Saturday, October 26, 2024

"Two Governments Linked By Lies and Bloodshed" by Philip Giraldi


 Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: The Unz Review

Two Governments Linked By Lies and Bloodshed
The United States can never tell the truth about Israel or enforce its own laws

As the United States national election draws ever nearer the fringe stories that just might influence the outcome are increasing both in magnitude and in number. On Thursday I participated in a fascinating talk sponsored by Washington’s Committee for the Republic, which is “a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003 [that] sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and US competitiveness.” The featured speaker for the evening was Josh Paul who “resigned from the State Department on October 18, 2023, over disagreement with the Biden administration’s unconditional surge of military equipment to Israel. The surge greenlighted Israel to equal or better the instruction of Thucydides: ‘The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.’ Josh is an insider’s insider. He toiled in the State Department for more than 11 years working as a Director in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which is responsible for US security assistance and arms transfers. He also served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, US Army Staff… Josh holds master’s degrees from the Universities of Georgetown and St Andrews, Scotland. He is currently a Non-Resident Fellow at the organization Democracy Now for the Arab World (DAWN) and a recipient of the 2023 Callaway Award for Civic Courage.”

Josh has cited the wisdom of George Washington’s Farewell Address warning against excessive fondness for any one nation because “[A] passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens.”

One might immediately perceive that George Washington very well described the possible consequences derived from the junior partnership which the United States finds itself locked into in its “wag the dog” relationship with the State of Israel. The “passionate attachment” has been amply demonstrated over the past year of warfare in Gaza in which the US has shamefully showered weapons and money on an Israel that is openly carrying out highly visible war crimes against the Palestinians in an attempt to achieve something like complete removal or extermination of the Gazans.

To my delight, Paul explained how policy making with Israel as the most favored nation works in practice. The United States federal government ignores its own laws to include two amendments of the 1961 Foreign Aid Act, known as the Symington and Glenn amendments, which ban aid to clandestine nuclear powers. Israel has a secret nuclear weapons arsenal that is cleverly ignored through a policy of “nuclear ambiguity” by the US federal government to allow the tribute money payment and other unilateral support to continue. An Energy Department directive actually demands imprisonment for any federal official or contractor who even mentions that Israel might have a nuclear weapons arsenal. To sustain the “nuclear ambiguity” policy on Israel’s weapons program, the government also uses deliberately improper classification to conceal what it is up to.

In addition, there is the Leahy law, which is also completely ignored in its establishment of a process which on paper requires a careful examination of how and when transferred US provided weapons are used, to include examination of possible “gross violations of human rights.” When that is the case, the sale or transfer of weapons is supposed to be denied. Israel, which is committing war crimes right out in the open that amount to a genocide and which has senior government officials calling for extermination of Arabs, is uniquely exempt in practice from such examination while Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his cast of spokesperson-buffoons lie persistently to both the government itself and to the public. They lie every time when they claim that it has not been demonstrated that Israel is guilty of such crimes against humanity, nor even when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly mandates a near complete blockade of food and medicines, resulting in starvation and unneeded deaths.

Paul cited an example of how the system works in practice, with Jewish state demanding weapons often followed up with the Israeli Embassy in Washington calling the White House a few hours later asking “What is the hold up?” The White House then sends word down to the Pentagon and State Department to “Get moving on it!” All other countries seeking to purchase American weapons have to go through the vetting process and stand in line to wait their turn.

It seems that Israel always gets what it wants. There has been a great deal of speculation about the surprise decision by President Joe Biden to deploy in Israel a $1.15 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system which will be manned by roughly 100 American soldiers on the ground. An advanced team of the soldiers and the battery itself were reported as having arrived in Israel shortly after the announcement of the deployment, and it turns out that a second battery was already in place in Israel. The commitment ultimately derives from the Biden regime’s frequently repeated unconditional “ironclad” pledge to defend Israel, but it interestingly creates a potential tripwire situation leading to an escalation and a much larger war if American soldiers should die in an Iranian or Hezbollah attack. And there is little to look for on the upside as the soldiers and equipment will be inside a nation which is neither an actual ally nor a friend, as its leader Prime Minister Netanyahu has demonstrated repeatedly over the past year in rebuffing the many proposals regarding mitigating the horror on display in Gaza put forward by Biden. There is also a political price to pay in terms of the US relationship with nations in the Middle East and beyond as the Jewish state is indubitably carrying out a genocide while apparently simultaneously seeking to go to war with all its neighbors to expand its territory to become “Eretz” or “Greater” Israel and establish itself as the preeminent military power in the Middle East. But, at the same time, Netanyahu knows that he needs an active role by the United States as his partner against major powers like Iran to accomplish that goal, which is perhaps why an insistent Israeli leadership somehow was able to pressure the White House into making a commitment of THAAD in spite of the potentially disastrous possible consequences.

So, the United States has absolutely nothing to gain by sending its batteries and soldiers to serve as potential targets in Israel and much to lose. And there has been serious consideration of what the THAAD would be able to accomplish if it did wind up in the middle of a shooting war. Former CIA and State Department officer Larry Johnson describes the THAAD projectile as “a large bullet that is supposed to strike an in-bound missile and break it up. It is a kinetic weapon, i.e., it does not explode.” It is not clear why Israel, which claims to have the best air-defense system in the world, would want or need the THAAD. Beyond that, there is a logistical problem related to the system which Johnson declares to be that “As a tactical and strategic weapon, THAAD is a bust.” There are only nine THAAD launchers in the entire world. Each launcher has mounted on it eight missiles, which means if Iran fires 100 missiles 84% of them will be safe from THAAD even assuming that 100% of the THAAD projectiles from the two batteries score a direct hit. Reloading the system is also complicated and there is a supply problem. Lockheed Martin apparently built only 1,000 missiles for this system which would mean that there will not be a lot of spare parts sitting around in a warehouse in Israel waiting to be sent to the front. Another point not to be ignored is that each missile costs $12.6 million, not exactly cheap ammunition.

There are a number of other factors that might be in play leading to the deployment. Johnson observes that the White House has been negotiating with Netanyahu over possible plans to attack Iran. He believes that it might be “A tangible gesture of support for Israel by the Biden Administration, [which] may be playing a desperation card in order to persuade Israel not to attack Iran.” Some observers note, however, that such a reckless plan relying on good decisions being made by a nuclear armed Israel might go wrong in a number of ways and become a formula for initiating World War 3, which would certainly kill millions of people. At the same time, it is useful to consider what might be achieved by the introduction of the battery and soldiers into an extremely volatile situation as they alone could not deter or even significantly blunt a major Iranian attack. So what is the motive? And what other elements are playing into the decision? And how does the leak of a Top Secret codeword protected US government document exposing the Israeli secret nuclear arsenal and describing possible Israel preparations for a pending Israeli attack on Iran mean?

Even though time is running out, The Washington Post is reporting that Israel has already decided to attack military sites in Iran before the US election. There is some discussion apparently still going on over whether targeting by Israel (possibly joined by the US) will include oil fields and refineries as well as underground nuclear research sites. Having Washington as a partner in the enterprise is just what Netanyahu wants as initiating a new conflict with Iran will invite Tehran’s retaliation, possibly killing the US military personnel inside Israel, and bingo the US will be at war fighting for Israel, which is something that Biden might actually be trying to avoid at least until the US election is over. That is why he, completely out of character, also warned Israel by way of a letter on October 13th that he would give Israel 30 days to undo the blockade of food and medicine going into Gaza, which is causing mass starvation, on humanitarian grounds or he would consider an embargo on some arms being illegally provided to the Jewish state. It did not take much profound analysis of the statement to realize that 30 days will be after the US election and, no matter who wins, it will not be necessary to do anything to punish Israel. The statement is essentially phony and is all about the election. In fact, as a majority of Democratic Party voters oppose Biden/Kamala’s support of what Israel is doing to the Gazans and Lebanese, it might be intended influence the outcome of a close election.

Which leaves us with the TS document that allegedly exposes elements in the Israeli plan of attack. Who leaked it and why? U.S. officials are scrambling to determine how two leaked, highly US classified documents conveying potential Israeli plans to attack Iran got on the Telegram app. According to the New York Times, the documents were prepared “in recent days” by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes information and images collected by America’s fleet of spy satellites.

There are several theories regarding these leaked reports. Trita Parsi, the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, opines that there are five plausible theories for what is behind the leak. The first theory posits an Iranian hacking of the servers of the US intelligence services and leaking the document as part of their psychological warfare against Israel, suggesting that they have learned Tel Aviv’s top secret war plans, possibly delaying what is intended. The second theory is that a dissident within the US government seeking to prevent or delay the war may have leaked it, but an initial internal investigation has reportedly already moved on to looking for possible outside government perpetrators, though that speculation might itself be a lie.

Third, the Biden administration may have carried out the leak itself in order to delay the Israeli attack until after the election. Biden cannot say “no” to Israel, but he might well illegally expose even top secret intelligence with the aim of confusing preparations and delaying Israel’s planned attack.

Fourth, the Israelis may have obtained or even fabricated the report and leaked it themselves with the objective of confusing Iran and inducing it to look for attackers in all the wrong places. And Five, possibly a close American ally — a Five Eyes state (FVEY) or a NATO ally with access to FVEY intelligence — might have leaked it, suggesting that a friendly country’s government might be so frustrated with Biden’s unwillingness to “stop Netanyahu from starting the largest war in the Middle East since World War II that they are taking matters into their own hands to sabotage Netanyahu’s escalation plan.”

When it comes to THAADs or no THAADs or leaks of top-secret intelligence, the Democrats would like to do whatever it takes to establish a narrative that will help them stay in power. That would include creeping dangerously close to getting involved in what might develop into a major war by blindly adhering to the blandishments of one notably rogue nation to help destroy another nation that in no way threatens the United States. Then the White House and State Department will lie about it all, as will Israel, to cover up what the true intentions and motives of the various players were. That will be the sleight of hands that will be playing out in the next few days. Where is the truth? The truth might itself turn out to be a lie!

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

"A good historian for understanding the distortion of the State in the 20th century" by Bruna Franscolla

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

A good historian for understanding the distortion of the State in the 20th century

Bruna Franscolla

October 26, 2024

It is necessary to have a recent History at hand that covers the world scenario. Fortunately, the Canadian Quinn Slobodian fulfills this role as a historian dedicated to explaining recent events.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A non-controversial statement is that, in our historical period, we have witnessed an avalanche of important events in world politics. Its corollary is the need of having a recent History at hand that covers the world scenario. Fortunately, the Canadian Quinn Slobodian fulfills this role as a historian dedicated to explaining recent events. His specialty is “International History”, a field that sounds vague, but is as necessary as the international mechanisms grow. I read two interesting works by the same author: Globalists, from 2018, and Crack-Up Capitalism, from 2023.

It can be said that one is the continuation of the other, and that both deal with the metamorphoses that the State has undergone under pressure from apologists for market societies. In Globalists, Slobodian narrates the birth of neoliberalism and places it in Interwar Austria. With the end of the Austrian Empire, liberals intended to create a global system of norms in order to protect the free market. Thus, neoliberalism is not a laissez faire economic doctrine; rather, neoliberalism is a legal ideal. This legal ideal aims to establish a global order composed of national states with limited sovereignty, subject to the protection of property promoted by supranational entities such as the WTO. Neoliberalism would be an attempt to revive the Austrian Empire on a global level, in which several ethnicities coexisted under a single liberal regime. If Schmitt pointed out and criticized the separation between imperium (political power over subjects or citizens) and dominium (power over property) in modern capitalism, neoliberals saw it as a means of keeping dominium protected from imperium. National states would have imperium over their citizens, but would not have dominiun over properties. Important names in this movement are Mises, Hayek, Heilperin and Röpke.

This theory responded to the wave of nationalization of properties by strong states during wars, a wave which only grew with the decolonization process in Africa and Asia. Of course, a refined defense of private property on a global scale aroused the interest of capitalists around the world – especially in the USA, where part of the business class has always offered resistance to the New Deal. A symbol of the arrival of neoliberalism in the USA was the arrival of a handful of German-speaking theorists to assist in Barry Goldwater’s campaign for the White House in 1964.

The book’s time frame goes from the Interwar period, with the Austrian School, to the creation of the WTO, in 1995, which replaced the discreet GATT created in the post-war period. As for the UN, neoliberals sought to expand the concept of human rights to include the right to capital flight. The proponent of this was called Philip Cortney, born in Romania, and the movement took place in the 1940s. He was a pupil of the Polish Michael Heilperin.

Incredible as it may seem, neoliberals generally saw themselves as in favor of democracy. Hayek considered it a means of relieving social tensions. By letting the people choose a representative, legitimacy and peace were gained. However, the invasion of imperium over dominium was a risk for democracies with universal suffrage: whether out of demagoguery or common sense, politicians who want to please the electorate promote income redistribution and meddle in large companies, especially when foreign.

What is the solution? The United States offers an inspiration, as there the power of universal suffrage was long ago overcome by the Supreme Court. Hayek’s solution is a hyper-regulated democracy, with a strong constitution, and, therefore, a strong Supreme Court. It is as if Common Law were the product of a natural evolution and the Supreme Court only endorsed the result of such a process. It is a worldview that combines with Anglo-Saxon conservatism, but which also fits like a glove with social Darwinism. This neoliberal current that considers that order (be it legal order, or commercial order, or political order, etc.) emerges from natural selection by standing the test of time is called ordoliberalism.

But the point is that neoliberals, instead of simply attacking the state, sought to distort it. In spite of its problems, historically, the state was thought of as an entity that serves the common good. Suddenly – and with a lot of sponsorship from interested parties – the state began to be thought of as an entity that must serve the market.

The ethical consequences are tremendous; after all, there is no longer room for human dignity when man is seen as a sheer consumer. With its advanced state euthanasia program, Canada points the way out to those who have no market value.

Looking at the world around us, we have to say that neoliberalism was victorious: society spends a lot of energy debating this politician versus that politician without there being any possibility of real and profound changes. In Brazil, no president can combat Malthusian environmentalism or monetary policy without being accused of “attacking institutions”. The most important Western country in the world shows that the position of president is so irrelevant that it can be occupied by a demented person.

In this context, political representation was replaced by aesthetic representation. Let’s vote for a black woman, or a Christian influencer, to feel empowered and represented.

As expected, neoliberalism causes political crises throughout the world, because it cannot hide its lack of legitimacy. Politicians and governments known as “populist” or “extremist” are popping up around the world. However, what neoliberalism manages to do is to hide itself. As the role of the State has been demeaned, making people believe that the only legitimate State model is the neoliberal one, many people, including neoliberals, will conclude that all the discomfort is generated by the State as such. The problem starts to be formulated in terms of “more State” or “less State”, when it should be formulated in terms of the nature of the State.

Therefore, the neoliberal march tends to break down into anarcho-capitalism, the revolt against the State as such. As we will see in the next text, following the Friedman family through Slobodian, this revolt was felt not only by the people, but also by the liberals themselves.

Friday, October 25, 2024

"Israel kills the journalists. Western media kills the truth of genocide in Gaza" by Jonathan Cook

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Israel kills the journalists. Western media kills the truth of genocide in Gaza

Western publics are being subjected to a campaign of psychological warfare, where genocide is classed as ‘self-defence’ and opposition to it ‘terrorism’

 
READ IN APP
 

[First published by Middle East Eye]

Israel knew that, if it could stop foreign correspondents from reporting directly from Gaza, those journalists would end up covering events in ways far more to its liking. 

They would hedge every report of a new Israeli atrocity – if they covered them at all – with a "Hamas claims" or "Gaza family members allege". Everything would be presented in terms of conflicting narratives rather than witnessed facts. Audiences would feel uncertain, hesitant, detached.

Israel could shroud its slaughter in a fog of confusion and disputation. The natural revulsion evoked by a genocide would be tempered and attenuated. 

For a year, the networks’ most experienced war reporters have stayed put in their hotels in Israel, watching Gaza from afar. Their human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians.

That is why western audiences have been forced to relive a single day of horror for Israel, on October 7, 2023, as intensely as they have a year of greater horrors in Gaza – in what the World Court has judged to be a "plausible" genocide by Israel. 

That is why the media have immersed their audiences in the agonies of the families of some 250 Israelis – civilians taken hostage and soldiers taken captive – as much as they have the agonies of 2.3 million Palestinians bombed and starved to death week after week, month after month.

That is why audiences have been subjected to gaslighting narratives that frame Gaza’s destruction as a "humanitarian crisis" rather than the canvas on which Israel is erasing all the known rules of war. 

While foreign correspondents sit obediently in their hotel rooms, Palestinian journalists have been picked off one by one – in the greatest massacre of journalists in history.

Israel is now repeating that process in Lebanon. On Thursday night, it struck a residence in south Lebanon where three journalists were staying. All were killed.

In an indication of hiw deliberate and cynical Israel’s actions are, it put its military’s crosshairs on six Al Jazeera reporters this week, smearing them as “terrorists” working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are reportedly the last surviving Palestinian journalists in northern Gaza, which Israel has sealed off while it carries out the so-called “General’s Plan”. 

Israel wants no one reporting its final push to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza by starving out the 400,000 Palestinians still there and executing anyone who remains as a “terrorist”. 

These six join a long list of professionals defamed by Israel in the interests of advancing its genocide – from doctors and aid workers to UN peacekeepers. 

Sympathy for Israel

Perhaps the nadir of Israel’s domestication of foreign journalists was reached this week in a report by CNN. Back in February whistleblowing staff there revealed that the network’s executives have been actively obscuring Israeli atrocities to portray Israel in a more sympathetic light.

In a story whose framing should have been unthinkable – but sadly was all too predictable – CNN reported on the psychological trauma some Israeli soldiers are suffering from time spent in Gaza, in some cases leading to suicide. 

Committing a genocide can be bad for your mental health, it seems. Or as CNN explained, its interviews “provide a window into the psychological burden that the war is casting on Israeli society”. 

In its lengthy piece, titled “He got out of Gaza, but Gaza did not get out of him”, the atrocities the soldiers admit committing are little more than the backdrop as CNN finds yet another angle on Israeli suffering. Israeli soldiers are the real victims – even as they perpetrate a genocide on the Palestinian people.

One bulldozer driver, Guy Zaken, told CNN he could not sleep and had become vegetarian because of the “very, very difficult things” he had seen and had to do in Gaza. 

What things? Zaken had earlier told a hearing of the Israeli parliament that his unit’s job was to drive over many hundreds of Palestinians, some of them alive. 

CNN reported: “Zaken says he can no longer eat meat, as it reminds him of the gruesome scenes he witnessed from his bulldozer in Gaza.” 

Doubtless some Nazi concentration camp guards committed suicide in the 1940s after witnessing the horrors there – because they were responsible for them. Only in some weird parallel news universe, would their “psychological burden” be the story. 

After a huge online backlash, CNN amended an editor’s note at the start of the article that originally read: “This story includes details about suicide that some readers may find upsetting.” 

Readers, it was assumed, would find the suicide of Israeli soldiers upsetting, but apparently not the revelation that those soldiers were routinely driving over Palestinians so that, as Zaken explained, “everything squirts out”.

Banned from Gaza

Finally, a year into Israel’s genocidal war, now rapidly spreading into Lebanon, some voices are being raised very belatedly to demand the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza.

This week – in a move presumably designed, as November’s elections loom, to ingratiate themselves with voters angry at the party’s complicity in genocide – dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden asking him to pressure Israel to give journalists "unimpeded access" to the enclave.

Don’t hold your breath.

Western media have done very little themselves to protest their exclusion from Gaza over the past year – for a number of reasons. 

Given the utterly indiscriminate nature of Israel’s bombardment, major outlets have not wanted their journalists getting hit by a 2,000lb bomb for being in the wrong place. 

That may in part be out of concern for their welfare. But there are likely to be more cynical concerns.

Having foreign journalists in Gaza blown up or executed by snipers would drag media organisations into direct confrontation with Israel and its well-oiled lobby machine. 

The response would be entirely predictable, insinuating that the journalists died because they were colluding with "the terrorists" or that they were being used as "human shields" – the excuse Israel has rolled out time and again to justify its targeting of doctors in Gaza and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. 

But there’s a bigger problem. The establishment media have not wanted to be in a position where their journalists are so close to the "action" that they are in danger of providing a clearer picture of Israel’s war crimes and its genocide. 

The media’s current distance from the crime scene offers them plausible deniability as they both-sides every Israeli atrocity. 

In previous conflicts, western reporters have served as witnesses, assisting in the prosecution of foreign leaders for war crimes. That happened in the wars that attended the break-up of Yugoslavia, and will doubtless happen once again if Russian President Valdimir Putin is ever delivered to the Hague. 

But those journalistic testimonies were harnessed to put the West’s enemies behind bars, not its closest ally.

The media do not want their reporters to become chief witnesses for the prosecution in the future trials of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, at the International Criminal Court. The ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking arrest warrants for them both. 

After all, any such testimony from journalists would not stop at Israel’s door. They would implicate western capitals too, and put establishment media organisations on a collision course with their own governments.

The western media does not see its job as holding power to account when the West is the one committing the crimes. 

Censoring Palestinians

Journalist whistleblowers have gradually been coming forward to explain how establishment news organisations – including the BBC and the supposedly liberal Guardian – are sidelining Palestinian voices and minimising the genocide. 

An investigation by Novara Media recently revealed mounting unhappiness in parts of the Guardian newsroom at its double standards on Israel and Palestine.

Its editors recently censored a commentary by preeminent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa after she insisted on being allowed to refer to the slaughter in Gaza as "the holocaust of our times". 

Senior Guardian columnists such as Jonathan Freedland made much during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour party that Jews, and Jews alone, had the right to define and name their own oppression. 

That right, however, does not appear to extend to Palestinians. 

As staff who spoke to Novara noted, the Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, the Observer, had no problem opening its pages to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to smear as a “blood libel” any reporting of the provable fact that Israel has killed many, many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza. 

One veteran journalist there said: “Is the Guardian more worried about the reaction to what is said about Israel than Palestine? Absolutely.” 

Another staff member admitted it would be inconceivable for the paper to be seen censoring a Jewish writer. But censoring a Palestinian one is fine, it seems.

Other journalists report being under "suffocating control" from senior editors, and say this pressure exists "only if you’re publishing something critical of Israel".

According to staff there, the word "genocide" is all but banned in the paper except in coverage of the International Court of Justice, whose judges ruled nine months ago that a "plausible" case had been made that Israel was committing genocide. Things have got far worse since.

Whistleblowing journalists

Similarly, "Sara", a whistleblower who recently resigned from the BBC newsroom and spoke of her experiences to Al Jazeera’s Listening Post, said Palestinians and their supporters were routinely kept off air or subjected to humiliating and insensitive lines of questioning.

Some producers have reportedly grown increasingly reluctant to bring on air vulnerable Palestinians, some of whom have lost family members in Gaza, because of concerns about the effect on their mental health from the aggressive interrogations they were being subjected to from anchors.

According to Sara, BBC vetting of potential guests overwhelmingly targets Palestinians, as well as those sympathetic to their cause and human rights organisations. Background checks are rarely done of Israelis or Jewish guests. 

She added that a search showing that a guest had used the word “Zionism” – Israel’s state ideology – in a social media post could be enough to get them disqualified from a programme. 

Even officials from one of the biggest rights group in the world, the New York-based Human Rights Watch, became persona non grata at the BBC for their criticisms of Israel, even though the corporation had previously relied on their reports in covering Ukraine and other global conflicts.

Israeli guests, by contrast, "were given free rein to say whatever they wanted with very little pushback", including lies about Hamas burning or beheading babies and committing mass rape.

An email cited by Al Jazeera from more than 20 BBC journalists sent last February to Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, warned that the corporation’s coverage risked "aiding and abetting genocide through story suppression". 

Upside-down values

These biases have been only too evident in the BBC’s coverage, first of Gaza and now, as media interest wanes in the genocide, of Lebanon. 

Headlines – the mood music of journalism, and the only part of a story many of the audience read – have been uniformly dire.

For example, Netanyahu’s threats of a Gaza-style genocide against the Lebanese people earlier this month if they did not overthrow their leaders were soft-soaped by the BBC headline: "Netanyahu’s appeal to Lebanese people falls on deaf ears in Beirut."

Reasonable readers would have wrongly inferred both that Netanyahu was trying to do the Lebanese people a favour (by preparing to murder them), and that they were being ungrateful in not taking up his offer.

It has been the same story everywhere in the establishment media. In another extraordinary, revealing moment, Kay Burley of Sky News announced this month the deaths of four Israeli soldiers from a Hezbollah drone strike on a military base inside Israel.

With a solemnity usually reserved for the passing of a member of the British royal family, she slowly named the four soldiers, with a photo of each shown on screen. She stressed twice that all four were only 19 years old.

Sky News seemed not to understand that these were not British soldiers, and that there was no reason for a British audience to be especially disturbed by their deaths. Soldiers are killed in wars all the time – it is an occupational hazard. 

And further, if Israel considered them old enough to fight in Gaza and Lebanon, then they were old enough to die too without their age being treated as particularly noteworthy.

But more significantly still, Israel’s Golani Brigade to which these soldiers belonged has been centrally involved in the slaughter of Palestinians over the past year. Its troops have been responsible for many of the tens of thousands of children killed and maimed in Gaza.

Each of the four soldiers was far, far less deserving of Burley’s sympathy and concern than the thousands of children who have been slaughtered at the hands of their brigade. Those children are almost never named and their pictures are rarely shown, not least because their injuries are usually too horrifying to be seen.

It was yet more evidence of the upside-down world the establishment media has been trying to normalise for its audiences.

It is why statistics from the United States, where the coverage of Gaza and Lebanon may be even more unhinged, show faith in the media is at rock bottom. Fewer than one in three respondents – 31 percent – said they still had a "great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media". 

Crushing dissent

Israel is the one dictating the coverage of its genocide. First by murdering the Palestinian journalists reporting it on the ground, and then by making sure house-trained foreign correspondents stay well clear of the slaughter, out of harm’s way in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

And as ever, Israel has been able to rely on the complicity of its western patrons in crushing dissent at home. 

Last week, a British investigative journalist, Asa Winstanley, an outspoken critic of Israel and its lobbyists in the UK, had his home in London raided at dawn by counter-terrorism police.

Though the police have not arrested or charged him – at least not yet – they snatched his electronic devices. He was warned that he is being investigated for "encouragement of terrorism" in his social media posts. 

Police told MEE that his devices had been seized as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences of "support for a proscribed organisation" and "dissemination of terrorist documents".  

The police can act only because of Britain’s draconian, anti-speech Terrorism Act. 

Section 12, for example, makes the expression of an opinion that could be interpreted as sympathetic to armed Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation – a right enshrined in international law but sweepingly dismissed as "terrorism" in the West – itself a terrorism offence. 

Those journalists who haven’t been house-trained in the establishment media, as well as solidarity activists, must now chart a treacherous path across intentionally ill-defined legal terrain when talking about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Winstanley is not the first journalist to be accused of falling foul of the Terrorism Act. In recent weeks, Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist, was arrested at Heathrow airport on his return from a trip abroad. Another journalist-activist, Sarah Wilkinson, was briefly arrested after her home was ransacked by police. Their electronic devices were seized too. 

Meanwhile, Richard Barnard, co-founder of Palestine Action, which seeks to disrupt the UK’s supply of weapons to Israel’s genocide, has been charged over speeches he has made against the genocide. 

It now appears that all these actions are part of a specific police campaign targeting journalists and Palestinian solidarity activists: "Operation Incessantness".

The message this clumsy title is presumably supposed to convey is that the British state is coming after anyone who speaks out too loudly against the British government’s continuing arming and complicity in Israel’s genocide.

Notably, the establishment media have failed to cover this latest assault on journalism and the role of a free press – supposedly the very things they are there to protect.

The raid on Winstanley’s home and the arrests are intended to intimidate others, including independent journalists, into silence for fear of the consequences of speaking up. 

This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather, it is terrorism by the British state.

Once again the world is being turned upside down.

Echoes from history

The West is waging a campaign of psychological warfare on its populations: it is gaslighting and disorientating them, classing genocide as "self-defence" and opposition to it a form of "terrorism".

This is an expansion of the persecution suffered by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who spent years locked up in London’s Belmarsh high-security prison. 

His unprecedented journalism – revealing the darkest secrets of western states – was redefined as espionage. His “offence” was revealing that Britain and the US had committed systematic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Now, on the back of that precedent, the British state is coming after journalists simply for embarrassing it. 

Last week I attended a meeting in Bristol against the genocide in Gaza at which the main speaker was physically absent after the British state failed to issue him an entry visa. 

The missing guest – he had to join us by zoom – was Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, who was locked up for decades as a terrorist before becoming the first leader of post-apartheid South Africa and a feted, international statesman. 

Mandla Mandela was until recently a member of the South African parliament.

A Home Office spokesperson told MEE that the UK only issued visas "to those who we want to welcome to our country". 

Media reports suggest Britain was determined to exclude Mandela because, like his grandfather, he views the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid as intimately linked to the earlier struggle against South Africa’s apartheid.

The echoes from history are apparently entirely lost on officials: the UK is once again associating the Mandela family with terrorism. Before it was to protect South Africa’s apartheid regime. Now it is to protect Israel’s even worse apartheid and genocidal regime.

The world is indeed turned on its head. And the West’s supposedly "free media" is playing a critical role in trying to make our upside-down world seem normal.

That can only be achieved by failing to report the Gaza genocide as a genocide. Instead, western journalists are serving as little more than stenographers. Their job: to take dictation from Israel. 

Disqus