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.

BBC - Let's Make the Death Penalty Humane

I had to switch off what is perhaps one of the most absurd/offensive pieces of television I have ever seen on the BBC. Next time you hear some frothy mouthed loony claim that the BBC is part of some liberal conspiracy, remind them of this little programme. Effectively, Michael Portillo seeks out a humane method of execution. Yes, you read that right, a humane method. The programme's central premise does not revolve around how the use of the death penalty is inhuman, rather how we can make execution more humane. This strikes me as a rather bizarre concept to say the least. There is no humane method of execution as execution is, by definition, inhuman. The BBC's own website reinforces the programme's central argument:

Former British MP Michael Portillo has talked to Outlook about a programme he has made for BBC television on the death penalty.

Portillo agreed to undertake 'near-death' experiments in order to ascertain which is the most humane form of execution.

Any programme that starts from that perspective is deeply concerning. Portillo himself says:

"I hoped that there might be common ground in looking for a humane, painless way to do it."

How about looking for common ground on banning this obscene practice full stop, rather than looking for a nice way to do it? Besides, as I said above, the terms 'humane' and 'execution' do not even belong in the same breath. Quite frankly, I find it deeply offensive to find a programme on the BBC that suggests that execution is acceptable and we just need to seek out a 'humane' way of doing it.

The BBC - supporting the executioner.

Douglas Murray Supports State Sponsored Execution

The man who is a close second to Andrew Roberts for the title of 'Man Most Deserving of a Good Beating' was on his usual top form on Question Time tonight (MOA: Wading Through The Wingnut Bollocks So You Don't Have To - and worrying my doctor with my rising blood pressure). Mr Murray (who, by the way, has taken to addressing the audience as 'ladies and gentleman' at the end of every statement like some foaming mouthed, rabid ring master in some twisted circus of hatred) did his utmost to defend the police, and particularly Ian Blair, against some terribly awful accusations (cos they need defending after all).

During a debate on Ian 'The Executioner' Blair, one woman in the audience described the De Menezes shooting as a 'crime', Murray shouted her down and claimed that such an accusation was ludicrous. Yes, according to Murray, pinning down an innocent man and blasting seven bullets into his body is entirely proper and in no way illegal. Such brave men fighting the 'War on Abstract Nouns', how dare the public question their right to blow the shit out of anything that moves?

Ladies and Gentleman (do you see what I did there?), I give you:

Douglas Murray:

The Man Who Wants The Police To Blow The Shit Out Of Anyone That Looks Slightly Foreign and May, In Some Way (Possibly), Be A Terrorist Because The Police Know What Is Best For All Of Us.

Thank you very much and goodnight.

Musharraf Clamps Down on Media - And The Establishment Goes Quiet

Remember the furore over the refusal to renew RCTV's broadcasting licence? Even the BBC joined in the chorus of disapproving voices, even going so far as to claim that Venezuela was under 'militant rule' (before a cunning piece of stealth editing). Well, something similar has happened again, only this time it is by one of 'our' allies. Interestingly, there has not been a word of comment by many of those keen to jump on the Chavez as totalitarian rhetoric so beloved of Bush.

Over the week-end, President Musharraf gave us a glimpse of his totalitarian tendencies. As a result of the growing political storm in Pakistan, with calls for a return to democracy growing ever louder, Musharraf gave the order to take Geo TV off the air for promoting an "anti-state attitude" and casting "aspersions against the judiciary and the integrity of the armed forces". Geo TV was taken off the air shortly after an interview with Imran Khan on its flagship news programme, watched by around 30 million people. According to the president of the station:

"We had an interview with Imran Khan followed by a discussion about the military in politics. Suddenly it all went blank."

As well as the suspension, legislation has been introduced that provides for fines of up to £85,000 and the suspension of a station's licence.

This is not the first time that Geo TV has been attacked by the government. Back in March, Musharraf banned "The Kamran Kahn Show" due to its coverage of the dispute with a suspended Supreme Court judge. The station's offices were also raided by the police after broadcasting footage of them firing rubber bullets into a crowd of protesters. The bureau chief at the time is reported as stating that:

"Police have attacked our office, they are breaking windows. They are beating our staff. They have used tear gas shells. Even our female staff have been hurt. They are damaging our building."

