A Really Large and Dangerous Hypocrisy

Last week in the news, widely reported across the United States and Europe by all major news sources, the Israeli Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz was quoted as saying in an interview he gave on Israeli Army Radio that, “Hamas’s candidate for Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismael Haniya, was a potential target for an Israeli killing”. Mr. Mofaz’s threat was calmly and factually presented by the American and British media as if it were perfectly natural and acceptable for Israel to threaten criminal violence and murder against the leader of another country. To make matters worse, if that is possible, exactly the same outrageous comments were repeated in an interview with the Jerusalem Post newspaper a few days later by the acting Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert.I don’t think I can even imagine the degree of uncontrolled fury, outrage, and ensuing protests such a story would have generated in the American and British media if instead it had been the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismael Haniya, who had publicly identified Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli Prime Minister, as a potential target to be killed by Palestinian forces? I can assure you it would not have been presented as if it were a perfectly natural and acceptable suggestion.

I say to you my dear Muslim brothers and sisters; such blatant and inconceivably biased hypocrisy indicates a degree of illogical inequity so ludicrous that we must take it as an extremely potent indicator of the degree of hatred and contempt to which Muslims and Islam are increasingly held by the governments and media of the Western world. It would indeed be foolish for us to ignore signs as forcefully significant as these. Just as the unfairness of these reactions to proposed illegal killings have brought and continue to bring great hardship to the Palestinian people, judgments made on the basis of such unfair comparisons regarding many issues in the future will negatively touch the lives of every Muslim in the world unless we do something to successfully overcome such ignorance.



Filed under All, World News

3 responses to “A Really Large and Dangerous Hypocrisy

  1. ilmiacs

    Ismael Haniya was a potential target for an Israeli killing because the israeli government believed that he was involved in the organization of suicide attacks against the israeli people. Whether this is true or not, I don’t know. But knowing this, it seems to me disproportionate to conclude from the calmness, this news has been adopted, that muslims and the islam are held to hatred and contempt.

    Probably I do not need to mention, that persons involved in killings do not earn much sympathy in most of the world, whoever, whenever, wherever. Of course there will always be a part of the western world that will (wrongly) generalize and turn its hatred towards the muslims, in the same way as there will always be a part of the muslim world that will generalize and turn its hatred against the western world.

  2. If the person involved in the killings was a Jew, Sharon for example, he was still able to get plenty of sympathy and help and good press from the Western nations leaders and the Western controlled media. Do you think the media and Western leaders would have been quiet about it if the Palestinian leadership had said (when he was still healthy) that Sharon would be appropriate for a ‘targeted’ killing? The original position wins and stands uncorrected by your attempt to cover up for the bias shown against Muslims and toward Jews by Western governments and their controlled media.

  3. ilmiacs

    Sharon is (was) a bad guy, and it is partially the fault of the media (which is not neutral, as it is nowhere in the world) that he is percieved with sympathy in Israel and the US. He is not being percieved with sympathy in all western countries, in France and Germany for example. In Britain, Blair is being heavily criticized for his support of US/Israeli politics, both from the British people, the media, and even from within his own party.

    The original position has to be corrected, because it is not differentiated enough. In its conclusion, it argues against the western world as a unity and does not take into account the difference between countries, their people, their media and their governments. But of course it is easier to simply condemn the whole, than to figure out the mutual interconnections between the parts and to identify, what parts to condemn.

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