Set på Uriasposten:
"Last week, the Lebanese army attacked a squalid Palestinian
refugee camp that's become infested with Islamist suicide
terrorists and guerilla fighters. On May 20, government troops
surrounded the camp, with tanks and artillery pieces shelling it at
close range. Army snipers gunned down anything that moved. At least
18 civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. Water and
electricity were cut off. By week's end, much of the camp had been
turned into deserted rubble. Thousands of terrified residents
fleeing the camp reported harrowing stories of famished, parched
families trapped in their basements.
How did the rest of the world react? The Arab League quickly
condemned "the criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the
terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam," and vowed to "give its
full support to the efforts of the army and the Lebanese
government." EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also condemned
Fatah al-Islam, and declared Europe's "support" for Lebanon. And
the UN Security Council called the actions of Fatah al-Islam "an
unacceptable attack" on Lebanon's sovereignty. As for the Western
media, most outlets ignored the story following the first flurry of
news reports.
At this point, please indulge me by re-reading the first
paragraph of this column - except this time, substitute the world
"Israeli" for "Lebanese" in the first sentence. Let's imagine what
the world's reaction would be if the ongoing siege were taking
place in Gaza or the West Bank instead of the Nahr al Bared refugee
camp on the outskirts of Tripoli, Lebanon.
First of all, a flood of foreign journalists would descend on the
camp to document Israel's cruelty and barbarism, and the story
would remain front page news to this day. Al-Jazeera would be a
24/7 montage of grieving mothers swearing revenge on the Zionist
butchers, and rumours would swirl of mass graves and poison gas.
The Arab League, EU and United Nations would condemn Israeli
aggression - as would the editorial board of The New York Times.
The Independent would dispatch Robert Fisk to embed with Fatah
al-Islam. And the newspaper's cartoonist, Dave Brown, would produce
another award-winning rendition of his signature theme: Jews eating
Palestinian babies.
Actually, we don't need to speculate: What I have just written is
exactly what happened when the Israeli army invaded the Jenin
refugee camp to root out terrorists in April, 2002, a battle that
was similar in scale to this month's siege at Nahr al Bared. (At
Jenin, 52 refugee camp residents were killed - most of them gunmen,
according to Human Rights Watch. At Nahr al Bared, the figure is 45
and climbing.) The main difference between the two sieges is that
Israel's army put its troops at far greater risk by invading Jenin
with infantry - whereas the less humane Lebanese army has simply
pummelled Nahr al Bared with explosives from a distance. Jews
apparently care a lot more about saving Palestinian civilians than
do Lebanese soldiers."
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96c43ca9-ec26-470a-adda-93476ff79799
***
Her, et par artikler fra dagens Politiken, der på fornem vis
illustrerer hykleriet.
http://politiken.dk/udland/article316403.ece
http://politiken.dk/udland/article316684.ece