Israel, Gaza and the propaganda war

[agricola]

Tony Blair is such a surplus cunt (and I don't use that term lightly)

He isnt entirely surplus - the story of the struggle that his Congressional Medal of Honor has gone through, detailed in the latest Private Eye, is one of the most amusing things ever to appear in that organ.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He has a Congressional Medal of Honour? I thought that was for soldiers who did brave stuff? While I personally wouldn't give Cherie one, I don't think she's that horrible.

 

[agricola]

He has a Congressional Medal of Honour? I thought that was for soldiers who did brave stuff? While I personally wouldn't give Cherie one, I don't think she's that horrible.

Sorry, its a Congressional Gold Medal.

 

[tangentlama]

New York Times publishes a welcome truth-tell on 7th January called What You Don’t Know About Gaza

NEARLY everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.

THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.

THE OCCUPATION The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza’s air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

THE BLOCKADE Israel’s blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.

The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment — with the tacit support of the United States — of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights.

THE CEASE-FIRE Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed.

WAR CRIMES The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html?em

 

[Dravinian]

New York Times publishes a welcome truth-tell on 7th January called What You Don’t Know About Gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html?em

I like the fact that even these great revelations seem to indicate that during the "Cease Fire" the rocket attacks never quite ceased, oh they went down, but they never quite ceased.

Which would mean the "Cease Fire" was never actually obeyed, and thus wasn't broken by Israel in November but was never adhered to by Hamas who continued to fire rockets.

I love the way that it indicates that these rockets were fired according to the Israelis, thus subtley implying that it isn't actually true anyway.

Propaganda indeed.

 

[agricola]

I like the fact that even these great revelations seem to indicate that during the "Cease Fire" the rocket attacks never quite ceased, oh they went down, but they never quite ceased.

Which would mean the "Cease Fire" was never actually obeyed, and thus wasn't broken by Israel in November but was never adhered to by Hamas who continued to fire rockets.

I love the way that it indicates that these rockets were fired according to the Israelis, thus subtley implying that it isn't actually true anyway.

Propaganda indeed.

That is actually true though - the rockets never totally stopped, and they do point out (though they dont link the two) that the blockade has never stopped either.

 

[mauvais]

Not sure if this has been posted, but a Gazan video feed: http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/74183

 

[TAE]

I like the fact that even these great revelations seem to indicate that during the "Cease Fire" the rocket attacks never quite ceased, oh they went down, but they never quite ceased.

Which would mean the "Cease Fire" was never actually obeyed, and thus wasn't broken by Israel in November but was never adhered to by Hamas who continued to fire rockets.

I love the way that it indicates that these rockets were fired according to the Israelis, thus subtley implying that it isn't actually true anyway.

Propaganda indeed.

I fail to see what the problem is. He rightly points out that neither Hamas nor Israel accept that the other side honoured the original agreement.

 

[mauvais]

There's bombing happening right now on the little grim-cam above.

 

[TAE]

Amazing, I looked for reports about the anti-war demo on the BBC NEWS website yesterday and found nothing, now this is on the BBC NEWS RSS and lined to on the BBC NEWS front page:

A pro-Israel rally has arrived at Trafalgar Square to call for peace in Israel and Gaza ...

 

[newharper]

Which would mean the "Cease Fire" was never actually obeyed, and thus wasn't broken by Israel in November but was never adhered to by Hamas who continued to fire rockets.

Propaganda indeed.

If you have any evidence to show that it was Hamas who fired the rockets please do inform us.

 

[nino_savatte]

Amazing, I looked for reports about the anti-war demo on the BBC NEWS website yesterday and found nothing, now this is on the BBC NEWS RSS and lined to on the BBC NEWS front page:

A pro-Israel rally has arrived at Trafalgar Square to call for peace in Israel and Gaza ...

I've noticed this too. Shocking.

 

[TAE]

I've complained here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm

 

[agricola]

I've noticed this too. Shocking.

Still, the BBC reporting of the incident does contain yet more of the unbelieveably batshit interpretations of the war. Take this, for instance:

About 850 Gazans and 13 Israelis have reportedly died in 16 days of fighting.

They said the number of Israeli deaths should not be considered disproportionate to the number of Palestinian deaths, because Israelis were lucky and escaped their houses before they were hit by Palestinian rockets.

 

[laptop]

Journalist thinks: "That's batshit. It goes in". Would have been much, much better as a direct batshit quote, though...

 

[agricola]

Journalist thinks: "That's batshit. It goes in". Would have been much, much better as a direct batshit quote, though...

Yes, whoever came out with that really needs to be named and have a photo taken.

 

[nino_savatte]

Still, the BBC reporting of the incident does contain yet more of the unbelieveably batshit interpretations of the war. Take this, for instance:

If those numbers don't indicate a measure of disproportionality, I don't know what does.

 

[agricola]

If those numbers don't indicate a measure of disproportionality, I don't know what does.

