Israel's attack on Gaza

The unlikelihood of Israel ever being held accountable for its actions in Gaza:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/...80583.html

Im finding it very hard to watch some of the reports coming out of Gaza right now. Especially with the knowledge that this is but a drop in the ocean of Palestinian misery.

Channel 4 news on the aftermath of the 'war'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjyq2FzRBo

'As bad or worse than hurricanes, tsunamis or earthquakes'...

From Aljazeera:

[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaoIEWPRQhI"]"There is no life after this...[/URL]

"They destroyed everything"'

And some analysis for any of the (now strangely silent) pro-Israel creeps who may be feeling a bit of doubt creeping in.

Excellent Q+A from Znet: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20269

Robert Fisk on the political aftermath:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...51410.html

Chomsky on Gaza (video)

...All of this is normal, and quite openly discussed by high Israeli officials. Thirty years ago Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur observed that since 1948, "we have been fighting against a population that lives in villages and cities." As Israel's most prominent military analyst, Zeev Schiff, summarized his remarks, "the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously...the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets...[but] purposely attacked civilian targets." The reasons were explained by the distinguished statesman Abba Eban: "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." The effect, as Eban well understood, would be to allow Israel to implement, undisturbed, its programs of illegal expansion and harsh repression. Eban was commenting on a review of Labor government attacks against civilians by Prime Minister Begin, presenting a picture, Eban said, "of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr.Begin nor I would dare to mention by name." Eban did not contest the facts that Begin reviewed, but criticized him for stating them publicly. Nor did it concern Eban, or his admirers, that his advocacy of massive state terror is also reminiscent of regimes he would not dare to mention by name....

Short Chomsky interview on Gaza (text)

DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?

CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it's a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the ground.'" So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous population.

I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar.

There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel's history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it's crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the West Bank. That's the place that they really care about and want.

What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we'll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.

Finkelstein on Gaza (text)

The operative plan for the Gaza bloodbath can be gleaned from authoritative statements after the war got underway: "What we have to do is act systematically with the aim of punishing all the organizations that are firing the rockets and mortars, as well as the civilians who are enabling them to fire and hide" (reserve Major-General); "After this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza" (Deputy IDF Chief of Staff); "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target" (IDF Spokesperson's Office).[14] Whereas Israel killed a mere 55 Lebanese during the first two days of the 2006 war, the Israeli media exulted at Israel's "shock and awe" (Maariv)[15] as it killed more than 300 Palestinians in the first two days of the attack on Gaza. Several days into the slaughter an informed Israeli strategic analyst observed, "The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded."[16] Morris could barely contain his pride at "Israel's highly efficient air assault on Hamas."[17] The Israeli columnist B. Michael was less impressed by the dispatch of helicopter gunships and jet planes "over a giant prison and firing at its people"[18] -- for example, "70...traffic cops at their graduation ceremony, young men in desperate search of a livelihood who thought they'd found it in the police and instead found death from the skies."[19]

As Israel targeted schools, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and U.N. sanctuaries, as it slaughtered and incinerated Gaza's defenseless civilian population (one-third of the 1,200 reported casualties were children), Israeli commentators gloated that "Gaza is to Lebanon as the second sitting for an exam is to the first -- a second chance to get it right," and that this time around Israel had "hurled [Gaza] back," not 20 years as it promised to do in Lebanon, but "into the 1940s. Electricity is available only for a few hours a day"; that "Israel regained its deterrence capabilities" because "the war in Gaza has compensated for the shortcomings of the [2006] Second Lebanon War"; and that "There is no doubt that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is upset these days....There will no longer be anyone in the Arab world who can claim that Israel is weak."[20]

BBC refuses airtime to Gaza aid appeal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan...aza-appeal

The BBC has refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza, leaving aid agencies with a potential shortfall of millions of pounds in donations.

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella group for 13 aid charities, launched its appeal yesterday saying the devastation in Gaza was "so huge British aid agencies were compelled to act".

But the BBC made a rare breach of an agreement dating to 1963, saying it would not give free airtime to the appeal. Other broadcasters followed suit. Previously, broadcasters had agreed on the video and script to be used with the DEC, to be shown after primetime news bulletins.

The BBC, which has been criticised in the past over alleged bias in its coverage of the Middle East, said it did not want to risk public confidence in its impartiality. A BBC spokesperson said: "The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

Since the Blairite movement crushed any last vestiges of independent thought, the BBC's pathetic quisling attitude has been a disgrace.

Anyone who rates this discredited institution needs to have a serious re-think about where they get their news.

Sometimes the problem can be put down to workload: rolling news anchors, by the nature of their work (one minute Israel, next Gordon Brown on his round-Britain tour, next English cricket), do not have time to prepare for interviews. In order to achieve balance, both sides are allowed to give their view. But then, in visual terms, a hospital overwhelmed with dying and injured children is given equivalence to the funeral of a single Israeli soldier.

In the most highly charged part of the world, the BBC has a special locus. A public service broadcaster financed by the licence fee, it regards its requirements to impartiality and accuracy as sacrosanct. Accused of a liberal bias by its detractors, it has found itself almost constantly in the firing line. Since a 2005 report into its Middle East coverage by an independent panel, by the then governors, the BBC has made changes.

Among the report's many observations was that "our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments". And yet superimpose that approach to other theatres of conflict. Was such restraint used in the Russian bombardment of Georgia in August? For much of the time, one side was seen as the attacker, the other the embattled victim. Burma? Tibet?

Language, as any propagandist knows, is the most important tool. Hamas fighters are called "militants". That, I am told, is a halfway house between "terrorist" and more sympathetic labels such as "guerrillas". The Israeli army is often referred to by its formal title, the Israel Defence Forces. The bombardment of Gaza has regularly been described as "the Israeli operation". Such language denudes coverage of impact.

In 2005, I described the BBC as "broken, beaten, cowed" in a controversial article. I argued - on the basis of evidence from people inside the corporation - that the organisation was displaying an increasing reluctance to challenge authority. In this case, it was New Labour after the BBC had raised the white flag over the Hutton report. My article upset Mark Thompson, the director general. However, in the ensuing days I was contacted by many managers, editors and reporters saying their experiences bore out my argument, and expressing gratitude for putting the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan...a-conflict

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ionaltrade

Sky joins BBC in refusing to air Gaza Aid Appeal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan...lestinians

Pathetic.

it's all about obama (quite literally).

bbc in general sometimes

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

I've been going to the demonstrations including the one from outside the bbc on the weekend. Make sure you complain to the bbc about things like the dec appeal, an email takes 2 mins.

Good piece by Martin Bell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...6/bbc-gaza

BBC refuses airtime to Gaza aid appeal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan...aza-appeal

The BBC has refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza, leaving aid agencies with a potential shortfall of millions of pounds in donations.

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella group for 13 aid charities, launched its appeal yesterday saying the devastation in Gaza was "so huge British aid agencies were compelled to act".

But the BBC made a rare breach of an agreement dating to 1963, saying it would not give free airtime to the appeal. Other broadcasters followed suit. Previously, broadcasters had agreed on the video and script to be used with the DEC, to be shown after primetime news bulletins.

The BBC, which has been criticised in the past over alleged bias in its coverage of the Middle East, said it did not want to risk public confidence in its impartiality. A BBC spokesperson said: "The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

Since the Blairite movement crushed any last vestiges of independent thought, the BBC's pathetic quisling attitude has been a disgrace.

Anyone who rates this discredited institution needs to have a serious re-think about where they get their news.

Does seem to be ridiculous.

The bottom line is that people need help, irrespective of what side they are on.

Juicy comments:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...69281.html

"The corporation is infested with agents, not only from British intelligence but also the US and Israeli intelligence, unknown people with unknown jobs asking lots of questions without a clue who they are... MI5 and 6 have their own suites at various BBC centres.

Every supervisory or higher grade appointment has to go past the security services who are there at the interviews, the candidates are vetted not only for security risks but politically vetted as well.

And it is this that has led to the downfall and demise of the quality of the BBC's output, much of this is due to the Hutton report and Blair's humiliation and exposure as a liar, it is certainly no coincidence that after that, Blair instructed Jowell to do her best to wreck any chance of the BBC being fair or biased and even attempted to break it up with Jowell and her hubby creaming off the top selling it to their best buddy Berlusconi. The security services have ensured that only the "right" staff get editorial control, people that won't question the government or mock the state.

And what of Mark Thompson himself, isn't he married to a rabid Zionist? There are hints that he is a "6" man himself, and what of the deal done with Israel to allow BBC services to be broadcast over there? The BBC would "moderate" its viewpoint on Israel for privileged broadcasting and networking rights over there... e.g. grubby backhander deals

It doesn't take a genius to work out that our broadcasting service is being milked, bilked and stolen from under our very feet, WE own the BBC, not Brown, Blair, Bush or any of the other tossers out there, it doesn't say Israeli anywhere in its title but Britain and the BBC should be answering to us not kow-towing to America or Israel.

Take a leaf out of Noel Edmonds book... Tell the BBC to stuff its licence fee up its corporate corn chute and read a book.

And what the heck... Telling the readership to switch to a Murdochian channel, C'mon Robert you remember what he did to the Times when he took over from D C Thompson, he broke every rule and every pledge and promise, you cannot trust anything Murdoch is involved with."