And yet, silence from the very people who claim to stand for freedom of speech. Not even the BBC, so quick to criticise Chavez, have made any comment on this attack on the free press. Bush, unsurprisingly, failed to take the opportunity to remind Pakistan of its democratic responsibilities. According to the BBC:

Mr Bush also called for the "immediate and unconditional release" of dissidents in such nations as Belarus, Burma and Cuba.

He listed these nations, along with North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria as the "worst dictatorships" and criticised Venezuela, Uzbekistan and Vietnam for rolling back earlier "freedom".

Venezuela, but not Pakistan. Chavez refused to renew a license due to the failure to observe basic broadcasting laws. Musharraf has sent the police in to raid a TV station and has repeatedly taken it off the air. RCTV backed a coup in Venezuela. Geo TV is calling for a return to democracy. The differences are obvious and stark. And yet, nothing. Still, I guess that should be no surprise when the mainstream media describes an ideological opponent of Bush 'militant', whilst they gloss over the totalitarian tendencies of a close friend and ally. Once again, the establishment clubs together to protect one of their own.

Further info: Opinion piece by Geo TV's Group Executive Director

* In other Pakistan related news, via the BBC:

A woman and three men were shot dead in a public execution in a Pakistani village after tribal elders found them guilty of adultery, officials said.

Reports said the executions were watched by some 600 people.

Looks like Pakistan has long way to go before it is truly a democratic state worthy of friendship.

Physician Heal Thyself

-around 60% of torture victims report seeing a health professional involved in monitoring their interrogation, setting up how harsh the interrogation can be, and so forth. -

You can read all of this, listen to this, or watch this at Democracy Now!

-After 9/11, the Pentagon began using so-called behavioral science consultants, or "biscuit" teams to help interrogators obtain information from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. These medical teams reportedly advised the military on how to "break" detainees to make them more cooperative.
Dr. Steven Miles, author of "Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror." He is a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty member of its Center for Bioethics. He is also a practicing physician.

"the medical system is entirely integrated into the abuse, that there was a structure, there was an actual policy mechanism that can be seen for the delayed release of torture-related homicides, that there was an entire structure for culling patients medical records for information on their vulnerabilities, incorporating that into harsh, incursive interrogation plans, monitoring those plans, designing those plans with psychological insights to exploit the particular characteristics of Islamic men, and then monitoring the disintegration of these men, and feeding that back into the torture plans.

looks very much like, oh, for example, the way physicians were complicit in torturing Argentina or Paraguay or Chile. Basically they hid torture. They delayed the release or concealed death certificates pertaining to deaths by torture. They helped design and monitor harsh interrogations, and they neglected basic medical needs as they failed to record injuries from torture and failed to report that torture up the chain of command or to places that could stop it.he was not a prisoner. He was actually a U.S. employee, and somebody else said that he was getting ready to attack our unit. And, in fact, around 85% of the prisoners in Iraq and 60% in Guantanamo are innocent of any insurgency or al-Qaeda activity by the Military Intelligence's own estimate. In this case, we picked up one of our own employees. So Schlesinger said -- well, the guy blurted out a bunch of names after they fired a gun next to his head, and Schlesinger said, “This is a great example of a ticking time bomb case.” But the problem was --

the guy gave out names of people who were innocent, just because he was scared. We alienated him as an informant, and none of these names panned out. But here's the follow-up to the story: what they did then was they let this lieutenant colonel off very lightly and they allowed him discharge with a pension, okay? And about a hundred congressmen gave him dinners across the United States.

this government’s definition of what’s a legal interrogation is infinitely elastic and so that this is not a profound barrier to psychologists, and it doesn't surprise me that the military will shift over to working with psychologists. In fact, they screen the docs before they go down to Guantanamo to make sure they have no moral objections to force-feeding and then they take the docs who don't have an objection to force-feeding, and those are the docs who get to go to Guantanamo."-

At this moment psychiatrists and their professional body have taken a stand and are generally not involved in the torture regime. However American psychologists have failed to show much backbone, their association passed a bullshit resolution which sounded good but actually allowed them to cooperate with the Bush crime family. Learn more at psychoanalyst Stephen Soldz's blog http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/

‘Genocide’ Seems To Be The Hardest Word or Turkey Dammit!

And after that a 'sorry' would be nice, the BBC are very diplomatic and only describe the killing of 1.5 million, yes 1,500,000 people by Turkey as a genocide when you get well down the page. This is really instructive, if a large enough power denies something consistently then even objective outside sources begin to bend to their will and pussy foot around the subject. Thus writers bury the lede; here is the opening of the BBC report:-

A senior Armenian delegation is in eastern Turkey for the reopening of a 1,100-year-old Armenian church restored by the Turkish government.
The move is being seen as a positive gesture by Ankara to help overcome the animosity following the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915.-

You have to go to the bottom of the page for this:-

Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in a genocide by Ottoman Turks during World War I, either through systematic massacres or through starvation.
More than a dozen countries, various international bodies and many Western historians agree that it was genocide.
Turkey says there was no genocide. It acknowledges that many Armenians died, but says the figure was below one million.-

All very diplomatic and 'balanced' but this is the myth of balance. If I kick you in the face in front of witnesses then the report is simply- I kicked you in the face- but what happens if I am powerful? The report becomes- while the reader claims to have been kicked in the face, Rick denies this and says while he acknowledges some foot /face intersection may have occurred it was purely accidental as can be expected in everyday life. -

Oh and if I'm really up to speed I get to add- the reader was a terror suspect- I only need to use that if I blow your fucking brains all over a tube carriage by emptying several 9mm rounds at point blank range while my friend holds you down (Hello the Met). Balance is not giving all sides equal airing there must be fact checking and challenging obvious falsehoods, it is not allowing a liar to lie to create plausible doubt (Hello Exxon). While establishing objective truth is impossible, if both the victims and those who study the incident agree it is genocide, then it is motherfucking genocide and that is what you headline the story with - Turkey makes moves to rebuild relations after Genocide- perhaps.

Turkey though is very active in covering up this genocide. In the US they bribed the former Republican speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to block a motion that would have recognised the Armenian genocide. They paid him $500,000 (that's 33 cents a life, good value for Turkey!) in $200 dollar amounts so it didn’t have to be itemised and therefore traced in public filings.

The BBC has an impossible job and will never please everyone, but c’mon, call it what it is and tell Turkey to face the facts or fuck off.

Long May We Prosper

Whilst everyone works themselves into a frenzy about the redistributive powers of our Chancellor, we get a little insight into what our taxes are paying for. How about this for example:
New figures released today by campaign group Justice for Colombia show that 84 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2006. This marks a 20% increase on the number assassinated in 2005.

But what's that got to do with our taxes, I hear you ask. Well, along with the US, we provide a certain degree of financial support to America's favourite franchise state (approximately £1 million, plus 'lethal military equipment'). As recent events have shown, there is an indisputable link between the Colombian government, and the paramilitary groups that are responsible for these murders. Aren't we supposed to be fighting a 'war on terror'?

According to the report:

The figures, which are sourced from Colombian unions, show that teachers and agricultural workers were hit particularly hard: 40 of the 84 people killed were teachers and 11 were agricultural workers.

Although most of the culprits have never been identified, figures from the Colombian Commission of Jurists show that the vast majority of political assassinations were committed by the state and right-wing paramilitaries, often acting in collusion.

Carlos Rodriguez, President of the CUT – Colombia’s main union confederation – said: “Since the CUT was founded in 1986, there has been a campaign against trade union activity and more than 3,000 trade unionists have been assassinated. There is no other country in the world where trade unionists suffer such violence.”

While Brown talks about 'prosperity and fairness for Britain's families', he ensures a nice little chunk is used to spread poverty and murder throughout Colombia. But hey, fuck it, at least it's built on:

'...the foundation of the longest period of economic stability and sustained growth.'

I feel better already.