UN, UNRWA, UNESCO & WHO Openly Support Hamas Terrorism v Israel

“The Geneva Conventions dictates that a hospital can lose its protected status if an armed group uses the hospital to carry out ‘acts harmful to the enemy,’” wrote legal analyst Mor Hogeg.

‘Utter Disgrace’ — W.H.O. Chief Slammed over ‘Abhorrent’ Gaza Hospital Post Ignoring Hamas’ Terror HQ Within

The United Nations World Health Organization (W.H.O.) chief is facing backlash after publishing an “abhorrent” post effectively blaming Israel for turning Gaza’s Shifa hospital into a “battlefield,” while ignoring Hamas’s takeover of the facility and use of it as a terror base — the very reason for Israel’s operating there.

Following attacks from the hospital, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spent roughly two weeks neutralizing approximately 200 terrorists and detaining around 500 at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, remarkably managing to do so without civilian casualties or endangering any medical staff or patients.

On Sunday, the IDF released photographic evidence of an extensive arsenal hidden within the hospital’s maternity ward, amidst their ongoing anti-terror operations.

The IDF had previously evacuated the hospital in November, uncovering numerous terror tunnels. However, terrorists reoccupied and resumed operations from the medical facility, blatantly contravening international humanitarian norms.

On Monday, W.H.O. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus shared an image of Shifa’s damaged complex, remarking that “hospitals must be respected and protected; they must not be used as battlefields.”

In response, many took to social media to call out the public health official for having chosen to “cover for terrorists.”

“The World Health Organization couldn’t find evidence of COVID origins in Wuhan and can’t find evidence of Hamas at Shifa,” wrote Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Joni Ernst (R-IA), co-chair of the Abraham Accords Caucus and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Who needs WHO?” she added.

Former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy noted that when hospitals are “abused for military purposes, like Hamas did using Shifa as a stronghold,” they cannot “give terrorists immunity.”

“The hospital was full of Hamas terrorists and weapons and they were shooting from inside the complex,” wrote former Trump administration U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman. “There was no ‘Israeli siege,’ just a very effective and humane Israeli anti-terror operation.”

“You had zero credibility before this statement and your record remains intact,” he added.  More here

Leslie Kajomovitz
 
@lkajomovitz
 
The Hypocrisy of Condemning Israel’s Media Law Amidst the recent controversy surrounding Israel’s new law that could lead to the shutdown of Al Jazeera offices in the country, it’s essential to address the glaring hypocrisy in the criticism directed towards Israel. The selective amnesia displayed by some critics is evident when we examine similar actions taken by other nations in response to media outlets deemed propagandistic or harmful. Just over two years ago, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union made the decision to ban Russia Today and Sputnik media. Similarly, the United Kingdom also banned Russia Today during that period.
 
These actions were taken to combat disinformation and propaganda disseminated by these media coming out of the Kremlin. However, the absurdity arises when individuals and organizations condemn Israel for considering measures against Al Jazeera while conveniently ignoring or downplaying similar actions taken by other countries.
 
This double standard is not only unfair but also indicative of a biased approach that unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. It is crucial to emphasize that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to regulate its media landscape and address concerns regarding biased or inflammatory reporting. The decision to potentially shut down Al Jazeera offices should be viewed within the context of national security and media integrity, rather than through a lens of selective outrage. Moreover, numerous pieces of evidence point to Al Jazeera’s use for Hamas propaganda, spreading misinformation, and airing unverified stories. This adds another layer of complexity to the discussion, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to media regulation that considers the impact of biased reporting on national security and public perception. Those who confront Israel on this issue should first take a look at their own history and acknowledge the actions taken by their respective countries in similar circumstances. Holding Israel to a higher standard while turning a blind eye to similar actions elsewhere is not only hypocritical but also undermines the principles of fairness and objectivity.
 
As discussions surrounding media freedom and regulation continue, it is imperative to approach these matters with nuance, transparency, and a commitment to upholding democratic values without succumbing to double standards or political biases. Israel’s actions should be evaluated within a broader global context, rather than subjected to unfair scrutiny based on selective memory and biased narratives.
 
 
1,775
Views