It is almost like a God send to further illustrate Western double-standards. The coup in Honduras just makes my point for me: Western governments and media have no lofty principles upon which they either express, ignore or oppose demonstrations against government. It is never about freedom and liberty. Instead, it is all about whether governments serve declared Western interests.

[AP.]

If a protests break out against a government critical of the West, like Iran, then the demonstrators are heroes deserving of unconditional support. If protesters take to the streets against a authoritarian client regime of the United States, then the Western media does one of two things: ignore the protest or such malign the demonstrators [or pretend that there is no clear right or wrong in the clash between demonstrators and the dictatorship.] This is not to say the Iranian protesters are not heroes, but, simply, to point the hypocrisy of Western governments and the mainstream media. If one is going to abandon any pretense of impartiality as a journalist and cheer on Iranians against an anti-West government, then should be also be ready to support all movements for democracy. But would CNN support a youth movement against the U.S. client, Israel supporting dictator Mubarak? Probably not. Mubarak just isn’t seen as a villein like Ahmadinejad, and that is what it comes down to. The nobility of the demonstrators is irrelevant. Before I move on to the Honduras coup, I wanted to include this piece by Max Blumenthal nothing the hypocrisy of the U.S. media [and I emphasize U.S., because in this case the rest of the Western media actually does a good job] when it comes to Iran and the Palestinians:

For over a week, major American news outlets have broadcast on a virtual loop the video of the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, an unarmed 26-year-old Iranian woman, by Iranian security services. . . .

When the mainstream American press chose to broadcast the graphic video — as moving as the footage is, it is difficult to watch — it made a commendable decision that nonetheless highlighted its hypocritical attitude towards Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation on a daily basis, and who often meet the same fate as Neda.

Every week, in the Palestinian cities of Bi’lin and Ni’ilin, local residents demonstrate beside international and Israeli solidarity activists for their basic human rights. The Israeli separation wall has been constructed through the heart of their communities, cutting them off permanently from farmland they have worked for generations. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the path of the wall was illegal, but construction continued unabated. When the demonstrators mobilize non-violently to stop the wall’s construction — to demand that the rule of law be honored — the Israeli army has responded with massive force, killing, maiming, and brutalizing them on a consistent basis. . . .

Yet when Palestinians employ direct action tactics to protest Israeli oppression, and when Israeli forces respond with wanton brutality, they are ignored by the US media, even when footage is already available through online sources. It seems they can only generate media when they resort to violence, a dynamic the Israeli government obviously welcomes. Perhaps it’s no wonder only 6% of Americans declared in a recent poll that the US should stand behind the Palestinians in Middle East peace talks. The legitimacy of their struggle is denied no matter how they conduct it.

I will not add to Blumenthal’s eloquence on Palestine, but will instead move to Honduras.

What happened in Honduras was nothing but the highest violation of democratic order. The military overthrew a democratically-elected government because it objected to the president alignment with Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez. These matters are not for the military to decide. Under a democratic government, the army stays clear of political interference and, instead, directs attention exclusively to defending the nation. It is up to voters, not generals, to decide whether leaders should be booted out of office for decisions and alliances made during their tenure.

Because the issue is so clear cut and the military junta government installed so undemocratic, one would expect unequivocal Western condemnation of the coup and support for the protesters right now on the streets of Honduras. But, alas, that predictable is not the case. Western pundits have failed to strongly condemn, if issue any words, the coup.

And the protesters have received scant attention let along support. These protesters are marching not for an alliance with Hugo Chavez but for the restoration of a democratic mandate. Their cause is not less noble than that of the Iranian opposition [and their president did not call for a return to the teachings of Khomeini]. These protesters are having to confront a military dictatorship that has censored the press and even fired bullets at demonstrators. And, yet, where is the Western media? Nowhere to be found because the president overthrown wasn’t the strongest ally of the United States in Latin America. Because of his alliance with Chavez it is somehow deemed acceptable to overthrow a democratic president. Where Columbia’s president overthrown there would be loud condemnation and even calls for U.S. interference to restore him in the U.S. media.

These are their standards. So next time do not be fooled by the faux tears and faux words of sympathy. Nota bene.