Why Israel and not Sudan, is singled out (By the UN, the media, etc.)

boston globe ^ | Charles Jacobs, 10/5/2002 | Charles Jacobs, 10/5/2002

[dennisw]

ARVARD PRESIDENT Lawrence Summers recently criticized those on his campus who speak in the name of human rights but selectively censure Israel while ignoring much greater problems in the Middle East. He described the divestment campaign against Israel on his campus as anti-Semitic ''in effect if not intent.'' But human rights (and media) attention is often disproportionate to the severity or urgency of human conflicts. What determines their focus is not mainly anti-Semitism. Nor is it the level of horror. It is the racial, religious, and cultural character of the perpetrators, not the victims, that determines the response of Westerners.

[Mr. Mojo]

This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 10/5/2002.

Shoulda been on page one. Great piece, Dennis. The author is spot on.

[Commander8]

The UN is not our friend, nor is it the friend of Israel or the Sudanese Christian slave.

[Savage Beast]

The well known "Liberal" conformity of thought seems to have reached its nadir in the groupthink of academia. Better minds would be uncomfortable in such mental straightjackets, would be stifled by the boredom of such unimaginative sameness.

[American Soldier]

Last time I checked, those yelling loudest about the Sudan were the Grahams, not the black Christian community, whom I have heard very little from about this issue.

[neutrino]

Interesting post!

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Why liberals do not see how Militant Islam is modern day Nazism is beyond me...9/11 was not enough. I guess they're hoping that they won't be around when the next "big one" happens.

[Ranger]

This is a very worthy cause. I was pleased to see the article posted as I was about to do it myself. Does anyone have experience with the American Anti-Slavery Group or another group interested in this topic?

[Mr. Mojo]

I guess they [liberals] are hoping that they won't be around when the next "big one" happens.

I've happened upon a strange phenomenon, and I wonder if anyone else has encountered the same thing. When I speak to liberals about the terrorism we could possibly face on our own soil one day, especially with regard to nuclear weapons, most of them would rather not survive at all than face the problem head on. "If that happens, I want to be in the center of the blast," most leftists say. Total defeatism. Survival instinct completely absent.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are not only hell-bent on surviving such an incident (either by moving away from major cites, getting potassium iodide for protection against thyroid cancer, building shelters, buying gold, storing food, all of the above, etc.), but are also hell-bent on making sure our elected reps inflict exponentially more damage than we recieve. An interesting comparison.

Yeah, I know I'm off topic, but at least I bumped the important thread article.

[hinckley buzzard]

"what is this silence about?" Simple. Western liberals couldn't care less about Human Rights of Black people unless : a) They can demonize some Whites as perpetrators(eg South Africa), or b) the Blacks can be captured as a voting bloc.

In Sudan, as in Rwanda, neither a. nor b. applies, so to liberals, the lives of those Black people are meaningless
and not worth defending.

[Commander8]

http://www.FreeEmigration.com
The Center For Free Emigration monitors slavery in countries such as Sudan.

[Lent]

Last time I checked, those yelling loudest about the Sudan were the Grahams, not the black Christian community, whom I have heard very little from about this issue.

You're absolutely right. The guy makes a politically correct statement to skirt the truth about who has spoken out concerning Sudan. Who has spoken out is guys like Franklin Graham who does relief work there and had one of his places bombed by the Islamofascists.