The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Monday 19 November 2012
Media Cover for Israeli Crimes
by Stephen Lendman
The pattern playing out in Gaza
is one Israel followed many times before. Provocations target adversaries.
Multiple ones usually occur before targets respond.
Blame the victim follows.
Israeli aggression is called self-defense. Legitimate defense is called
terrorism. Media scoundrels support Israel in lockstep. It plays out the same
way every time.
Facts on the ground are
ignored, sanitized, suppressed, and/or distorted. Readers and viewers get
manipulated managed news misinformation.
Days ago, Hamas and other
Palestinian resistance groups responded to multiple Israeli provocations.
Intense bombing and shelling followed. It continues.
Cast Lead began the same way.
Hamas didn't provoke it. Israel did. Premeditated aggression was planned. The
same scenario is playing out again now.
Cast Lead 2.0 looms. Israel
threatens more intense conflict than 2008-09. It remains to be seen what
follows. It's clear how media scoundrels will cover it.
Palestinians won't even get
short shrift. They'll be condemned for defending themselves against naked
Israeli aggression.
Instead of covering events on
the ground accurately, Haaretz contributor Amir Oren endorsed bombing
and shelling Gaza and more.
Headlining "For Netanyahu, Gaza
escalation could pave the way to Iran strike," saying:
Netanyahu and Defense Minister
Ehud Barak both want to attack Iran. In other words, they plan more war crimes
on top of ones committed repeatedly on Gazans.
So far, Netanyahu's record as
prime minister excludes war. Apparently he wants to make up for lost time. He
"crossed a private red line by daring to authorize the undertaking of a large
military operation."
It's not war, he says.
Sustained bombing and shelling perhaps followed by ground invasion is full-scale
war. Operation Pillar of Cloud solidifies the Netanyahu/Barak partnership. Other
Israeli hardliners wholeheartedly approve. Most others say little or
nothing.
Opposition party leaders dare
not criticize. With January's election in mind, they fully support what they
should condemn. Whatever their personal views, they're in lockstep publicly with
Netanyahu.
Oren believes Israel will use
its show of strength in Gaza "as leverage in the Iranian context." Tehran
leaders aren't fool enough to buy it.
They're firm in saying any
Israeli attack will be met by a comparable response. Iran's military capability
is strong enough to back its rhetoric with policy. Israel would be foolish to
doubt it.
Gaza is a "practical test,"
says Oren. Not a word about lawless aggression and war crimes. Instead he says
IDF chief General Benny Gantz has a chance to prove his mettle.
Once Gaza operations end, Hamas
and other resistance groups will unify more for what's ahead. Hezbollah's Sheikh
Hassan Nasrallah won't be silent or refuse to defend Lebanon aggressively if
attacked.
All the more reason for "an
Iranian operation," says Oren, especially while "Syria is stuck politically and
militarily."
Netanyahu is single-minded on
two issues: removing its main regional rival, Iran, and maintaining US support.
"Should Operation Pillar of Defense attain the limited goals set for it in Gaza,
that will be very good." Who cares how many Palestinians die?
What follows could prove
dangerous, adds Oren. At the same time, he failed to denounce Netanyahu's
lawless aggression.
He also didn't say attacking
Iran or other nonbelligerent country is illegal under international law. Failure
to explain both constitutes support.
Journalists and editors should
think twice about endorsing lawlessness. It happens with disturbing regularity.
Two Jerusalem Post editorials were one-sided. One headlined "State of Gaza," saying:
"Israel’s current policy is to
react to each new barrage from Gaza by identifying and singling out the specific
terrorist organization that fired at our civilians, targeting rocket-launching
crews and arms caches."
The Post urges more robust
tactics. "Israel should view the 'state of Gaza' and its Hamas government as
directly responsible for any act of aggression emanating from the territory
under its control. Israel’s response to such attacks would, therefore, be
directed against the territory of Gaza as a whole."
The editorial endorsed war as
the best way to maintain "quiet on our southern border." Its other editorial
headlined "Explaining Gaza," saying:
"Gaza-based
terrorists….triggered the latest round of escalation in the South." Doing so was
an "unprovoked attack."
"This is not the first time
terrorists in Hamas-controlled Gaza have launched attacks purposely targeting
Israeli civilians."
Senior Netanyahu officials and
IDF commanders believe "Israel must restore deterrence by ratcheting up its
response to Palestinian belligerence."
Israel "has a moral obligation
to protect its citizens from terrorist aggression."
Ignored, of course, are facts
on the ground. Palestinians are victims, not aggressors. Self-defense when
attacked is inviolable. Editorial writers know but won't say. They defend the
indefensible.
On November 16, Fairness &
Accuracy in Reporting's (FAIR) Peter Hart headlined "Who Started Gaza
Conflict? Well, the US Says…."
