The statement by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, described by the New York Times as “one of her most bellicose speeches in the Council chamber”, was pure, unadultered hypocrisy at its most naked.
By Alan Hart
Russia and China’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution which condemned Syria over its brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters and contained a weak reference to the possibility of sanctions against Damascus proved once again that:
Despite torrents of soaring rhetoric to the contrary from our leaders, international politics is not about doing what is right and in the best interests of all nations and peoples, it’s only about the short-term, short-sighted, political self-interest of leaders and their governments.
And the statement by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice, described by the New York Times as “one of her most bellicose speeches in the Council chamber”, was pure, unadultered hypocrisy at its most naked.
But let us first of all be clear about the meaning of hypocrisy (hypocrite is from hypokrite, the ancient Greek for actor). The definitions of hypocrisy are “a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not… the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.” The synonyms for hypocrisy are “cant… dissembling… insincerity… piousness.” The antonyms are “genuineness… sincerity.”
If I was contributing to the updating of dictionaries, I would add another definition of hypocrisy – American foreign policy.
In her statement after Russia and China had vetoed and before she walked out of the Council chamber, Susan Rice said: “The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.”
This is, of course, the same Susan Rice who will cast the U.S. veto to kill the Palestinians’ bid for Security Council recognition of their statehood (if the bid gets to the Security Council).
It is apparently of no concern to her and her master that the Security Council has utterly failed, time and time again, to address the criminal policies of the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel, policies which present a far more urgent moral challenge and growing threat to regional peace and security than what Bashar al-Assad’s monster regime is doing in Syria.
Rice also said: “Today the courageous people of Syria can now see who on this Council supports their yearning for liberty and universal human rights and who does not.”
Quite so, madam ambassador, but is it of no concern to you that almost the whole world (of peoples not governments) is aware of who on the Security Council supports the Palestinian yearning for liberty and universal human rights and who does not?
If there was a Nobel prize for hypocrisy, Susan Rice would have to be added to the list of nominees for it along with President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. (Question: What do those two gentlemen have in common?
Answer: In the context of targeted assassinations by drones or whatever, it can be said that both are cold-blooded killers).
On another matter… The jury in my mind is still out on the question of whether or not professor Shlomo Avineri, the Polish-born Israeli political scientist, is a hypocrite.
His most recent article is in Ha’aretz with the headline No realistic chance of permanent Middle East peace. The following is its opening paragraph:
“In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas once again made a common Palestinian mistake: a Palestinian leader does not have to persuade the nations of the world, but rather the Israelis. A Palestinian state will arise only if the Palestinians convince the Israelis that they are indeed ready to live in peace and mutual recognition.”
In theory that makes a lot of sense, but it ignores the fact that most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and, as a consequence, need to feel threatened, need to believe they are the victims and not the oppressors.
Put another way, most Israeli Jews do not want to believe that the Palestinians (the vast majority of them) have long been ready for peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief.
That being so, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of peace unless and until an American president has the freedom and the courage to use his leverage to compel Israel to end its occupation of all Arab land grabbed in 1967.
A Recap of American driven Twenty Year ‘Peace Negotiations’ — by Nabil Shaath
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who has covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. He blogs on AlanHart.com.