Killing Mosquitoes: The Latest Gaza Massacres, Pro-Israel Media Bias And The Weapon Of ‘Antisemitism’
by Editors - Media Lens
10 April 2018
The Palestinians have long been seen as an obstacle by Israel's leaders; an irritant to be subjugated. Noam Chomsky commented:
'Traditionally over the years, Israel has sought to crush any resistance to its programs of takeover of the parts of Palestine it regards as valuable, while eliminating any hope for the indigenous population to have a decent existence enjoying national rights.'
He also noted:
'The key feature of the occupation has always been humiliation: they [the Palestinians] must not be allowed to raise their heads. The basic principle, often openly expressed, is that the "Araboushim" - a term that belongs with "nigger" or "kike" - must understand who rules this land and who walks in it with head lowered and eyes averted.' (Noam Chomsky, 'Fateful Triangle,' Pluto Press, 1999, p.489)
Recent events encapsulate this all too well. On Friday, March 30, Israeli soldiers shot dead 14 Palestinians and wounded 1400, including 800 hit by live ammunition. By April 5, the death toll had risen to 21. During a second protest, one week later on Friday, April 7, the Israelis shot dead a further 10 Palestinians, including a 16-year-old boy, and more than 1300 were injured. Among those killed was Yasser Murtaja, a journalist who had been filming the protest. He had been wearing a distinctive blue protective vest marked 'PRESS' in large capital letters.
The brutality, and utter brazenness with which the killings were carried out, is yet another demonstration of the apartheid state's contempt for the people it tried to ethnically cleanse in 1948, the year of Israel's founding.
On the first day of the protest, on March 30, many Palestinians had gathered in Gaza, close to the border with Israel, as part of a peaceful 'Great March of Return' protest demanding the right to reclaim ancestral homes in Israel.
100 Israeli snipers lay in wait, shooting at protesters, including an 18-year-old shot in the back while running away from the border. The Israel army boasted in a quickly-deleted tweet that the massacre had been planned, deliberate and premeditated:
'Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed'
BBC News and other 'mainstream' news outlets, including the Guardian, carried headlines about 'clashes' at the Gaza-Israel border 'leaving' Palestinians dead and injured. As we noted via Twitter, an honest headline would have read:
'Israeli troops kill 16 Palestinians and injure hundreds'
When the Israelis shot dead yet more Palestinians on the second Friday of protests, the BBC reported, 'Deadly unrest on Gaza-Israel border as Palestinians resume protest'. BBC 'impartiality' meant not headlining Israeli troops as the agency responsible for the 'deadly unrest'.
Adam Johnson, writing for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, observed of news reports carrying inappropriate headlines about 'clashes':
'We do not have one party's snipers opening fire on another, unarmed party; we have "violent clashes"—a term, as FAIR has noted before, that implies symmetry of forces and is often used to launder responsibility.'
On the first Friday of mass killing, we noted that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had reported the presence of Israeli snipers. We asked the public to look for any mention of this on BBC News.
Around the time we made the request, the Newssniffer website picked up the first reference to 'snipers' on the BBC News website (albeit buried in a tiny mention at the bottom of a news article). Coincidence? Or were BBC editors aware that their output was under public scrutiny?
Within just one day, the BBC had relegated the news of the mass shootings in Gaza to a minor slot on its website. It considered 'news' about television personality Dec presenting Saturday Night Takeaway without Ant, and royal couple Harry and Meghan choosing wedding flowers, more important than Israel killing and wounding many hundreds of Palestinians.
When BBC News finally turned to Gaza, with a piece buried at the bottom of its World news page, it was from Israel's perspective:
'Israel warns it could strike inside Gaza'
and:
'Palestinian groups using protests as a cover to launch attacks on Israel'
This disgraceful coverage strongly suggested that Israel was the victim. As political analyst Charles Shoebridge observed:
'Editors especially at the BBC aren't stupid, they know exactly what they're doing, and the use of very many devices such as this isn't somehow repeatedly accidental. Indeed, it's a good example of how the BBC is perhaps history's most sophisticated and successful propaganda tool.'
