The Darfur Issue Has Been Driven by the Pro-Zionist Lobby

Written by

in

Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, writes at the Guardian’s comment-is-free site about that “never again”, and how hollow it sounds in the light of what’s happening in Darfur:

There’s a genocide going on in Darfur. That much is widely accepted. And although there is a lot of room for disagreement about what, exactly, to do about it, I’m rather puzzled at the large number of people who seem to think that no one should do anything at all. […]

[T]he legitimacy of the United Nations and the entire post-second world war international apparatus was in large part based on that “never again” oath. Given that no one seems willing to follow up on that, what role remains for these organisations? And given that they’ve failed at perhaps their most important mission, how can they be trusted with any others?

If you have a strong stomach, you might feel like looking at the comments.

Comments

  1. Courtney Hamilton Avatar

    I have a major problem with Glenn Reynolds analysis of events in western Sudan – firstly, his assumption that there is ‘genocide going on in Darfur’ is in fact wrong.
    There is certainly lots of claims that ‘genocide’ is unfoldiing in Darfur, but no hard evidence. The Washington Post article that Reynold’s refers to, fails to come up with any solid evidence that ‘genocide’ is happening in Darfur – we basically have to take their word for it.
    Both the UN, and the EU sent special ‘genocide’ investigation missions to Darfur in 2004 and 2005, neither organisations found any evidence of ‘genocide’, yet Reynold’s is insisting that thier wrong by proclaiming that the Sudanese government are the architects of a new ‘genocide’.
    I’m not sure where this fits in with your idea that the issue of Darfur has been somehow hijacked by ‘pro-Zionists’ activists (which I find quite strange), if anything, it’s the pro-war ‘humanitarian’ interventionists that have singled out Darfur for special attention. Why Darfur? There are worse things happening in the Congo right now, or even in Uganda.
    As one of the comments on CIF mentioned, why should we support the interventionists when 1) they haven’t got a clue as to what’s going on in Darfur, and 2) they haven’t got a clue of what should happen after an intervention that could see the fall of the Sudanese government – no-one has mentioned what the consequences are of intervention.
    I suppose when the military intervention goes pear-shaped (as it certainly will do), they can just blame the mess on those foolish Africans can’t they?

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    You misunderstand me if you think the title of this post reflects my thinking. I’m quoting one of the comments – a not untypical one – on Glenn Reynolds’ piece. And I find it strange how determined so many are – like yourself – to play down the seriousness of what’s happening in Darfur.
    For more delightful commentary, courtesy of comment-is-free, see todays’s article by Maureen Lipman, where she mentions Darfur: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1880231,00.html
    “Maureen Lipman is a disgusting, dangerous racist and Zionist propagandist”, is pretty much par for the course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *