Oct. 26, 2009
COMMENTARY: United Nations of Hypocrisy, Part II
By Joseph J. Honick
As noted in Part I of the United Nations of Hypocrisy (link: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/091024-honick-columnsunitednations.html), I elaborated a whole series of Arab atrocities that never resulted in United Nations investigations or threats of trials, especially for assaults on ordinary citizens. The hypocrisy of the UN was especially emphasized by the swiftness of action after Israel had lost patience with Palestinian rocketing of civilian targets over many months.
The accusations against the State of Israel included something called “excessive force” and accused Israelis of purposely targeting civilians, including children, while minimizing the reality Hamas and its friends consistently used civilians and their facilities both as rocket launching points and shields against return fire.
Left out of the first part was another horrendous event not only conducted by something called the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine but an action for which the PDFLP boastfully took credit in releases to the media of the time.
The event was an Arab attack on a school in the city of Maalot on May 15, 1974, the 26th anniversary of the re-creation of the state of Israel, an attack that took place as about 100 14-16 year-old students lay sleeping on the floor after a day spent hiking.
According to reports, the Arabs had infiltrated into Israel from Lebanon without any effort from that nation to halt the assault on the school. The attackers were dressed in Israeli uniforms. Holding students and teachers as hostages, they demanded immediate release of Arab militants from Israeli prisons or they would kill all of their hostages. The Israeli government decided to negotiate but asked for more time. The attackers refused. All told 26 of the victims were killed and 66 wounded.
The grief and anger were profound throughout Israel and an immediate attack on Beirut was carried out that also resulted in scores of casualties. Despite their deep sense of anger, many Israelis turned out to protest the level of their government’s return attack on Lebanon.
On the Arab side, not only were there no protests of their government-financed attacks on Maalot, the killing of Israeli Olympic athletes and the murderous bombing of a civilian bus in Jerusalem, the organizations responsible boasted of their actions, none of which ever faced the threat of United Nations reprisals or even investigations that could result in International Court action.
The Libyan dictator who admittedly abetted the slaughter of innocent airline passengers over Lockerbie, Scotland, the attackers responsible for the tragedies of September 11, 2001, and many other incursions against innocent targets have not been targets of significant, if any threats of International Court charges or much else from the same UN operation that sprang into action when Israel responded to continuous rocketing of civilian targets however much there might have been dispute over the occupation of the areas under attack. Yet, almost immediately once the Israelis decided enough was enough and took action, the UN was able to mount an investigation and create a slate of charges and threats of International Court action, none of which greeted the perpetrators over all these years from the Arab supported operations.
Part of the reasons for the imbalance of reaction or even non-action can be found in the hugely financed public relations effort, much of which is covered by the Saudis. While Israel has its very active lobbying effort, the financial assets from the other side are overwhelming, constant and broadly based.
So imagine the worldwide reactions if the following scenarios had occurred:
1. The terrorists had come from Israel instead of from Arab countries;
2. Demonstrators in a massive London parade had carried big signs announcing Jews will dominate the world instead of what really took place declaring: Islam will dominate the world;
3. The bombers who created the horrendous tragedy of 9/11 came from Tel Aviv instead of mostly Saudi Arabia…
These are just a few very extreme examples that seem not to have attracted either human rights probers of the United Nations or the critics of Israel from the far left.
But what also should nag at the core of those willing to take the time to review such matters is why most powerful media also fail to raise these questions.
Hence the charge of hypocrisy not only as it applies to the United Nations but to the many who have little negative to say about the oil-rich Arab nations who have done so little for the Palestinians for whom they cry crocodile tears….the people for whom the wealthy Saudis with reportedly $600 billion in reserves cannot find it possible to build hospitals, schools and factories for the Palestinian citizens.
So concludes for the moment Part II of the United Nations of Hypocrisy.
* * *
Honick is president of Bainbridge Island, Wash.-based GMA International Ltd, the consulting and public relations firm he formed in 1975 to help companies broaden their business abroad especially in China and Japan. He also contributes to a variety of publications on public policy issues.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
COMMENTARY: United Nations of Hypocrisy, Part II
By Joseph J. Honick
As noted in Part I of the United Nations of Hypocrisy (link: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/091024-honick-columnsunitednations.html), I elaborated a whole series of Arab atrocities that never resulted in United Nations investigations or threats of trials, especially for assaults on ordinary citizens. The hypocrisy of the UN was especially emphasized by the swiftness of action after Israel had lost patience with Palestinian rocketing of civilian targets over many months.
The accusations against the State of Israel included something called “excessive force” and accused Israelis of purposely targeting civilians, including children, while minimizing the reality Hamas and its friends consistently used civilians and their facilities both as rocket launching points and shields against return fire.
Left out of the first part was another horrendous event not only conducted by something called the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine but an action for which the PDFLP boastfully took credit in releases to the media of the time.
The event was an Arab attack on a school in the city of Maalot on May 15, 1974, the 26th anniversary of the re-creation of the state of Israel, an attack that took place as about 100 14-16 year-old students lay sleeping on the floor after a day spent hiking.
According to reports, the Arabs had infiltrated into Israel from Lebanon without any effort from that nation to halt the assault on the school. The attackers were dressed in Israeli uniforms. Holding students and teachers as hostages, they demanded immediate release of Arab militants from Israeli prisons or they would kill all of their hostages. The Israeli government decided to negotiate but asked for more time. The attackers refused. All told 26 of the victims were killed and 66 wounded.
The grief and anger were profound throughout Israel and an immediate attack on Beirut was carried out that also resulted in scores of casualties. Despite their deep sense of anger, many Israelis turned out to protest the level of their government’s return attack on Lebanon.
On the Arab side, not only were there no protests of their government-financed attacks on Maalot, the killing of Israeli Olympic athletes and the murderous bombing of a civilian bus in Jerusalem, the organizations responsible boasted of their actions, none of which ever faced the threat of United Nations reprisals or even investigations that could result in International Court action.
The Libyan dictator who admittedly abetted the slaughter of innocent airline passengers over Lockerbie, Scotland, the attackers responsible for the tragedies of September 11, 2001, and many other incursions against innocent targets have not been targets of significant, if any threats of International Court charges or much else from the same UN operation that sprang into action when Israel responded to continuous rocketing of civilian targets however much there might have been dispute over the occupation of the areas under attack. Yet, almost immediately once the Israelis decided enough was enough and took action, the UN was able to mount an investigation and create a slate of charges and threats of International Court action, none of which greeted the perpetrators over all these years from the Arab supported operations.
Part of the reasons for the imbalance of reaction or even non-action can be found in the hugely financed public relations effort, much of which is covered by the Saudis. While Israel has its very active lobbying effort, the financial assets from the other side are overwhelming, constant and broadly based.
So imagine the worldwide reactions if the following scenarios had occurred:
1. The terrorists had come from Israel instead of from Arab countries;
2. Demonstrators in a massive London parade had carried big signs announcing Jews will dominate the world instead of what really took place declaring: Islam will dominate the world;
3. The bombers who created the horrendous tragedy of 9/11 came from Tel Aviv instead of mostly Saudi Arabia…
These are just a few very extreme examples that seem not to have attracted either human rights probers of the United Nations or the critics of Israel from the far left.
But what also should nag at the core of those willing to take the time to review such matters is why most powerful media also fail to raise these questions.
Hence the charge of hypocrisy not only as it applies to the United Nations but to the many who have little negative to say about the oil-rich Arab nations who have done so little for the Palestinians for whom they cry crocodile tears….the people for whom the wealthy Saudis with reportedly $600 billion in reserves cannot find it possible to build hospitals, schools and factories for the Palestinian citizens.
So concludes for the moment Part II of the United Nations of Hypocrisy.
* * *
Honick is president of Bainbridge Island, Wash.-based GMA International Ltd, the consulting and public relations firm he formed in 1975 to help companies broaden their business abroad especially in China and Japan. He also contributes to a variety of publications on public policy issues.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
