The Free World’s Silence Except When It Comes To...Israel

...It is the same progressive, liberal media that printed a story about 133,000 children killed because of Islamists in Somalia, yet on the same day, on the same page, in a newspaper that faithfully represents the liberal press, the main story was about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsing a national referendum on a future peace treaty with the Palestinians.

Ben-Dror Yemini..
Times of Israel..
28 August '13..

It is not Russia and China that disgrace the international community. It is the Free World that for dozens of years now has been sliding toward hypocrisy, double standards and appeasement, while getting much more violence in return. It is the Free World whose “human rights activists” sympathize with the apparatus of evil and get much more violence in return. Should the Free World not get to the apparatus of evil, this instrument of evil shall reach the Free World. It’s already getting there.

Some 1,300 Syrians were slaughtered in one day, yet the streets of Paris, London, Madrid and Brussels are empty. After all, it is the Free World that has adopted a new, odd moral compass. According to these moral standards, dozens, hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of fatalities in the Muslim, Arab and/or Third World do not bother the world peace camp. This did not start this week. It has been going on for years now, dozens of years.

Where was the Free World when hundreds of thousands were being massacred in Rwanda? Where was it when hundreds of thousands were being butchered in Darfur? Where was the Free World when Sri Lanka slaughtered 40,000 Tamils? Where was it when Russia oppressed the rebels in Chechnya and while at it also killed hundreds of thousands of innocents? The Free World was silent. For dozens of years now, the Free World has been telling the Third World: That’s none of our business. So why are China and Russia now being asked to behave any differently?

The international community produces countless “human rights groups,” but these organizations have no connection whatsoever to the real world. After all, the Free World’s “human rights activists” never hit the streets en masse to fight against the apparatus of extermination that comprises Iran, Hamas, Taliban, Hezbollah and the other jihadist tentacles. They never hit the streets to protest against those who resort to extermination or those who declare, like Hamas and Hezbollah, that the Jews should be exterminated.” They only protest against Israel, which is trying to fight the apparatus of extermination.

This is the Free World, where academics like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein made pilgrimages to the leaders of Hezbollah. These are the intellectuals, authors and Nobel Prize laureate, like Mairead Maguire, who arrived on ships to sympathize with Hamas’ regime of horrors. Make no mistake about it: While they indeed spoke of humanitarian solidarity, their solidarity was also extended to the Hamas government.

There is no need whatsoever for the Free World to intervene in every conflict. Not every conflict calls for such intervention. That’s not the intention here. Hesitating to intervene is legitimate. After all, the Syrian conflict does not pit a moral party against a monstrous one. The problem lies with the Free World’s “progressive” parts when they sympathize with evil and fight against those who fight evil. After all, the people who are silent now poured into the streets of the West when Israel embarked on a war against evil.

According to the new moral compass, Israel is belligerent because it allegedly struck Syria’s nuclear facility, and previously Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Where would the Free World be today had Israel not razed these means of mass destruction? And what is the implication of the immense crime committed this week by the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah apparatus of evil for the Iranian nuclear program? Does Iran pose “no danger,” as many “experts” argue?

In the past decades, the Muslim world produced hundreds of thousands of fatalities and millions of refugees. Arabs and Muslims killed Arabs and Muslims. Statistically, Israel’s contribution to global violence is almost nil. Yet the Free World’s “human rights activists” protested against Israel. They did not protest against the true evil. They did not protest against Hamas, which for years was the protégée of Iran. They never protested against the kingdom of evil, but rather, only against those who tried to defend themselves against this evil kingdom.

The Most Unethical Act: Losing a War

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary Magazine
07 February '10

(Excellent article. Y.)

Monday night, PBS’s American Experience series will broadcast a new documentary titled The Bombing of Germany, about the strategic-bombing campaign carried out against the Nazis by American forces in World War II. Coming from the liberal-leaning PBS and in an era where denunciations of American military actions — even in the “good war” against Nazi Germany — have become commonplace, it would have been no surprise if this film was yet another revisionist attempt to decry Allied tactics as immoral. This impression is reinforced by the introduction to the film on PBS’s website, which highlights the number of German civilian casualties incurred by Allied bombing and the “defining moments that led the U.S. across a moral divide” that would make it easier to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan. Indeed, the narration heard during the opening moments of The Bombing of Germany goes straight to this conclusion when it says that by the time the war ended, the bombing left “both German cities and America’s lofty ideals in ruins.”

But, fortunately, there is more to this documentary than the facile conclusion that the bombing of Germany was so immoral that it cannot be defended even in a war in which the future of civilization was at stake. By the time the 50-minute film is over, liberals expecting another trashing of America are left with some conclusions that not only reinforce the morality of American tactics during that war but also might affect the way we think about contemporary conflicts.

The story of the bombing offensive is complex. During the war, Britain’s Royal Air Force believed that the key to knocking German war industries was to burn down the cities where the factories existed. From their frame of reference, there was no moral distinction between the factories themselves and the homes of the defense workers who created the material that enabled the Nazi regime to commit the crimes against humanity that made the war a matter of life or death for the free world.

(Read full article)
.

EDITORIAL: Leader of the Free World no more

The torch has been passed

Washington Times Editorial

27 September 09

Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend. But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed." Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace."

Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity." Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought.

Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran. In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?"

Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned. Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight.
.