The "rebels" in Misrata in Libya have driven out the entire Black population of the city, according to a chilling story in The Wall Street Journal today under the headline Libya City Torn by Tribal Feud."
The "rebels" now eye the city of Tawergha, 25 miles away, and vow to cleanse it of all Black people once they seize the city. Isn't this the perfect definition of the term "genocide"?
According to The Journal's article, the "rebels" refer to themselves as "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." The Journal quotes a rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous saying, of Black Libyans, "They should pack up," and that "Tawergha no longer exists, only Mistrata."
You won't read this kind of article in The New York Times, which has become as journalistically corrupt and as compromised as the old PRAVDA, during the Soviet era. This editorial page has been insisting since the beginning of the Libya conflict that the "rebels" embraced racism and used the allegation that Muammar al-Quathafi had employed mercenaries from other African countries as a pretext to massacre Black Libyans.
The evidence of public lynching of Black people are readily available online through simple Google or YouTube searches, even though The New York Times has completely ignored this major story. Does anyone believe that if people of African descent controlled the editorials in The New York Times or even the news pages that such a huge and damning story would be ignored?
If the case were reversed and Black Libyans were committing ethnic cleansing against non-Black Libyans, does anyone believe that the people who now control the editorials or the news pages at The New York Times would ignore such a story? Evidently, it doesn't much bother the sages at The Times that Black Libyans and specifically being targeted for liquidation because of their skin color.
Instead The New York Times is busy, as in a recent editorial boasting of its support for NATO's bombing campaign, which this week alone is reported to have killed 20 civilians. The Times has also ignored Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s call that the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigate NATO commanders on possible war crimes in connection to Libyan civilians killed.
The Times can't write about the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans and migrants from other African countries because it would diminish the reputation of the "rebels" who the Times have fully embraced, even after the ICC also reported that they too have committed war crimes. Instead, The Times is comfortable with the simplistic narrative: "al-Quathafi bad," and "rebels good," regardless of the fact that The Wall Street Journal also reported that the rebels are being trained by former al-Qaeda leaders who were released from U.S. custody on Guantanamo Bay.
The Times also has totally ignored the African Union (AU) peace plan, which actually calls for a ceasefire, negotiations for a constitution, and democratic elections, all to be monitored by the International community.
So what can one say about the Times for ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans by the "rebels" in Mistrata, with the help of NATO? Does this make The New York Times culpable of the ethnic cleansing, since the newspaper not only deliberately ignores the story, but also falsely depicts the "rebels" as Libya's saviors?
Call The New York Times at (212) 556-1234 and ask for the Foreign Desk editor--ask him why his newspaper is not reporting on the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans.