The UN, once envisioned as a body for justice and peace, has too often become an arena for self-interest and impunity. From child sex abuse scandals to corruption via lobbyists, its record of accountability is appalling. In fact, the UN frequently shields perpetrators rather than exposing them.
Consider this: Iran, a nation that executes people for minor “moral crimes,” employs morality police who beat women to death, and carries out public lynchings, sits on the UN Human Rights Council. How can such a system be trusted to fairly assess human rights concerns in Israel or anywhere else?
Facts Over Propaganda
To understand what is really happening in Gaza, people must go to the source. That means listening to credible military analysts, not corrupt institutions repeating second-hand reports from Hamas.
If the IDF had truly set out to carry out genocide, it would have been obvious and overwhelming. The scale and speed of such an operation would leave no room for doubt. Yet this is not the case. Instead, Israel has conducted military operations under unimaginably difficult circumstances, facing a combat environment where Hamas has deliberately embedded weapons and command centers inside civilian areas: mosques, schools, hospitals and even children’s bedrooms.
If extermination were the objective, Gaza’s population would not have grown since October 7. The numbers simply do not support the genocide narrative.
Further, the so-called Gaza Ministry of Health, run by Hamas, cannot be treated as a credible source. Its figures often include deaths from natural causes, inflate numbers, and in some cases list the same individuals multiple times.
Humanitarian Aid and Hypocrisy
Gaza receives more humanitarian assistance than any conflict zone in modern history. Billions in aid continue to flow in, even as genuine genocides elsewhere in the world are met with silence from the international community.
Meanwhile, Hamas and elements within the Palestinian Authority sustain violence through policies such as the “pay-to-slay” system, rewarding families of terrorists who attack Jews. This entrenches violence and undermines any chance for peace.
War Is Tragic, But Words Matter
War is always a tragedy. Civilian suffering in Gaza is real, painful and undeniable. But tragedy is not genocide. Labeling it as such dilutes the meaning of the word and distracts from real genocides occurring elsewhere.
If we are serious about justice, we must start by asking hard questions. Who launched the October 7 attacks? Who continues to hold Israeli hostages? Who hides behind their own civilians as human shields?
The answer is not Israel. Responsibility lies squarely with Hamas and the actors who profit from endless conflict.
The Path Forward
Israel remains the only true democracy in the Middle East, and it deserves to be defended from blood libels disguised as human rights advocacy. That does not mean Israel should be free from scrutiny, but criticism must be rooted in facts, not propaganda.
As one respected military analyst recently put it: “I don’t mind if people don’t want war, but not wanting facts is a whole other thing.”
It is time to stop scapegoating Israel and start holding accountable those who instigate terror, use civilians as shields, and perpetuate this cycle of violence. Only then can we hope for a future where peace is possible.
Watch this important analysis here: WATCH MILITARY ANALYST JOHN SPENCER IV HERE
Rire Norman is a New Zealander, who now lives in Australia, where she studied journalism, built a career in the music industry, and expanded her work into grassroots politics. This blog was sourced from her Substack HERE.
8 comments:
A rare piece of journalistic excellence logically exposing the propaganda flowing from the UN, tea towel wearing politicians and the corrupt MSM. The deluded promoting a Palestinian State will quick find themselves on the wrong side of history.
As you do, I entered Paper Plus (a NZ National Book seller) and on a book rack, facing the door was this book -
The Israeli - Palestinian Conflict (Hodder Education GB) first published 2007 and recently updated 2024 - Author Stewart Ross.
I would recommend that readers seek, buy & read.
Palestine -
- an issue that has been ongoing since 1948.
- with so-called Elections, that were not popular, and had a Govt elected, that immediately went into "hiding" due the "take over" of Gaza by Hamas. Their president, was elected for 4 years, has been there 20 years, and done nothing that can be considered as a practical solution. Last known address Qatar.
- Hamas, an ideology, a terrorist group of some years in longevity, financially backed by Iran, that has since it "placed the collective hand of terrorism " particularly over the people, dominate in such away that has similarities to the SS & GESTAPO of Germany 1930's to 1945.
- Hamas, who do not want any peaceful solution, nor a 2 State solution - the agenda is - "destroy Israel". A dogma promoted by Iran.
- Hamas, who have their leadership in Qatar, and are protected by the leadership of that Nation.
- the UN within the borders, UNRA, but like everything that they have already done - "think wet dish cloth", and have had their services "managed" by Hamas.
This article, a pointed opinion that has relevance, but the pity of it, most New Zealander's will not get read, evaluate, debate then understand.
Such an opinion piece as this, would 'bring out" the narcissist element that New Zealand seems to have "developed".
All else being equal, I would back Israel against any group prone to fundamentalist Islam every time. But all is not equal is it? Going back to the very foundations of Israel and the fundamentalist Zionist movement, we have a collision course of "apocalypticists" hell bent on the total destruction of the other. One side holds greater military power and the other is subjected to greater slaughter of innocents. I see very little or no reasonable proposals for this to be resolved, but I also don't see taking sides on this issue as reasonable anymore either.
In this complex issue ( as in others) , facts do not matter for the woke.
"The United Nations has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. But before we accept such a grave charge, we must ask: what do the facts actually say?"
Can we question all claims of genocide, or just some of them? Can we always demand to know what the facts tell us?
As everyone knows, the Jews constantly accuse the Nazis of attempting to genocide them. In fact, this claim is at least in part the foundation for Israel's very existence, and forms the foundation of the entire Western political dystem post -1945. Yet insist on the presentation of facts and evidence to support this grave charge, and you can be ostracized from society. At once we're told that it's the most certain of historical facts, but also that it is such a fragile topic that allowing any critique and analysis of the claim endangers Jews. Or something. How, exactly, it is never quite stated. But we can infer where the danger of critique lies.
Here, we have another claim of genocide, but it gets the opposite treatment. Why is it that some claims of genocide apparently require little hard proof at all and even come with life affecting repercussions simply for asking questions, while in other cases, we are invited to ask all the questions we like and to not believe what our lying eyes tell us whenever we care to look at the situation in Gaza?
"If the IDF had truly set out to carry out genocide, it would have been obvious and overwhelming. The scale and speed of such an operation would leave no room for doubt."
Yeah. And that's kind of the whole point really. Even the Kosher Kool Aid drinking Zionist zealots would be at a loss to explain away Israel just dropping its llegal nukes on Gaza.
Such statements, like those exaggerations on 'Climate' make the UN lose enormous credibility. Genocide is what the Germans committed on the Jews in WW2 or, more locally, what two of our Maori tribes did to the Moriori in the Chathams. While Israel (and a significant part of the enlightened world) justifiably wants rid of the likes of Hamas, that's a long shot short of genocide.
Having read the above article, I thought I’d browse The Guardian’s website, you know — the section they misnamed New Zealand Aotearoa?
This is my take on what I found:
Eva Corlett’s report on New Zealand’s decision not to recognise Palestinian statehood reads at first like straightforward news.
But examined closely, it shows hallmarks of advocacy-oriented journalism: selective sourcing, moralised framing, and emphasis on outrage over nuance.
Corlett highlights critics wherever she can: former Prime Minister Helen Clark, opposition parties, Palestinian activists, and Anglican and Catholic clergy chaining themselves to ministers’ offices. The government’s statements—by Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon—are presented perfunctorily, and the reasoning behind their decision (risk of complicating a ceasefire, Hamas control of Gaza, and uncertain next steps) is treated almost as an aside.
From one perspective, this is ideologically guided reporting: comments are selected to fit a narrative, while counter balance is downplayed or omitted.
For instance, Stuff’s informal poll at 6pm, shows that 57% of New Zealanders opposed recognition, with “ayes” trailing consistently throughout the day. This public opinion detail does not appear in Corlett’s coverage, which gives the impression that opposition to the government is unanimous. Neither does any nz Jewish perspective.
George Orwell might describe it as propaganda by omission: the story constructs a moral hierarchy in which critics are virtuous and the government is failing. Emotional staging—clergy chaining themselves, Auckland protests, declarations of “stain” and “embarrassment”—replaces careful analysis and shapes readers’ perception more than facts do.
Corlett’s framing tends to present the story as a failure of morality rather than a complex foreign policy decision.
Recognition of a state amidst ongoing conflict is a nuanced calculation; yet in the story, New Zealand is described as “on the wrong side of history” and an “embarrassment,” while ministerial reasoning is downplayed.
The selection of quotes, anecdotes, and protests reinforces the impression that the government is failing while critics are morally elevated. Complexity, counter-evidence, and public opinion are largely absent.
The style is consistent with msm reporting in New Zealand: selective sourcing, ideological framing, and heightened moral theatre.
Such an approach should be read as commentary and framing, not as a comprehensive account of policy or public sentiment.
Post a Comment