Sunday, 27 July 2014

Dahiya doctrine

The Dahiya doctrine is a military strategy put forth by the Israeli general Gadi Eizenkot that pertains to asymmetric warfare in an urban setting, in which the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence.[1] The doctrine is named after a southern suburb in Beirut with large apartment buildings which were flattened by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 2006 Lebanon War.[2] Israel has been accused of implementing the strategy during the Gaza War.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

NYT headline on Gaza killings hits new low

Jonathan Cook from Nazareth

17 July 2014

Remember the appalling New York Times headline of July 10 over a story about a family of nine Palestinians killed by an Israeli strike as they watched the World Cup on the beach: “Missile at beachside Gaza cafe finds patrons poised for World Cup.” Could you imagine a more obfuscatory and misleading headline? Like the missile made the decision about where to strike on its own. I thought that was about as low as the NYT would sink.

But I was wrong. They have come up with an even more dissembling headline, one clearly crafted to avoid highlighting the embarrassing fact that Israel slaughtered four boys yesterday who were playing football in clear view on the beach.

The first subeditor does a reasonable job: “Four young boys killed playing on a Gaza beach”. It’s not exactly clear who did the killing, but at least it gives an idea of the story.

But then, it seems, the senior editors stepped in and demanded the headline be rewritten. Not to make the headline better or clearer, mind you. Simply to strip it of any relevance to the story; in fact, to strip it of any obvious meaning at all. Here it is: “Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife.”

No missile strike, no blast, no deaths and injuries, no Israeli responsibility to be found in the headline. All of it whitewashed by that weasel word “strife”.

And look at the enormous burden being placed on the verb “drawn”. It leaves the reader wondering not why Israel targeted four children but why they were “drawn” to the beach in the first place. And further, why they were drawn – rather than thrust by Israel – into the “center of strife”. The clear implication is that they were pawns, lured to the beach and exploited for some nefarious end. Who could have done such luring and to what purpose?

The NYT editors are world-class wordsmiths. They understand the power of words and they are experts at using them to achieve the desired effect. There is nothing accidental about this headline. It is as precisely targeted as the Israeli missile that ended those four young boys’ lives.

(h/t Abid Aslam)
- See more at:

Monday, 14 July 2014

BBC normalising terror

What Palestinians are experiencing in Gaza is not a big deal.

That's what you learn from the BBC:

"For Palestinians the uncertainty continues."

"There's a lot of frustration here [in a school where they're sheltering from the bombing]."

That is, Palestinians don't experience terror, just "uncertainty" and "frustration".

This racist dehumanising of Palestinians is actually worse than that of Israeli politicians (e.g., "dogs", Moshe Dayan, "roaches", Rafael Eitan, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger," Dov Weisglass).

At least the Zionists are honest in their hate.

The BBC does not hate Palestinians; they just normalise it on Israel's behalf.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Jeremy Bowen carefully steers viewers' attention away from Israel's lies.

Jeremy Bowen: "When Israel says they're responding for attacks on their civilians, so Hamas is responsbile, no Palestinian listens."

It is crytal clear to Bowen that it's not a case that no Palestinian "listens" to Israel but that no Palestinian believes Israel.

This is crystal clear because, just seconds earlier in his report, a Palestinian is making that clear (disbelieving Israel because he has listened but does not believe).

Since this must be clear to Bowen, it raises the question of how/why Bowen deliberately distorts Palestinians' disbelief of Israel into an unwillingness to listen.

This distortion requires significant skill; it's not something a journalist can do accidentally. Bowen's motive is clearly not to raise the question of why would Palestinians not believe Israel because that would raise the question, Does Israel lie?

So Bowen's journalistic practice in this instance is one of mendacity - carefully steering viewers away from the crux issue (Israel's lies).