CNN's Fred Pleitgen's
embarrassed himself saying:
On the one hand, it' "almost
obsolete is to try to lay blame on anyone or to say who actually started any of
this."
At the same time, "the United
States is saying that all of this is square on the shoulders of Hamas, because
of the escalations that have been happening from Gaza, especially the rocket
attacks, but also attacks with anti-tank weapons on Israeli patrols in the past
couple of weeks that have been ratcheted up."
In other words, what Washington
says is right. Government spokesmen say the same things. Journalists are
supposed to report, not regurgitate official policy positions.
Scoundrel print and broadcast
ones dutifully support political Washington. They support Israel the same
way.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria said
Israel is "justified in doing something when all these rockets are being fired
at them. So there's no question that it's justified."
There are plenty, but Zakaria
avoids asking tough ones. Rockets were launched in response to repeated Israeli
attacks and incursions.
On November 8, the current
conflict began. Israel maliciously killed a 12-year old boy. He threatened no
one.
Gaza's Popular Resistance
Committees responded with what they called a "revenge invoice."
On January 4, 2009, Zakaria
devoted his entire CNN program to Cast Lead. Israel attacked provocatively and
preemptively. Doing so was naked aggression.
Nonetheless, his opening
comments set the tone, saying:
"I start from the premise that
Israel had ample justification for its actions. If our cities, your cities, were
subject to repeated rocket attacks, you would also believe that it was
provocation enough to respond. So, it's justifiable."
In other words, when Israel
attacks, it's self-defense. When adversaries respond defensively, it's
aggression or terrorism. American and other Western viewers and readers get
these views ad nauseam.
On November 15, Hart
asked, "When Does Israel/Palestine Violence Start?"
"The conventional corporate
media timelines usually stress, whatever the facts, that Israel is responding to
violent attacks by Palestinians."
FAIR documented this numerous
times over the past decade. The New York Times and other media scoundrels claim
Israel only responds after "persistent Palestinian rocket fire."
On November 14, NBC's Martin
Fletcher lied like he's told to do. He told viewers "Israel says it had no
choice after Palestinians in Gaza fired at least 100 rockets at Israel in the
last five days."
National Public Radio (NPR) is
called National Pentagon Radio for good reason. On November 14, Audie Cornish
said "the strikes were in retaliation for the launching of more than 100 rockets
at Israel in recent days."
Facts on the ground are clear
and unequivocal. They're mirror opposite what these reports claim. Israel acts
aggressively and provocatively. It plays out the same way every time.
Killing a 12-year old boy
enraged Gazans. In response, they attacked an Israeli military jeep. Four
soldiers were injured. Three days of Israeli belligerence followed.
Reporters pick a "starting
point" for good reason, said Hart. Doing so omits what viewers and readers most
need to know.
A November 15 New York Times editorial was no better,
saying:
"No country should have to
endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza."
Concern only about risks for
Israel's long-term interests were raised. Rule of law principles, illegal
aggression, and other relevant issues weren't discussed.
It's always the same way.
Readers and viewers get manipulated managed news misinformation. Truth and full
disclosure are verboten. Supporting imperial lawlessness is policy.
On November 15, a Washington Post editorial headlined "Heading
off full-blown war in the Gaza strip," saying:
"THE IMMEDIATE cause of the
exploding conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip was a series of
attacks by Palestinian militants, including a missile fired at a jeep carrying
Israeli soldiers inside Israel, and a rain of rockets against Israeli towns —
more than 180 in the course of a few days."
"Israel could not but respond,
and when it did, it chose to deliver a strategic blow: the assassination of
Hamas’s military commander, Ahmed Jabari, and (scores of) airstrikes."
As explained above and in
previous articles, what's happening on the ground is mirror opposite this
commentary and others like it.
At the same time, said the
Post, war "imposes heavy diplomatic costs (and doesn't) solve underlying
political or security problems."
In other words, slaughtering
over 1,400 Palestinians and injuring another 5,300 generated justifiable
worldwide condemnation. Regional relationships weren't helped.
The Post has no concern for
Palestinian lives. It advocates avoiding a repeat of Cast Lead's aftermath. "A
quick cease-fire would benefit all sides," it says. "The alternative is awful to
contemplate."
Saying so reflects concern
about diplomatic and popular fallout. How many Palestinians die matters
little.
Numerous other scoundrel media
reports express one-sided bias for Israel. Expect lots more ahead. Facts are
sanitized and suppressed.
Israel's worst crimes are
endorsed. Palestinians are isolated on their own. It's been that way for over 64
years. Long denied liberation and justice remain elusive. Maybe next time. Not
now.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How
Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class
War"
Visit his blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All
programs are archived for easy listening.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment