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