The protesters in Iran defying the murdering, fanatical regime of undemocratic mullahs are courageous youth worthy of our support. But let us be clear, Western nations and their uncritical media which follow their government dictates are not true champions of freedom.

The only reason Republican politicians, who only days ago were arguing for bombing these same Iranians, are expressing support for the demonstrators is because the latter are standing up against an anti-American, anti-Israeli regime.

Reuters.

This gulling image was taken to new heights with Israeli far-right Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu praising Iranians on Meet the Press [that is the last thing these people need is an Israeli bigoted extremist claiming to be their ally].

The hypocrisy here is that if similar demonstrations were to take place against an American client regime in the Middle East, Western politicians would express concern, the media would be cautious [at best], and Western governments may even work behind the scenes to obstruct such protests. Can you image how the Western world would react if the Saudi royal family was threatened by a coup? They would fear that a democratic regime in Saudi Arabia may not be so submissive to Western interests in oil production. It is very unlikely that Republicans would push for a resolution in support of Saudi youth in such a scenario. And U.S. arms may be delivered to but down revolt.

Likewise if the Jordanian or Egyptian regimes were threatened. The youth would be demonized as “Islamists” if street protests ever happened. So this is not about standing up for courageous youth and freedom, this is about selective support. Pro-Western dictators are good and deserve American material support in suppressing their people while anti-Western regimes are bad and those who stand against them are the champions of freedom is the rule of Western governments and media.

And look at how the U.S. media covers the Iran demonstrations:

EDITORS’ NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.

Did the Washington Post, a cadre of neo-conservatism, inform American readers during its reporting on Gaza that the Israeli government banned Western journalists from Gaza during operations? No, of course it didn’t. The media only cares to write about censorship when the government doing the censoring is one that is confrontational to the West.

This same article then offers this novelty:

In an act fraught with symbolic significance, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the mausoleum of the father of Iran’s Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, while unrest continued across Tehran in defiance of a ban on demonstrations.

You see suicide bombers who are aligned with the West, supposedly, are romantic and their acts have symbolism. While Palestinian suicide bombers are ruthless killers whose actions have no connectivity to their oppression.

Personally, I think all suicide bombers, regardless of the nobility of their cause, are sinners and murders. But I, unlike the Post, have standards.

This type of double-standard writing reminded me of the U.S. media’s justification of Tibetan rioters’ violence during March 2008. Tibetans rioted and looted the shops of innocent Chinese merchants, yet the U.S. media rationalized such indiscriminate violence by stating that Tibetans suffer under occupation and feel oppressed. What would the U.S. media say if Palestinians behaved in akin fashion? We don’t have to guess, we know what they would say: terrorists, bloodthirsty, ect... Tibetan violence is understood within the context of Chinese occupation of the country, yet Palestinians violent resistance is never, even against Israeli occupation troops, understood through the same lens even though Palestinians suffer more under Israeli occupation than the people of Tibet. Tibetans do not confront Chinese checkpoints every few miles and Chinese is not encroaching on Tibet by building Chinese-only settlements and Chinese-only roads that slice up the territory into cantons of open-air prisons. Or an Apartheid Wall. The people in Tibet are relatively free and are not killed routinely like the Palestinians. But for the racists Westerners, there are people whose cause is fashionable and then there are “the other”.

Here are some headlines from the NY Times relating to Tibet that never would have been crafted in this language were the Palestinians in question:

Report Says Valid Grievances at Root of Tibet Unrest

- The Palestinians have no valid grievances against Israel and if you say so then you’re an anti-Semite.

Grim Tales Describing Hard Times in Tibet

- Palestinian life is carefree and relaxed, and filled with tables of food.

China Gives 6 American Protesters 10-Day Detentions

5 Americans Are Arrested for Protest in Beijing

- American have been killed, several injured and arrested by Israeli occupation troops yet when do you read about that in the mainstream American press?

Fed Up With Peace

- For the record, Kristof is one of the better columnists at the Times, but that is all relatively. I have never read him blaming the failures of the peace process that produced only more illegal Jewish settlers on Palestinian land as the cause of Palestinian discontent.

New Museum Offers the Official Line on Tibet

- But there are no Israeli museums that offer “official line” on Palestine.

Don’t Know Much About Tibetan History

- Do Israelis know Palestinian history? Do they know about the Nakba?

Speak Out on Tibet

- This was a Times editorial during the riots. The subtitle was: “China’s authoritarianism is backfiring, fueling the resentment that exploded in Lhasa and radicalizing Tibetans.” On the other hand, the Times believes Israeli authoritarianism is cute and benign, that “radical Islam” is what is radicalizing Palestinians and that Palestinians are just resentful that Israelis have better clothes.

Chinese Nationalism Fuels Tibet Crackdown

- Jewish nationalism, on the other hand, never fuels a crackdown on Palestinians advocating their rights.

Simmering Resentments Led to Tibetan Backlash

- Palestinian backlash, on the other hand, is not due to the resentment of occupation but simply because Palestinians are savage terrorists.

Tibetans See Threat to Their Culture in Chinese Spending

- Threats to Tibetan culture receive more sensitivity than threats to Palestinian livelihood and actually lives.

And, finally, the Holy Grail of headlines [this was an editorial by the board] that are written for Tibet but never Palestine:

China Terrorizes Tibet