorism, Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, explained: the Times seems to be on the side of the terrorists; it seems to be in love with Hamas. The Times is also well-known for its anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias, so it is not surprising how they would be reporting on the Israeli-Hamas conflict. They tend to ignore the real cause of the present conflict — Hamas aggression over the years by Hamas, firing mortars and rockets into Israel. The Times tends to ignore the fact that Israel is obeying international law in a war of self-defense. The Times is ignoring that fact that Hamas has been violating almost every rule of international law in the books — indiscriminate firing of rockets to kill civilians, hiding military personnel and equipment among civilians, and disguising military personnel as civilians. Hamas deliberately fights the war using civilians as shields and deliberately tries to generate civilian casualties.

The Times, unfortunately for the truth, sets the standard for most of the mainstream media, which follows it in committing journalistic malfeasance. Of course, the Times likes to ignore the fact that Israel strictly complies with international law, and takes extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties. Israel subjects its military to death and injury that might be easily avoided if it were not so dedicated to avoiding Palestinian casualties.

If The New York Times would have covered World War II as it now covers the Israeli-Hamas conflict, it would have been subject to a total boycott or perhaps would even tried for treason. But it now gets away with its incredibly, outrageously dishonest, fraudulent and biased coverage of the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

The mainstream media are so blinded and twisted by their prejudice that they don’t even describe Hamas terrorists as terrorists. They are described by using such euphemisms aa militants and gunman. They focus almost exclusively on the suffering of the Palestinians. This is part of a thinly veiled attempt to deny Israel its right of self-defense.

They call on Israel to meet the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They play up every protest targeting Israel, and play down the important fact that there is actually widespread Arab support for defeating Hamas, which poses as serious a threat to other Arab nations in the region as it does to Israel.

The media, in the U.S. and abroad, to win sympathy for Hamas and to demonize the Israelis, rips reality totally out of context to paint a false picture. For example, Britain’s Guardian runs a front-page photo showing a Palestinian father collapsed in front of his three dead children. The Guardian wants to send the false message that Israel is slaughtering children. But the Guardian, in the style of our own mainstream media, fails to provide the context:

• Hamas deliberately plants its military among civilians to generate civilian casualties for propaganda purposes or to provide shields to prevent Israeli attacks. There would be no civilian casualties if Hamas obeyed international law. And perhaps Hamas would obey international law if the media did not sanitize and legitimize terrorism.

• Hamas deliberately provoked the Israeli attack by firing rockets and mortars into Israeli civilian population centers for many years.

• The Guardian shows the father and his three dead children, but they don’t want to tell their readers that between 2001 and 2008, more than 8,000 rockets were aimed at Israel, making it certain to traumatize a generation of Israeli children.

• The Guardian also doesn’t want to tell its readers that unless Israel acted, the Hamas terrorists would accelerate their attacks with more powerful and longer-range missiles perhaps putting most of the Israeli population within range of constant terrorism and trauma.

• The Guardian also doesn’t want to tell its readers that Hamas has been dedicated to and has been working toward genocide, with Israel as its target, and that it has a long-history of jihad grounded in Nazi anti-Semitism.

• The Guardian doesn’t want to report that all the Palestinians are not as innocent as portrayed. By an overwhelming majority, they elected Hamas, a terrorist organization to rule Gaza. So they should be ready for the consequences of electing a government that is sworn to go to war to destroy its neighbor. If you don’t want to get burned, don’t play with matches and go to bed with terrorists.

Where Does The United Nations Stand?

The U.N., like most of the world and most of the media, stands firmly on the side of genocide, terrorism and murder of innocents. Simply consider the resolution it adopted on the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

The resolution refers to Israeli withdrawal, all the humanitarian issues of Gaza and the Palestinians, and even declares that Gaza will be part of he Palestinian state. Of course, it says nothing about the 460 rockets fired at Israel since the war started nor the many thousands fired in the preceding years. In fact, Hamas, its terrorism, and its genocidal intent, is not even mentioned.

Like most of the world and the media, the U.N. takes a pro-Hamas stance, and obviously works toward denying Israel its right of self-defense.

Another way to understand the nature of the U.S. is to look at the nations that the U.N. and its bodies condemn. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than all other nations put together, including those most notorious for violating human rights. It condemns Israel more than Sudan, where slavery is still practiced and where a genocide is still in progress against black African Christians and animists.

It condemns Israel more than North Korea, which uses starvation as a method of bringing its people into submission. It condemns Israel more than Somalia, where they practice wholesale genital mutilation of women. The U.N. only has condemnation for Israel and forgets such other human rights violators as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tibet.

A brilliant article by Don Feder on the Web site that is leading the boycott of The New York Times puts the U.N. view of Israel and the media bias against Israel in perfect perspective:

“A story in today’s New York Times says the United Nations is highly critical of Israel’s conduct in the Gaza fighting, as if this was a revelation. When has the U.N. not been highly critical of the Jewish State about something or other?

“The article says the U.N. ‘lashed out at Israel on Thursday over the war in Gaza, saying that access to civilians in need is poor, relief workers are being hurt and killed, and Israel is woefully neglecting its obligations to Palestinians who are trapped, some among rotting corpses in a nightmarish landscape of deprivation.’

“Once again, The Times is editorializing in its news pages. Neither the U.N. nor The New York Times has ever expressed similar concern over the humanitarian crises caused by suicide bombers or rocket attacks from Gaza.

“There are civilian casualties in every war; that’s why it would have been wise for the civilian population of Gaza, which elected Hamas to power, not to have constantly provoked Jerusalem by raining rockets on Israel’s civilian population.

“The Times presents United Nation’s criticism as if it was coming from an unbiased source. But outside of the Muslim world, Israel has no more implacable foe than the U.N.”

One of the small but important steps you can take to stop this world-media-UN madness is to join the boycott of The New York Times, whose bias and dishonesty have no bounds. Go to the boycott site at boycottnyt.com and sign the petition. At the same time, you will find many excellent articles documenting the incredible journalistic malfeasance of the Times, the media outlet that is as much an enemy of America as the terrorists.

While you’re at it cancel your subscription to The New York Times and its little brother, the Philadelphia Inquirer, another leading member of the biased and fraudulent mainstream media.

The bottom line is that you have to beware of world opinion, the stance of most of the media, and the position of the United Nation. In fact, one way to reach the right conclusion is to ascertain the position of world public opinion, the mainstream media, and the U.N., and then conclude the exact opposite is the right position.

One other important aside: Because of those like President-elect Obama who want to restore our credibility abroad and rebuild our international reputation, we better ask exactly what the entails. Do we really want to do what is necessary so we restore our credibility in world opinion and stand along side of the terrorism and genocide, which that same world opinion seems to tolerate and even revere.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.