Sunday, 23 May 2010

Rivero and Israel, N Korea, the UN

Mike Rivero invariably attacks anything Israel does. Fair enough, maybe. But it provides a test of his consistency. If he is inconsistent, it suggests Rivero is anti-semitic. The present developing situation over North and South Korea's dispute about the apparent torpedo-ing of a S Korean ship might prove to be a good test of Rivero's consistency (and hence his anti-semitism.)

For Rivero, Israel's criminality is proven by anytime it rejects the stipulates of the UN, whether they be Security Council resolutions or General Assembly ones. (indeed - this is contradictory enough as usually Rivero and his fellow travellers regard the UN as part of the NWO - their ultimate foe: the UN is a threat to american sovereignty, but nevertheless Israel must obey its every stricture. An example of the hypocrisy produced by the anti-semitism within American nationalism. This can also be seen in Rivero's position over the issue of Iran's nuclear program, whereby the UN is regarded as complicit in "NWO lies" and malicious machinations.)

So, now we have N and S Korea to use as a litmus for Rivero's consistency - and hence his anti-semitism: we can compare Rivero's position on the apparent attack by N Korea on the S Korean ship with his position on (roughly similar) actions committed by Israel, eg the supposed Israeli attack on USS Liberty(?).

What has Rivero's position been on this apparent attack on S Korea by N Korea? Apologism! Rivero calls for calm, negotiation, a clear rendering of the facts!

S korea seemingly wishes to take the issue to the UN. What will Rivero's position be? Will he insist that N Korea submit to any UN demands and punishment as he always insists Israel must? We shall see.

Here's Rivero's initial response (May 21 09:39) to stories linking N Korea to the sicking of a S Korean ship:
Memo to Secretary of State Clinton: all the bloviating in the world will mean absolutely nothing unless China comes on board for whatever you might be conjuring.

And the options here are profoundly limited.

Just as South Korea has a defense pact with the US, North Korea has a defense pact with China. So any military involvement would be a big, fat, hairy no-no.

And in light of the fact that China is North Korea's number one trading partner (and absolute salvation in terms of aid, without which North Korea would collapse), economic sanctions are also a non-starter.

What would probably be the logical thing would be to encourage China to get North Korea back to the negotiating table in terms of creating a comprehensive peace treaty to replace the armistice which was signed in 1953, which never technically resolved the state of war between North and South Korea.

That would go a long way to ratchet down tensions in the region, if that in fact is the outcome desired.
Conciliatory huh? What strikes me is that Rivero places a lot of weight on China's power, and its relations with N Korea. This is similar to how Rivero treats Iran and her close relations with Russia. Somehow this sort of reasoning never occurs to Rivero when considering Israel and her close relations to the USA ie N Korea and Iran are seemingly legitimately provided startegic protection by their relations with the major powers of China and Russia respectively, and this must be respected, whilst Israel's strategic protection from the USA is apparently illegitimate and is not to be respected. China's relationship with N Korea and Russia's relationship with Iran help prevent war, in Rivero's eyes, whilst Israel's relationship with USA serves to promote it. China and Russia aren't threatened and obligated by their alliances (with NK and Iran!) whilst America's alliance with Israel is proof of American subservience to Israel - according to Rivero!

Also notable is that Rivero says nothing can be done unless China is on-board. Of course, this is just the position he takes on Israel, right? Nothing can be done against Israel unless the USA is on-board - realpolitic - accept it? Sure he does. lol

Here's Rivero's explanation of the wider situation:
The US Government is desperate for another war with which to distract the sheeple from the crashing economy, corruption, oil spills, and the already lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, apparently America seeks a new war to divert public attention from an already ongoing war! This is plainly ridiculous.

No comments: