Condemnation vs. Regret

I saw this on PULSE and thought it was clever:

This cartoon does make a very valid point, however, and it's one that P first brought up: Diplomats were practically tripping over each other in the rush to condemn North Korea's apparent sinking of a South Korean ship, yet there has been a very conspicuous absence of outright condemnation for Israel's deadly attack on a humanitarian aid convoy from either Canada or the United States.

Torpedo sinks military vessel: condemnation. Commandos kill activists: regret. Oh well, if you replace 'North Korea' with 'Israel' in the quotes below you can at least pretend as if there is some semblance of order in the world:

• "Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations," Harper said. [...] He said he expected "measures appropriate to the gravity of the situation" to be undertaken by the UN security council.

• "Canada strongly condemns this violent act of aggression by the North Korean regime, which has once again demonstrated reckless and unacceptable behaviour," Cannon said.

• "We agree that North Korea must stop its provocative behavior, halt its policy of threats of belligerence towards its neighbors, and take irreversible steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law," [Clinton] said. [...] "I think it is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences.  We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community.  So we will determine our best options moving forward and send a clear, unmistakable message to North Korea regarding the international community's and its neighbors' concerns about its behavior," she said.

Other interesting things in today's news:

• Palestinian trade unionists call on dockworkers to block Israeli trade