You have to marvel at the ease with which the choreographed puppets of international NGOs can switch and spin between their targets in their ballet of vindictiveness. If there was a global award for hypocrisy – and there should be – you can bet that Amnesty International would always be in the frame to win it. Their outrage over President Duterte’s ‘Hitler comment’ – that he’d be happy to exterminate 3 million illegal drugs traders and users – is a stellar performance and ensures it gets the nomination. But first, let’s look at what Duterte was actually saying.
This was not about condemning the Jewish people or downplaying the horrors of the Holocaust – in fact, the reverse; it was being used as an illusion to show the scale of where he is prepared to go in order to rid the Philippines of a drugs scourge which is at pandemic levels. And that’s where the analogy ends. In other words, he was alluding to the scale of the Holocaust as the most graphic image of suppression in contemporary history. And it was issued as an unembellished warning to the illegal-drugs industry that is turning the Philippines into a facsimile of the Narcotics Republic of Colombia. Far from diminishing the Holocaust, he was invoking it as the ultimate metaphor for extermination.
Of course, Amnesty International knows that full well, but that doesn’t suit the narrative of its agenda – which basically is regime change in the Philippines. They would like to have failed Liberal Party presidential candidate, Manuel “Mar” Araneta Roxas II, in charge. They could do business with “Mar”. He’d be far more obedient.
But now let’s look at Amnesty International’s recent track record when it comes to dealing with the Jewish issue. In 2010, its Finnish executive director, Frank Johansson, described Israel as “a scumbag state”. No apology. In 2011 and 2012, it supported speaking events organised by anti-Israel interests. Among those taking part was Palestinian activist, Abdel Bari Atwan, who said he would “dance with delight” in London’s Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel. No condemnation of him.
In a Tweet in 2014, Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty’s UK campaign manager, compared Israel to ISIS – hashtag #JSIL (Jewish State of the Levant) – a matter which, according to Amnesty, would be investigated internally. If it did, it kept its conclusions internally also. But that wasn’t Benedict’s only anti-Jewish Tweet. In 2012 he made derogatory Tweets about three members of the Israeli parliament, implying that they were warmongers who wanted to bomb Gaza into oblivion. Amnesty’s response? “The Tweet in question was ill advised and had the potential to be offensive and inflammatory but was not racist or anti-Semitic”.
Well, what a pity it didn’t apply the same measured reasoning when it came to Duterte’s comment. But then this illustrates the inherent hypocrisy by which Amnesty International operates. On the one hand it champions the cause of the terrorist organisation, Hamas, and its state backer, Iran – they both want to “wipe Israel off the map” – while stifling any criticism of them. And so, when protestors were being killed on the streets of the Iranian capital, Teheran, during mass protests in 2011 and 2012, Amnesty International responded with this …
“[The Iranian authorities] should realise that healthy debate on issues of fundamental importance to people’s lives informs – not threatens – policymakers, and that the young, with their boundless energy and optimism are the source of the future solutions to the many pressing problems our planet faces. The Iranian authorities must learn to respect and nurture debate, not seek to close it down”.
How’s that for a hard-hitting condemnation from a human rights organisation? They might have been reproaching a public-parks attendant for chastising a bunch of over-exuberant youths who’d ignored a “Keep off the Grass” sign. Furthermore, how different is it to its statements on Duterte?
Was Duterte’s comment ill-advised? Most definitely Yes – and particularly given the agendas that are being pursued against him. He doesn’t need to give them any ammunition; they’ll make their own. Of course, we should also not lose sight of the fact that the Philippine president was not the first to invoke the name of Hitler. For months now, the mainstream media and the NGOs have been drawing direct comparisons between Duterte and Nazi Germany’s Führer. But he’s also been likened to every other instantly recallable crazed demagogue from Vlad the Impaler to Pol Pot. They’re all in here: Limitless Left lunacy of the crass media. We urge you to read that if you haven’t already.
The fact is that – unlike Amnesty International – there is absolutely nothing in Duterte’s past that even remotely suggests he is anti-Semitic, much less anti the State of Israel, or that he has ever remotely denied the Holocaust, or supported anyone who has.
Furthermore, if he had truly displayed any of the Nazi traits of which he is accused, it would be extremely unlikely that the Israeli Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (ICCP) would be looking to boost bi-lateral trade and other relations with the Duterte administration. And yet the ICCP’s president, Itamar Geo, said recently that his organisation is seeking to double trade between the two countries. In fact, ICCP’s 2016-17 Roadmap to Success “focuses on awareness and promotion of the Philippines as a good investment and tourism destination”. How does Amnesty square that circle?
Geo also made these remarks: “At the end of the day it’s what you do not what you say. [Duterte is] surrounded by good advisers. I think he’s open minded. He’s a very nice and charismatic guy. I think this guy is here to do right and we’re here to support him and his government”.
What is also noteworthy is that while the German Foreign Ministry shot into Holocaust-defence mode, summoning the Philippine ambassador to explain his president’s statement which it described as “totally unacceptable,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry referred to it as “an unfortunate expression,” and was sure President Duterte would take the opportunity to clarify his remarks, which he later did. But then the European Union’s leader country has a very different agenda for the Philippines than the government in Jerusalem.