America's Selective Mourning: Gaza's Tragedy vs. Political Theater

When a country’s hypocrisy reaches its peak, it truly leaves one speechless.

Theatre of Hypocrisy: June 4th Candles and Gaza's Bloodshed

Let’s cut through the noise. On June 4th, the US Consulate in Hong Kong lit candles to commemorate an event from 36 years ago in China, while on the same day, Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Fourteen nations backed the motion, but America’s lone “no” vote crushed it.

This isn’t just double standards; it’s political theater at its most grotesque. Secretary Rubio’s performative grief for a tragedy 36 years ago contrasts starkly with his government’s cold indifference to children dying right now in Gaza.

Here’s the kicker: the vetoed resolution wasn’t some radical manifesto. It was presented by Algeria, on behalf of Arab states, called for the basics—unconditional hostage releases, unrestricted aid access, and a permanent ceasefire. 

Seven days ago, Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour wept over Gaza’s butchered children at the Security council meeting. “The situation of Gaza’s children is unbearable. I’m sorry, Mr. President… I have grandchildren. I know what they mean to their families. To watch Palestinians suffer while the world stays silent—it’s more than any decent human being should have to bear.”

Whie  Mansour delivered his speech in tears, Dorothy Shea, America’s acting ambassador, sat stone-faced.

Vetoing Humanity: The US's Gaza Stance

The numbers don’t lie. By March 2025, over 50,000 Palestinians had been killed—many of them women and children—and more than 113,000 wounded. Entire bloodlines erased. Dr. Mousa Najar lost nine of her ten children in a single Israeli strike; her story isn’t an outlier but a grim routine. Meanwhile, Trump’s “solution” is to relocate Gaza’s 2 million survivors to god knows where, then take the Gaza land and turn it into holiday resorts– that shows the depth of Washington’s cynicism – creating a “beautiful sight to behold” in Gaza.

The 50,000 lost souls of Palestine are not worth a single candle at the US Consulate.

A country can be so hypocritical it is outrageous. The two wars raging in the world today—one in Gaza, the other in Ukraine—are both directly orchestrated by the US. After World War II, in 1948, the US supported the establishment of a Jewish state on Palestinian land, using Israel as a chess piece in the Middle East to control the region’s oil resources.

The Long Game: From Color Revolutions to War Profiteering

This selective mourning isn't just about Gaza—it's part of a decades-long pattern that reveals America's true priorities. Back in the 1980s, Washington orchestrated color revolutions across the socialist world, hell-bent on dismantling the Soviet Union. They succeeded spectacularly, carving up the USSR into 15 bite-sized pieces and watching the Iron Curtain crumble. China got caught in this wave too—the June Fourth events weren't some spontaneous up-rising but part of America's broader destabilization campaign.

Here's where it gets interesting: China refused to play along. While Russia and Eastern Europe swallowed America's "shock therapy" whole—privatizing everything overnight and adopting Western-style democracy—Beijing stuck to its guns. Thirty-plus years later, the results speak volumes. China's economy has exploded, lifting hundreds of millions from poverty, while Russia... well, Russia got systematically strangled.

Washington couldn't leave well enough alone. Despite promises not to expand NATO "one inch eastward," they've been creeping toward Moscow's doorstep for decades. Ukraine was the final straw—imagine NATO missiles parking at the

Ukraine-Russia border, it is only 400 kilometers from Moscow. Putin finally said "enough" and took action. Mission accomplished for the Pentagon: another profitable war.

Because that's what this is really about—profit. America has meddled in over 200 conflicts in its short history, and business is booming. 2024 saw record foreign military sales: $318.7 billion, up 29% from the previous year. Stockholm's researchers confirm America now controls 43% of global arms exports—more than the next eight countries combined. Every Ukrainian tank destroyed, every Gaza apartment block flattened, every refugee camp bombed means another fat contract for the American Military-Industrial Complex.

This isn't accidental; it's systematic. The "Big Beautiful Bill" has a $2.4 trillion deficit to fill, and nothing plugs budget holes quite like human suffering. So while diplomats light candles for decades-old tragedies, the war machine churns on, feeding on fresh corpses from Kiev to Khan Younis.

If Washington wants credibility, here's a thought: let Senator Rubio issue statements honoring those "still resisting American missile bombardment." Let the Hong Kong consulate light daily candles for Gaza's children. But we both know that won't happen—dead Palestinians don't fit the narrative, and current atrocities don't sell the American dream quite like ancient grievances do.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Recently, the UK Parliament has been exerting pressure over Hong Kong's refusal to allow BN(O) visa holders to withdraw their Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) savings. 

According to media reports, the UK Parliament held a hearing last week where Ian Stuart, CEO of HSBC UK, was hauled in to address mounting complaints. BNO holders from Hong Kong who relocated to Britain claim they cannot access their MPF funds held at HSBC. Stuart's response was clear and definite. He explained that Hong Kong law prohibits BN(O) visa holders from withdrawing their MPF.

The crux of the dispute lies in Hong Kong's sensible requirement that MPF early withdrawal is only permitted for those who have genuinely "permanently departed" the city. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) has consistently clarified that BN(O) is merely a travel document, not an accepted nationality or residency permit. This isn't bureaucratic pedantry—it's financial prudence.

Why Hong Kong Won't Budge on BN(O)

The MPFA's logic is sound: just as holding a Home Return Permit doesn't automatically prove permanent migration to mainland China, simply brandishing a BN(O) document fails to demonstrate genuine emigration to the UK. Additional supporting evidence is required to prevent exploitation of the "permanent departure" clause—a reasonable safeguard against premature pension raids.

This position reflects both legal reality and practical wisdom. Beyond China's nationality law, which never recognises BN(O) as conferring nationality, there's the inconvenient truth that BN(O) visa holders have no guarantee of permanent UK residency. The prospects for actually becoming British citizens are not just uncertain—they're deteriorating rapidly.

Labour's Immigration Crackdown Changes Everything

Since Labour's election victory, the immigration landscape has shifted dramatically. The government's Immigration White Paper released in May, “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, officially tightened policies that will devastate BN(O) migrants' long-term prospects. The qualifying period for permanent residency has doubled from five to ten years, and new English proficiency requirements now apply to adult dependents, including spouses.

Despite desperate lobbying from BN(O) viasa holders for clarity on how these changes affect their scheme, the government has maintained studied silence. The writing is on the wall: the original "5+1" pathway (five years to permanent residency, plus one for citizenship) has likely become "10+1"—if you're lucky enough to qualify at all.

The new reality is even bleaker. After a decade of residence, only "high-skilled" individuals—doctors, nurses, engineers, AI specialists—will have fast-track options. Skilled worker visas are now restricted to university graduates, creating multiple barriers that will exclude most BN(O) migrants from permanent settlement.

The Real Risk: Drained and Deported

Here's the uncomfortable truth: most of those who moved to the UK from Hong Kong under the BN(O) scheme lack the qualifications, skills, or English proficiency that Labour's new criteria demand. Many sold property and liquidated savings to fund their UK adventure, but after ten years of burning through their assets, Britain may simply decide they're no longer useful and send them packing.

This isn't paranoia—it's politics. Nigel Farage's Reform UK party's landslide performance in January's local elections has put enormous pressure on Keir Starmer's government to slash immigration numbers. The far-right surge means continued tightening is inevitable, not optional.

Consider the devastating scenario: BN(O) holders in the UK drain their MPF savings upfront, spend a decade in Britain consuming their assets, then face deportation when they fail to meet tightened residency requirements. They'd return to Hong Kong financially depleted, potentially becoming a massive burden on the city's social welfare system.

Conclusion: Protecting Assets from Opportunism

Hong Kong's refusal to treat BN(O) as proof of "permanent departure" isn't obstructionism—it's protection. The policy shields both Hong Kong's finances and its people's retirement security from a scheme that increasingly resembles a sophisticated asset-stripping operation.

Post-Brexit Britain desperately needed capital injection, and the BN(O) scheme provided the perfect vehicle to attract Hong Kong's wealthy individuals and families. But allowing Hong Kong to subsidize Britain's post-EU economic struggles by emptying BNO holders' pension pots would be the height of folly. Why should Hong Kong pay for Westminster's financial opportunism?

Lo Wing-hung