Home > Liberalism, media, politics > Israel/North Korea: Media Hypocrisy

Israel/North Korea: Media Hypocrisy

So-called “Peace Protestors” beat the hell out of members of the IDF. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would have shot them, too.

It never fails to amaze me at the Hypocrisy of the media and the “World Community” in relation to Israel.

We recently learned of North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, which by any test would be an act of war by the thuggish dictatorship. The media response? It was reported with a sluggish yawn.

When Israel is forced to deal with issues dealing with it’s own security, the hypocrisy is ramped up to levels unknown to any thuggocracy. Anti-semitism? You bet.

Would we allow a flotilla of possible terrorists from Pakistan float down the Hudson river without searching their boats, at the very least? No, we would confront them, ask them to stop, and if they refused we would blow them out of the water. At least that is what would have been done before President Barack Obama’s “Open hand” strategy.

I know the argument is that the Gaza was given to the “Palestinians” and they should be able to rule as they see fit. The problem here is that Israel had strict conditions about giving them this land, and since it was released, Gaza has been used to launch attacks on Israel.

Does any country need to abide by pacifism via world edict? The answer is no. But if a country uses force, they must face the heat such actions present. In this case, Israel was simply guarding itself from threat, and they have the right to self-preservation.

Historically, one needs to understand the background of Israel and it’s reformation to understand the country and it’s rights.

To simplify things a bit, first of all one must understand that the land on which the Jews inhabit has been the land of the Jews far into antiquity. And the land was actually much greater than the size of Israel today. The Roman’s called the land Judea (Ludaea) or in reference to the land of the Jews. At one point this included parts of Syria and Jordan, during the time of Solomon.

The word “Palestinian” comes from “Philistia” which was actually considered more of a name for a land mass, but not one of any particular ethnic origin. If anything, the “Philistines” (you might remember they fought Samson) were more Greek than Arab in origin.

Of course, and the argument will be made, that borders and land switches hands over time, and this is certainly true.

In 63 BC, the Roman’s conquered just about everything in that area of the world. However, it was still considered the “land of the Jews”. It was the first “First Jewish revolt” (66-73 AD) that led to the Jews being rejected from the heart of Judea. Rome then supplanted foreign peoples into that area, in an effort to suppress further uprising.

But were these new residents Arabs? Historian Mary Smallwood, writes: “The bulk of the new settlers were Greco-Syrians.” So they were of Greek origin from the area of Syria–this does seem to support the fact that the “Palestinians” (Philistines) were Greek.

To make a long story short, the land eventually fell into the hands of the Ottoman turks, and finally Britain. It was basically then returned to it’s original inhabitants (the Jews), and the areas we know of as the Judea and Samaria, which were renamed for politically correct reasons to the West Bank and Gaza. This certainly helped give the so-called “Palestinians” (basically now a mish-mash of refugees having Arabic origin) a foothold. After all, it is pretty hard to say that Judea (the west bank) was never the home of the Jews, because the name says it all.

Today, the “Palestinians” use “occupied territory” to talk about Judea and the rest of Israel. Their intent is to push the Jews into the sea, and for what reason? Because they are not Arabs.

Yet the world seems to side with the Palestinians, because a good many people in the world continue to hate Jews, if not for being “God’s people” then because they flourish in the desert, and were able to defeat the Arab world in the 1967 “6-day war”, which shamed them.

The key here is that Israel is on the land which it inhabited for millenia. The Palestinians were actually greeks, and a good portion of land was given to the Arabs when the League of Nations reformed Israel, yet they want more–actually they want it all, and all Jews dead.

Yet the media will never speak of this. They will inflate this incident into Israel being a bully. Self-defense is against the bullies, not BY the bully. Watch the above video and tell me that the IDF were not being attacked in an orchestrated way with people who had weapons on the ready. Who just finds steel bars laying around on a ship?

Remember, this is about weakening Israel and disarming it. In this way, it can be destroyed. If the world really were just, wouldn’t they be going after Iran?