No, it indicates that the Israelis were able to get out of their homes and avoid the hamas rockets, even the 10 of them who were soldiers and the 4 of those that were killed by their own side (no doubt whilst taking evading action from incoming Palestinian rockets).

 

[nino_savatte]

We've also been told by the mainstream news media that the IDF have been dropping leaflets advising civilians to "leave Hamas occupied buildings". It seems to me that the BBC and others have failed to mention what a densely populated place Gaza is; where would anyone run to? IDF just want to cover their tracks and want to be seen to be doing the 'right thing' by leaflet-bombing Gaza. It's meaningless.

 

[nino_savatte]

Uri Avnery in today's Morning Star

The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And, after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.

An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far - the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the Israeli army "revealed" that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof, it released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But, within a short time, the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. It was a falsification.

Later, the official liar claimed that "our soldiers were shot at from inside the school." Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that this was a lie too. Nobody had shot from inside the school and no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.

But the admission made hardly any difference any more. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that "they shot from inside the school" and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.

So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a "symbol of Hamas rule." Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the "most moral army in the world."
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/features/moral_insanity_and_slaughter

 

[Corax]

An article here puts the lie to Israel's claime raison d'etre for the entire operation:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/7191


Regarding the BBC coverage - my question is WHY it is so skewed? Alan bleedin Johnson was wheeled out the other night to maintain the usual lines, and I can't believe he doesn't know better. So what's the deal? Are they being leant on, are there zionist influences within the editorial teams, or is it something else?

 

[laptop]

Regarding the BBC coverage - my question is WHY it is so skewed? Alan bleedin Johnson was wheeled out the other night to maintain the usual lines, and I can't believe he doesn't know better. So what's the deal? Are they being leant on, are there zionist influences within the editorial teams, or is it something else?

They're being leant on.

It works like this: any editor who passes a story that tells it like it is knows that they'll be working 16-hour days for the next week dealing with the barrage of complaints from the Embassy, with the BBC's lawyers, with the BBC Trust's lawyers passing on the barrage of complaints they've had from the Embassy... and so on.

Hence the resort to sarcastic and unimpeachable phrases - parodies of "balance" - like "the settlements, which are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".

 

[Corax]

Surely there must be more to it than that? No one with any journalistic courage on the entire editorial staff?

And if that is the reason, then why would it not apply to The Independent's coverage as well? They seem to have no problem with a bit of stark truth so far. Why would they not be equally worried about the embassy and its lawyers?

 

[agricola]

Surely there must be more to it than that? No one with any journalistic courage on the entire editorial staff?

And if that is the reason, then why would it not apply to The Independent's coverage as well? They seem to have no problem with a bit of stark truth so far. Why would they not be equally worried about the embassy and its lawyers?

You should read Flat Earth News, theres a really good explanation of how the operation works.

 

[MikeMcc]

An article here puts the lie to Israel's claime raison d'etre for the entire operation:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/7191


Regarding the BBC coverage - my question is WHY it is so skewed? Alan bleedin Johnson was wheeled out the other night to maintain the usual lines, and I can't believe he doesn't know better. So what's the deal? Are they being leant on, are there zionist influences within the editorial teams, or is it something else?

You wouldn't believe the arguement I'm having on ARRSE at the moment with folks contending that the BEEB are pro-Hamas!

 

[Zachor]

You wouldn't believe the arguement I'm having on ARRSE at the moment with folks contending that the BEEB are pro-Hamas!

They may have a point. The BBC isn't overtly pro Hamas as in the way Galloway's employer Press TV are but there seems to be a bias against Israel in BBC reports. Its not just that its biased against Israel it seems to take as gospel information from either Hamas or Hamas cheerleaders without any qualifying statement that the info is coming from a Hamas official or shill.

 

[Corax]

They may have a point. The BBC isn't overtly pro Hamas as in the way Galloway's employer Press TV are but there seems to be a bias against Israel in BBC reports. Its not just that its biased against Israel it seems to take as gospel information from either Hamas or Hamas cheerleaders without any qualifying statement that the info is coming from a Hamas official or shill.

As opposed to your unquestioning acceptance of Israeli propaganda, which can, and has, repeatedly, been shown to be a pack of lies?

Let's take this, for instance:

http://www.myantiwar.org/view/169946.html

 

[Spion]

there seems to be a bias against Israel in BBC reports.

Evidence?

 

[MikeMcc]

Even the Wall Street Journal are questioning Isreali tactics and strategy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html

 

[laptop]

Even the Wall Street Journal are questioning Isreali tactics and strategy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html

Not strictly speaking the opinion of the Wall Street Journal - as an editorial or other unsigned piece would be - but a "balancing" Op-Ed piece by

Mr. Bisharat is a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

But nevertheless, the intro:

Israel's current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. Senior Israeli political and military leaders may bear personal liability for their offenses, and they could be prosecuted by an international tribunal, or by nations practicing universal jurisdiction over grave international crimes. Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel's acts.

and the decision to run this is, er, interesting. I wonder what the new owner, the well-known Mr Murdoch, will have to say?