The War on Gaza - The Finest Propaganda Campaign in History

The war on Gaza is not only a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions, it has also witnessed a propaganda campaign on a scale not witnessed before. The amount of mis-information, half-truths and, let's be frank, lies that have emerged over the past few weeks has meant that the casual viewer has been presented with an incomplete picture of the events in Gaza and what led up to them. This is the direct result of an attempt by the Israeli government to win the media battle and convince the international community that their assault on the innocent people of Gaza was entirely justified. It is a media battle that the world's media has been happy to play along with.


Ever since the start of the campaign, Israel has ensured that a spokesperson is free to talk to as many of the networks as possible to put their side of the story across. Barely a day has gone by without either Mark Regev or Major Avital Leibovich bombarding us with their 'truth' about the assault on Gaza. And yet, most of their words have been accepted as fact, without much in the way of interrogation. They have been able to make their accusations and claims entirely unchecked without providing a shred of evidence to support anything they have said. And the reason why they have been able to get away with this is down to the methods that the Israeli government has used to manage their message.


Take the reporting from Gaza. Or rather, the lack of reporting from Gaza. Since the beginning of the war on Gaza, journalists have not been allowed to provide independent verification of the claims of the Israeli government. Every time a claim is made by the Israeli state, there is no way to verify their accuracy. We only have the word of Israeli state officials to go on, and since when has a mouthpiece of the state been trustworthy? Of course, the Israeli government has been extremely pleased with the way the propaganda campaign on the media has been waged. They were said to be delighted with certain aspects of the BBC's coverage. The appearance of a BBC correspondent in a flak jacket in Israel certainly did much to convey the idea that Israel was under siege. Little wonder the Israeli government was so pleased.


One of the greatest fallacies about the war on Gaza has been the accusation that Hamas broke the terms of the ceasefire and have been launching hundreds of rockets into Gaza every day. Whilst it is true that rockets have been launched into Israel on a regular basis, there was a noticeable difference in the number of rockets fired from Gaza before the ceasefire and during. During the ceasefire, the number of rockets launched into Israel dropped dramatically. Hamas largely adhered to the terms of the ceasefire and ensured that their military arm did not fire rockets into Israel. There were, however, various other groups in Gaza who continued to fire rockets across the border, groups that are essentially hostile to Hamas and were keen to provoke Israel into launching an assault in the hope it would weaken Hamas. However, these groups were dealt with and those responsible for the launching of rockets were locked up. Despite the fact that Hamas were observing the ceasefire, on November 4th Israel launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas 'militants'. It was after this point that rocket fire into Israel reached pre-ceasefire levels. And this is the point often neglected by the media. I have observed many BBC correspondents say to Israeli officials that no-one argues that Hamas broke the ceasefire, when it is entirely the case that Israel broke the terms of the ceasefire. But such is the power of the propaganda machine, this has been accepted as fact.

And not only has this been accepted as fact, but various little details seem to have been ignored by much of the media. For example, on 23rd December, Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire but, as Israel had already drawn up their plans to assault Gaza, it was rejected. Not only was that offer ignored, but it is barely mentioned that Ismail Haniyeh offered a ten year ceasefire with Israel. There may well be competing voices within Hamas but, like all political groups, there are a wide range of viewpoints. But, again, such things are barely worthy of mention in the West, particularly given the idea that has been spread around that Fatah and Fatah alone are worthy of our support. Given the West's habit of supporting corrupt and incompetent parties across the globe, this support for Fatah is perhaps unsurprising. Fatah, after all, had done very little for the Palestinian people before their election defeat, a defeat mainly as a consequence of the corruption that ran throughout Fatah.

But this is not the worst of the mis-information put out by the media and the Israeli state. Take the attacks on the UN buildings in Gaza. After the first schools were hit, Israeli representatives went on TV and claimed that the responsibility for these crimes lay with Hamas, not with Israel. Now, it would appear, the victims of the crime are responsible for what happened to them. Compare this with standard right-wing rhetoric that is hostile to what it sees as the perpetrator being the ‘victim’. Remember all the times they have treated that idea with disdain and then wonder how they can claim (straight faced) that the murder of civilians by their bombs, their rockets, their military, is somehow not their fault, but that of Hamas. Strange, no?


Not only did they claim that the fault of their military murdering innocent civilians was not there fault, they also went on to claim that Hamas were using installations such as the schools to launch attacks on Israel. One spokesperson even claimed they 'booby-trapped' a building containing civilians. The spokesmen showed no remorse, no pity. And then what do we discover a few days later, when more than forty innocent people have died? That there were no Hamas fighters there and it was a 'mistake'. Too late for all those brothers who lost sisters, mothers who lost children, children who lost parents. Just a shrug of the shoulders from the Israeli government and then they move on. The dead becoming merely an inconvenient statistic that undermines their rhetoric about not wanting a war with the Palestinian people. What is this if it is not?


Despite their unfounded accusations, it is not as if Israel has abided entirely by international conventions. Whilst largely ignored or dismissed by much of the media, there is growing evidence that war crimes have been committed by the IDF. These crimes include:

• attempting to bulldoze houses with civilians inside;
• killing civilians trying to escape under the protection of white flags;
• the use of indiscriminate force in a civilian area and the firing of white phosphorus shells.
• using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties;
• holding Palestinian families as human shields;
• attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles;
• killing large numbers of police who had no military role.

Even the United Nations’ most senior human rights official suggested that Israel may have to answer for war crimes in the wake of their assault on Zeitoun. Of course, the chances of Israel actually being prosecuted for these war crimes is minute. Especially as the propaganda campaign by the Israeli government has been so successful in pushing out its message. Will there seriously be any support for an independent inquiry into Israeli war crimes? And, if there is an inquiry, what are the chances of Israel being censored as a result? Zero. Because, as always, the United States will ride to the rescue and ensure that the Israeli government are well protected. Besides, by then the assault will be forgotten about by the media and will make little difference for those in Gaza who have suffered at the hands of the IDF. And as for the change of government in America, is there anyone who seriously believes that Obama will launch a radical shift in foreign policy? With a Clinton as Secretary of State? The suffering of the Palestinians will continue and the Israeli propaganda machine will continue unabated.

The Role of The West in the Establishment of Hamas

Despite dominating the world media for many years, many aspects of the Israel/Palestine conflict remain hidden from view. Quite often, contemporary events are not placed in context. No background is given, no explanation is outlined. Large chunks of the history of the conflict are ignored or cast aside as irrelevant. As is the case in reporting of many events across the world, what is left out is nearly always as interesting as what is left in.

Take the rise of Hamas, for example. Hamas is frequently referred to as a terrorist organisation that has a destabilising influence across the Middle East. Western critics often refer to the organisation as an impediment to peace rather than an aid. However, the history of Hamas is clouded in mystery and obscured from any discussion relating to progress in the region. It is, of course, obscured for very good reason - it underlines the duplicity of Western foreign policy within the region. A duplicity that goes some way to explaining why the conflict is so complex and remains some distance from resolution.

Arab nationalism was seen as a threat to Western hegemony throughout the region in the 1950s and 60s. Suddenly Arab leaders were gaining confidence and seeking to reclaim their resources. Underpinned with a nationalist, secular ideology, these leaders declared their refusal to bow to Western demands. The rise of Gamal Abdal Nasser in Egypt and the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, gave many Arabs hope that they were about to witness a new era of dignity and freedom. This, of course, scared the West. A populist movement that sought to reclaim its natural resources? They could see that the emergence of Arab nationalism would have a massive impact on oil supplies and thus a situation could emerge whereby the Arab nationalists would hold all the cards, rather than the West. Alongside his nationalist agenda, Nasser also played an important role in the establishment of the PLO, a secular organisation reflecting Nasser’s own particular brand of Arab nationalism. If the PLO were to be successful in negotiating a deal with the Israelis, it would have been a massive victory for Arab nationalism and would have represented a serious threat to Western hegemony. Being the Palestinians sole representative on the world stage, it also united the Palestinian people, at least until the establishment of Hamas in 1987.

However, Nasser was not without his enemies within his own country. Despite initially supporting Nasser’s coup, The Muslim Brotherhood became disillusioned with Nasser’s secularist brand of politics and, in 1954, an attempt was made on his life. After the failed assassination attempt, the Islamists who were not rounded up and arrested subsequently left to settle in Saudi Arabia where they were welcomed as an important bulwark to the rise of ‘godless Communism’. The Saudi regime was particularly disturbed by the rise of Nasser as it threatened their fundamentalist form of government and consequently threatened their influence in the region. If an alternative form of government were to gain momentum, the Saudi regime would surely fall. Consequently, during this period, the Saudi government (alongside its ally the US) continued to provide financial backing to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood continued to agitate in Egypt and engaged in ‘radical activity’ led by one Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Under Yassin’s leadership, longtime Muslim Brotherhood activists were simply redirected from promoting Islamic observance to engaging in violent anti-Israel activities. Yassin had, by this stage, established his violent anti-Israeli credentials and was clearly pursuing a more radical Islamic course compared to the more secular PLO. However, this did not prevent the Western powers from pursuing a course of engagement with Yassin and his colleagues in the Brotherhood.

During the 1980s, Yassin focused on developing a ‘charitable organisation’ within Gaza that developed a network of social-welfare organizations, mosques, and schools. It was also at this time that the US and Israel provided financial support to Yassin and his organisation, despite Yassin’s previous anti-Israeli agitation in Egypt. Ostensibly, his organisation was supported as a counter-balance to the PLO and its secular Arab nationalism, which was seen as a massive threat to Western hegemony in the region (due to the loss of control of natural resources). According to Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, Israel:

"...aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)."

A resurgence of Arab nationalism in the region was of deep concern to the United States and the growth of a radical Islamic organisation would be a useful counter-weight to the rise of nationalist secularism. This was further demonstrated by the support of radical Islamists in Afghanistan (including Osama Bin Laden) during the conflict with the Soviet Union. With a radical alternative to Arab nationalism, the Arab people would remain divided and consequently allow the US to maintain influence in the region. As one former CIA official put it, Israel's support for Hamas :

"...was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative."

Furthermore, according to US officials:

....funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

Consequently, whether it was intentioned or not, it would appear that the growth of Hamas as a power bloc within the region was directly attributable to the United State and her allies. Concerned by the growth of Arab nationalism and the problems that would cause for the West in the region, the US threw in its lot with radical Islamists who would prove to be a useful barrier to the rise of Soviet supported, secular regimes within the region. Despite the background of Yassin in Egypt, both Israel and the US had no problem with supplying funds and offering their support to Yassin’s ‘charitable organisation’. Thus the combination of Israel and the US managed to ensure that the Palestinian people were divided between a secular organisation prepared to do business with Israel (the PLO recognised Israel in 1993 as part of the Declaration of Principles), and a radical Islamic organisation that took a less compromising position regarding peace in the region. And yet, the covert support by the US government for radical Islamic groups over the years has remained firmly outside of the scope of the mainstream media’s assessment of the situation in the Middle East. Yet how can we understand the situation in the Middle East if we do not understand how it was created? The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is tied to the West’s attempts to assert hegemony throughout the region and ensure it remains the dominant force on the global stage. Ironic that the forces they utilised to ensure their dominance are now the very forces that threaten to demolish it.

The BBC, Palestine and Half a Story

Nabbed the headline from one of the far-right cretins at Biased BBC, seemed appropriate for this little story I found on the BBC's website. In a report on the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, the BBC reported the following:

Hamas, which does not recognise Israel and opposes the peace process, ousted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's forces from Gaza in June. Mr Abbas remains in control of Palestinian-administered parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

However, there is no explanation of the circumstances surrounding the 'ousting' of Abbas' forces. Like the fact that Fatah attempted to seize control of Gaza and the West Bank from the democratically elected Hamas government. Or the fact that Abbas' forces had been attempting to assassinate the leader of a democratically government. A more appropriate description of the situation would be that Abbas' forces had attempted a coup against a democratically elected government and failed. But then I guess that wouldn't fit in with the anti-Palestinian rhetoric that is prevalent in the West.

Observer Interviews Leader of Izzidine Qassam Brigades

Fascinating interview in today's Observer, here's a taster:

At the height of the fighting 10 days ago in Gaza City, the commander of the Hamas militants laying siege to the Palestinian Authority compound received a call from his Fatah counterpart inside. 'He asked if we were going to invade and take the building,' said Abu Obieda, the top Hamas military commander for the Gaza Strip. 'He said if we entered his compound, he would kill himself.'

'Abu Obieda begged him not to commit such a sin,' interjected Abu Khalid, one of his lieutenants. 'He promised him that he and all of his men would be protected if they just surrendered. And finally they did. And all of them are still alive and free in their homes.'

Fatah officials in Gaza confirm the story but asked that the commander not be identified for fear of shaming him.

A rare opportunity to hear another side of the story.

B'Tselem to Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip: Bring to Trial Those Responsible for War Crimes

From B'Tselem:

This last week, intense fighting erupted between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip. According to various estimates, approximately 160 people, including many children and civilians who were not participating in the fighting, were killed in the course of these clashes. This wave of violence ended with a victory for Hamas, who took control of all the bases of power in the Gaza Strip and established a separate leadership there.

During the events of this week, both parties committed severe violations of customary international humanitarian law, acts that constitute war crimes. These included summary execution of people identified with the opposing party, some of whom were civilians not involved in the fighting. In some of the cases serious abuse was reported to have preceded the summary executions.

According to media reports, on June 10, 2007, members of Hamas captured 28-year old Muhammed a-Sawirki, who apparently belonged to the Fatah-affiliated Presidential Guard and threw him to his death from a high-rise building in Gaza City , with his hands and legs bound. In response, armed Fatah men kidnapped Sheikh Muhammed A-Rafati, an imam identified with Hamas, and shot and summarily executed him. In another incident that occurred on June 11, 2007, Hamas members surrounded the home of Jamal Abu al-Jidyan, from the Fatah leadership in the northern Gaza Strip, firing missiles and mortars that injured Abu al-Jidyan .When his neighbors tried to bring him to the nearby hospital, Hamas men captured Abu Jidian and shot and summarily executed him. On June 14, 2007, in an incident that was broadcast on the Hamas television station in Gaza , Samih al-Madhun, a leader of Fatah's military wing, was captured in the a-Nuseirat refugee camp. al-Madhun was then strapped to the hood of a car and the nearby crowd stabbed him in every part of his body until he was died.

Another serious phenomenon that occurred in the course of the fighting was deliberate attacks on hospitals and their use as military targets. For example, on June 10, 2007, Fatah members shot mortars and grenades at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City , where armed Hamas men had barricaded themselves, and the Hamas men fired back from inside the hospital.

International humanitarian law recognizes several fundamental rules that apply to all states, organizations or individuals taking part in fighting, without regard to the nature of the conflict in the framework of which the fighting is taking place (international or internal). Among these rules is the absolute prohibition on summary execution of non-involved civilians, or of combatants who have been captured or laid down their weapons, and the absolute prohibition on committing any act of cruelty toward a member of one of these groups. These rules also grant special protection to hospitals and medical personnel, and forbid attacks on the latter. Acts of this nature are defined as war crimes under international law and impose personal criminal responsibility on those involved in their commission.

B'Tselem calls on the Palestinian leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip to investigate each incident that occurred during the fighting with Fatah that raises a suspicion of a war crime having been committed, including those noted above, and to bring the suspects to criminal trial.

In addition, B'Tselem warns against illegal injury to people or institutions affiliated with Hamas in the West Bank , whether through acts of revenge by individuals or groups identified with Fatah, or in the course of arbitrary arrests by the Palestinian Authority. Preliminary signs of such acts have appeared in the last few days, and the security forces of the Palestinian Authority bear the responsibility to use all means at their disposal to prevent such attacks.

B'Tselem also reminds the Israeli government, which has effective control in the West Bank, that it bears overarching responsibility for the human rights of all people in the West Bank, including for acts committed by agencies operating with Israel 's agreement, including the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas 'Does Not Want to Seize Power'

Here is a story from Haaretz that will no doubt be ignored by much of the Western media:

Damascus-based Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal said Friday his group does not want to seize power in the Palestinian Authority, adding that Hamas recognizes Abbas as the Palestinian Authority chairman.

Addressing media in the Syrian capital, Meshal said that Hamas had not wanted to take over the Gaza Strip.

"Hamas does not want to seize power ... We are faithful to the Palestinian people," Meshal said, promising to help rebuild Palestinian homes damaged in the months of bloody infighting.

"What happened in Gaza was a necessary step. The people were suffering from chaos and lack of security and this treatment was needed," Meshal continued. "The lack of security drove the crisis toward explosion."

"Abbas has legitimacy," Meshal said, "There's no one who would question or doubt that, he is an elected president, and we will cooperate with him for the sake of national interest."

It was Meshel who was reported by Reuters as softening his

anti-Israel rhetoric, suggesting that Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel as written in the group's charter. He said that Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel, this is a matter of fact".

"The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state does not exist," he said.

And we all know how much notice the Western media paid to those words.

Gaza Descends Into Chaos - Courtesy of the Western Powers

With the ongoing violence in Gaza, the usual suspects have been quick to claim that the current events have nothing to do with the EU and the US. Instead, the blame falls squarely at Hamas' feet. While it is true that both sides are involved in a never ending cycle of violence that must be condemned, the roots of this problem trace right the way back to the West. As usual, the right-wing press take an overly simplistic approach to the situation. The Daily Telegraph (the bastion of British conservatism) took a typical line on events:

The appalling barbarity currently unfolding in Gaza, where gunmen from the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas are attempting to eliminate physically their secular Fatah rivals, has led to the inevitable accusations that Israel and its Western allies are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed.

The fact that the latest outburst of violence was started, and is being sustained, by Hamas's attempts to eradicate any hint of opposition to its radical Islamic agenda is conveniently overlooked.

Instead those who claim to have the Palestinians' best interests at heart insist the violence is the result of the refusal of Israel and its supporters - i.e. America - to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas government on a lasting political settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The word 'simplistic' hardly does the leader justice. And then, what a surprise, we have Melanie Phillips wading in with some typical intellectual bankruptcy:

If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted) condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?

Putting aside her failure to grasp that sometimes, just sometimes, Israel might do something wrong, it is the penultimate point that raises an eyebrow. 'The amount of funding has doubled'? What could this mean?? Before looking any further into the claims that we have nothing to do with this mess, here is what Abu Amr (an independent voice in the Palestinian authority, belonging to neither Fatah or Hamas) has to say on the current situation:

"If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight," Abu Amr told a news conference in Tokyo. "We need to undo the very problematic situation that mainly others have created."

Abu Amr, an independent in the Palestinian government, blamed the fighting on the deprivations forced upon Palestinians.

"We really live in a cage," he said. "People cannot move in Gaza. They can't travel. There's no work. There's no normal life."

"If Gaza disintegrates, subsequent negotiations with the Israelis would be jeopardized," Abu Amr was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters afterward. "The situation is extremely grave."

This is a far more realistic representation of what is going on in Gaza, by a man who is independent of both factions. The Palestinian people have been the victim of untold suffering since they chose to elect Hamas. Over 2.4 million Palestinians live under the poverty line as a result of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU in response to their democratic judgement. The region stands on the brink of economic collapse whilst the West pats themselves on the back for the good work they have done. Yes, those in power knew this was going to happen, they planned for it. Rice claimed back in October last year:

the economic boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian government is effective and the international community will continue to maintain the boycott.

And so it has proved. The economic boycott has led to the desperate situation that Abu Amr refers to. The Palestinian people have been the victim of a concerted effort by the West to undermine any sense of democracy in the region. In desperation, they have turned on each other. And what of this aid that Phillips refers to? Well, as usual, Phillips only tells half the story. Aid has increased quite dramatically over the past 18 months, however Phillips fails to explain just what type of aid increased. The aid has not been humanitarian, rather it has been military in nature. Since last year, the US government has funnelled millions of dollars to Fatah's defence forces, as they predicted a split between Hamas and Fatah. The US has played a very active role in current events. According to a report in The Observer at the time:

US cash is reportedly being used to set up training facilities for Abbas's special guard, Force 17, in the West Bank town of Jericho and in Gaza.

Furthermore, the report claimed that:

Officially the US has put up some $42m to bolster Hamas's political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian elections, with officials saying the programme is aimed at promoting alternatives to Hamas, which caused a sensation when it won power in January.

Not only have they been providing military funding to Fatah, they have been funding opposition parties as well. Imagine the storm this would create in America if Iran began funding an opposition party. I'm guessing that the hypercritical right would be up in arms about such a development.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Western powers have played a major part in this conflict. The American government has repeatedly attempted to undermine a democratic government and has refused to even entertain the idea of holding talks with them. It has provided military funding to Fatah, whilst upholding sanctions that hurt the Palestinian people. Is it really any surprise that the two factions would turn against each other in these conditions? Of course not. The American government made its intentions clear right from the start, it would do everything in its power to ensure that the Hamas government collapsed and was replaced with a compliant authority that is willing to become yet another US franchise in the region. While there is no doubt that the murders are at the hands of both Hamas and Fatah, there is also no doubt that the environment for this conflict was created by America and the EU. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is either dangerously short-sighted or plainly irresponsible.

*According to the BBC, Abbas has dismissed the Hamas led government declaring that:

"I [Abbas] have issued the following decree: the sacking of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya."

This would be the same Haniya who was subject to an assassination attempt by Abbas' Fatah party. I'm guessing a few people will be rubbing their hands with glee at this news. Meanwhile, the suffering continues for the Palestinians.