  1. June 5, 2010 at 6:08 am

    IF the world was REALLY “just”, we’d get rid of any person who was anti-Israel. Period.
    But, then, God kind’a wants us to give them a chance. Well, they’ve had it.
    In my opinion, Israel didn’t go far enough… they should have sunk the ships and let the survivors fend for themselves.
    As to North and South Korea… bring our troops home (from EVERY post in the world) and let the two of them duke it out. If the winner wants to do business with America, then we can negotiate. Until then, we aren’t the world’s police.
    Troops home and unemployed? They can do the same job along our borders they’re doing in any other country with the added benefit of not being a “buffer” in case of war. Plus, they’d be doing something for the “folks back home” who’d appreciate it a lot more than any foreign people ever have.
    Shy III

    • June 16, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      The problem is that Israel is following international law. Terrorists don’t have to do that. Israel cannot sink a ship breaking a blockade unless they were to actually fire at their ships. They do have the right to board them, however.

      The problem with retracting our troops from around the world is that other countries will not do the same. What is to keep China from just moving in and taking over Taiwan or Japan? Or Iran from taking over Saudi Arabia?

      We have the power to guard our borders, but our Govt refuses to do so. It is not about having a lack of troops or members of the national guard, it is that both the Reps/Dems refuse to stem the flow of illegal aliens.

  2. June 18, 2010 at 4:17 am

    So far as other countries bringing their troops back home, fine with me: we are not the policemen of the world, nor is anyone else. We waste more money keeping troops in foreign nations than we get in ROI.
    Any time China wants to take over Taiwan, or any other country, no one’s going to stop them, regardless how many American troops are stationed there.
    As to guarding our borders: AZ’s govenor has the right idea but isn’t carrying it far enough. She should invoke the Tenth Amendment and declare that “since the fed doesn’t want to do its job, then my state and people will!” and take over control of the border- invoking the Organized and Unorganized Militias. Put them under one wing, turn them loose with implicit instructions: STOP the influx. Period. When the Dimocraps and Repugnicans don’t want to do their job, it’s up to the people to do it. And we shouldn’t have to wait for any elections, either.
    Shy III

    • June 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm

      I agree with you on illegal immigration, but the problem is that this battle is being fought in the media and the media is biased toward the Left. We need to be very careful not to overtly seem to be revolting against the U.S. Govt., as few would agree with that, regardless of the legitimacy of the action.

      I agree we cannot fully police the world, but we do need a powerful presence. America is the modern day Rome, and when Rome fell, and the vacuum of it’s military power evaporated, so came the dark ages. If we were to take a pacifist stance and pull our troops from the world stage, it would save us money–in the short term. But we would likely see Russia moving to reform the USSR, Iran invading Saudi Arabia and firing nuclear weapons at Israel, and moves by all sort of crazy oppressors over the world. It would be a sign of Jimmy Carter’s mantra “America’s better days are behind us” and eventually we would have to attack someone or the world would slip into chaos. At that point, if we were to lose, America would be subject to invasion, and historically we could lose that as well.

      I would look into the Grecian Empire and the History of how it fell. It fell via apathy and refusal to commit to war against an invader. They basically only committed to war when the dogs were at the door, but by that time the dogs had grown into wolves, and their own had shunk to poodles.

      If we fail to recognize History, we are doomed to repeat it.

  3. June 23, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    It’s imperative that the United States keeps it’s presence on the world stage. If we were to withdraw and bury our heads in the sand thinking that the entire world will follow suit, then we are deluding ourselves.

    With Obama’s decision to remove McChrystal does not bode well and shows a sign of weakness. Whether McChrystal’s comment was appropriate, it by no means should have been a reason to remove him from command.

    Whether we want it or not, the US is still the strongest and biggest force on Earth. We can learn a great deal from history – look at ancient Greece.

    History repeats itself because leaders fail to recognize the mistakes made in previous battles – no matter how long ago.

  1. June 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: