Rivero hypocrisy - UN/Israel vs UN/N Korea

Here's Rivero writing about a story claiming "The UN's humanitarian chief, John Holmes, has described Israel's blockade of Gaza as "inflammatory" and devastating.":

Mike Rivero: Nice words. Gonna do anything about it? Or is the United Nations going to roll over and pretend everything is fine like they did after Israel targeted UN facilities in Gaza and Lebanon? Israel has never complied with the two conditions attached to their membership at the UN. Isn't it time to kick Israel out for not playing by the rules everyone else does?

Or is Israel the real core of the One World Government, because the United Nations certainly seems to treat them like they are!

Now, let's compare that to how Rivero treats the UN and North Korea over the apparent NK sinking of a S Korean ship:

Mike Rivero: What is needed here is diplomacy, not threats, and a complete ratcheting down of tensions in the Korean peninsula.

Your assessment that North Korea "...doesn't care about what the outside world thinks of it..." has one notably glaring exception: China. Our relationship with China hasn't been all that terrific recently, and China is the only nation which can, if it wants to, bring some pressure to bear on North Korea.

So please, remember that before being overtaken by a fit of bellicosity in public on the issue, would you?!?

HA! "A fit of bellicosity" is exactly what Rivero wants over Israel and the flotilla, yet he warns against just that when talking about North Korea.

Further, Rivero dismisses American/UN threats to North Korea and Iran (over a ship sinking, and nuclear weapons acquisitions) because of their (to him) seemingly perfectly legitimate relationship with China:

Mike Rivero: Do you really think that China, Iran's number-one trading partner, is going to go along with these sanctions?

However, the picture changes totally when Rivero considers Israel's relationship with the USA, which he repeatedly characterises thus:

One has to wonder just what kind of power Israel holds over the US Congress to make certain that Israel is defended by Congress, no matter how horrific the action, like this massacre, or Operation Cast Lead.

Rivero doesn't feel a need to wonder "just what kind of power Iran or North Korea holds over China to make certain she is defended". Hypocritical cunt.

Somehow North Korea's apparent sinking of a South Korean ship doesn't draw Rivero's ire in quite the same way Israel's boarding of one does. Somehow the deaths of South Koreans at the hands of North Koreans and the total loss of their ship is of far less gravity.

And whilst Rivero sees Chinese support for North Korea and Iran as perfectly expected and legitimate (simply because of trade and treaty), he refuses to see American support for Israel in the same light, instead presenting it as evidence that American policy is dictated by israel.
-----------

A few weeks ago I posted this 'test' of Rivero:

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(?).

Well, fate has handed a great example very quickly in this flotilla affair and the conclusion is clear - Mike Rivero is wholly inconsistent and his inconsistency reveals a deep and active anti-semitism.

In that previous post I quoted Rivero, and it's worth doing so again (My comments appear in RED)

Mike Rivero: 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 all Rivero's bloviating about Israel means nothing unless America comes on-board? Rivero hardly treats them the same.]

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. [Somehow that doesn't matter when considering Israel which is an American ally. Korean and Iranian alliances with China are legitimate, Israel's alliances with USA are not?]

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. [Of course, Rivero takes the same realpolitik attitude to Israel for whom America is the main trade partner? No - thought not.]

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.

Clearly, as America is ostensibly attempting to get peace-talks going between Israel and Hamas/PA, it is doing exactly what Rivero suggests it do in the case of North Korea. Only that isn't good enough - Rivero's antisemitism so distorts his vision that he wants America to wage war with its Israeli ally rather than pursue peace (which it is doing)....and he wants America to make peace with an aggressive, nuclear-capable enemy which is threatening another of America's allies. Mad.