By contrast, a powerful article in Haaretz from veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Levy pointed to the reality that the mass shooting by Israeli 'Defence' Forces:
'shows once again that the killing of Palestinians is accepted in Israel more lightly than the killing of mosquitoes.'
The Silence of Liberal 'Interventionists'
Last year, Jeremy Corbyn was hounded by 'mainstream' media jounalists, demanding that he condemn acts of violence by the socialist government in Venezuela. But there was no corporate media campaign calling upon Theresa May to denounce much worse Israeli violence. The same media that devoted sustained, in-depth coverage of Spanish police brutality during the Catalan independence referendum swiftly relegated Israel's mass murder to 'other news'.
Imagine if Russian or Syrian troops had shot dead almost 30 civilians, and injured well over 1000, during peaceful protests. 'MSM' headlines and airwaves would be filled with condemnations from senior UK politicians and prominent commentators. But not so when it is Israel doing the killing.
We tweeted:
'Twitter task for today: think of any of the famously impassioned, outraged "humanitarian interventionists" in the Guardian, The Times, the Observer and so on, and check how much they've tweeted about the mass killings and woundings in Gaza. Go ahead, try it.'
Examples were glaring by their absence.
Writing for The Intercept, journalist Mehdi Hasan asked rhetorically:
'Where is the moral outrage from former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, the famously pro-intervention, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of a "A Problem From Hell," which lamented U.S. inaction in Rwanda [...]?
'Where is the demand from Canadian academic-turned-politician Michael Ignatieff, who was once one of the loudest voices in favor of the so-called responsibility to protect doctrine, for peacekeeping troops to be deployed to the Occupied Territories?
'Where are the righteously angry op-eds from Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, or Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, or David Aaronovitch of The Times of London, demanding concrete action against the human rights abusers of the IDF?'
Hasan concluded:
'The ongoing and glaring refusal of liberal interventionists in the West to say even a word about the need to protect occupied Palestinians from state-sponsored violence is a reminder of just how morally bankrupt and cynically hypocritical the whole "liberal intervention" shtick is.'
Global realpolitik was highlighted yet again when the US government blocked a vote at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council calling for an international investigation into the mass shooting of civilians by Israeli troops on March 30. The US repeated its block a week later after the second wave of Israeli killing. We have found no coverage in the UK 'mainstream' media of the US blocking a UN investigation. In other words, Israel can act with impunity when committing grievous crimes against humanity, backed to the hilt by its biggest sponsor in Washington.
Weaponising 'Antisemitism' Against Corbyn
Meanwhile, the 'MSM' was continuing to deploy charges of alleged antisemitism against Corbyn-led Labour; and, seen in a wider political context, against realistic hopes of even moderately progressive changes to UK government policy.
A Facebook comment made in 2012 by Corbyn about a mural depicting Jewish and non-Jewish bankers was unearthed and used to mount a remarkable barrage of vehement media attacks. BBC News took its lead from the obviously right-wing, anti-Corbyn agenda across the 'spectrum' of the country's 'free press'.
The attacks continued with a vicious front-page 'exclusive' in the extreme right-wing Sunday Times:
'Exposed: Corbyn's hate factory'
The article, based on a trawl of Facebook posts, painted a hugely exaggerated picture of 'racism, violent threats and abuse by leader's fan base'. Alex Nunns, author of The Candidate, a book about Corbyn's 'improbable path to power', pointed out the absurdly cynical nature of this Murdoch 'journalism'. Nunns undertook his own Facebook search for posts by Conservatives and quickly discovered examples of misogyny, abuse, an implied threat of violence and implicit racism. The Tory Facebook page he found:
'appears to have links to The Bruges Group, which in turn has links to leading Conservative politicians including Iain Duncan Smith. Headline: "EXPOSED: Iain Duncan Smith's hate factory." See how this is done?'
Guardian columnist Owen Jones picked up Nunns' tweets and pointed out in a live BBC interview:
'Why has there been no coverage of the despicable racism and abuse found in Conservative Facebook groups'?
The BBC news presenter replied:
'Because Labour is the story at the moment'.
That the 'MSM', including the BBC, had made Labour 'the story at the moment' was simply not worthy of comment by corporate journalists or, perhaps, permissible thought.
Shamefully, the BBC published a big splash based on the Sunday Times article on 'Jeremy Corbyn's hate factory'. The BBC piece was almost gleeful in saying that there was 'no let up for Labour':
'With negative stories on the front pages of at least four newspapers, this is not a happy Easter Sunday for Labour.'
In other words, as it so often does, the BBC was following the lead of the right-wing, anti-Corbyn 'mainstream' press. The onslaught of 'news' linking Corbyn to 'antisemitism' continued with an account of how Corbyn had attended a 'left wing Jewish event' organised by Jewdas. The BBC stated:
'Jewdas, which describes itself as a "radical" and "alternative" Jewish collective, is at odds with mainstream Jewish groups over allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour.'
Three of the principal pro-Israel bodies in the UK, the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement, criticised Corbyn for attending the event. The BBC reported:
'Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: "If Jeremy Corbyn goes to their event, how can we take his stated commitment to be an ally against anti-Semitism seriously?"'
The BBC not only ran with this latest 'story' linking Corbyn to antisemitism, but promoted it as the lead item on the BBC News website.
However, there is nothing that says we must allow BBC News to determine what is 'mainstream' and what is not. And, in particular, when it comes to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement, journalist Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada notes:
'Their primary function is to lobby for Israel, an institutionally racist, apartheid state.'
A measure of the Jewish Board of Deputies' staunch pro-Israel stance can be seen from the tweet they sent in the wake of the brutal Israeli killings in the first Friday border protest:
'Alarming developments at Gaza border as Hamas once again using its civilians - inc children - as pawns.'
The lack of condemnation from 'mainstream' voices in politics and the media to such a disgraceful message reveals widespread deep fear of being accused of antisemitism. This fear, used to constrain reasoned debate, needs to be seen in a broader historical context. In 2002, former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni explained the rationale behind the charge of antisemitism:
'Well, it's a trick – we always use it. When from Europe somebody's criticising Israel then we bring up the Holocaust.'
And it works. Professor Greg Philo of the Glasgow Media Group related that he was once told by a senior BBC News editor:
'The BBC waits in fear for the telephone call from the Israelis.'
None of the above is to deny that there is a significant problem of antisemitism in British politics, or in wider British society. But, as the group Jews for Justice for Palestinians notes, the facts are that:
'Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population.'
Moreover, antisemitism has decreased in Labour under Corbyn, and public polling indicates that it is more prevalent among Conservative and UKIP members than among Labour and Liberal members. Indeed, there is ample evidence of an extraordinary scale of Tory racism and abuse. In summary, then, here is the horrible irony of recent coverage on Israel and antisemitism: the corporate media continued to headline Corbyn's 'antisemitism crisis' - supposedly triggered by a comment about a mural in 2012 – while quickly relegating Israel's massacres of civilian Palestinians to 'other news' at the bottom of the page and running order.
The truth is that the deadliest racism today is indicated by the casual way in which the West and its allies rain violence down on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Although human rights are typically used as a pretext, the real goal is control of natural resources and the global economy; the tears of compassion evaporate the instant that an Official Enemy obstructing Western control has been overthrown.
As Chomsky has noted, this is actually closer to a kind of speciesism than racism:
'Namely, knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don't regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you don't even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I'll probably kill lots of ants, but I don't intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters.
'There are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when [President Bill] Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants. Same in the case of tens of millions of others.'
A further example, as we have seen, are the yawns of indifference from the corporate media as hundreds of civilian protestors – Palestinian 'mosquitoes' - are gunned down by Israeli snipers.
DC & DE
No comments:
Post a Comment