The Blatancy of Lies

Just a few short words to highlight the absolute supremacy of the victors discourse in the hell of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It seems that such is the mendacity of the world’s media, the governments of the West (and indeed plenty of our puppet-regimes and receivers of military aid amongst the leaders of the Arab world) and the state of Israel itself, that lies and crimes are now reported as fact, and the facts remain unreported.

Example one: a seemingly innocuous article about an archaeological dig, picked up, amongst others, on the BBC news website and Sky news. Both reports detailed how The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) had discovered a rare Roman-era marble statuette in Jerusalem. Both reports note, without any further comment, that the 1,800-year-old figurine made of marble and depicting a miniature image of a bearded man's head was discovered in an archaeological excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority in occupied east Jerusalem (my emphasis). Now, on the one hand you could argue that the word occupied is included in the articles, and that proves that the BBC and Sky are reporting impartially. Frankly, that’s bollocks. It doesn’t explain who is occupying East Jerusalem (the state of Israel), who it is that is being occupied (Palestinians), how long this has been going on (since 1967), the context for the land being occupied (naked aggressive military expansionism and religious zealotry by the state of Israel), or the legal consequences (that occupying east Jerusalem is illegal in international law and that in so occupying the area Israel are in material breach of UN resolutions Furthermore that Jerusalem as a whole is a ‘corpus separatum’ which is supposed to be under a special international regime administered by the UN). All in all the article fails to highlight that Israel has no legal right to be in east Jerusalem, and that it therefore has no right to be conducting archaeological excavations there and keeping any antiquities it finds.

Example two: an article that appeared in some mainstream media (the BBC, Independent, Reuters, Haaeratz, Irish Times and Guardian for example) of a Rabbi for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) who had been handing out questionable religious guidance leaflets to troops entering Gaza. All of the articles were small and crammed in the ‘other news’ column inches. All simply stated that a controversy was brewing over Rabbi Avichai Rontzki (the army chief chaplain) giving out these leaflets for their alleged incitement against Palestinians. Ah, ‘alleged’, there’s that conditional word, that safety net for the media. Now, the leaflet itself was considered so extreme in its intolerant and fundamentalist religious views that many within Israel have been uncomfortable with it (Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group said the booklet's contents could be "interpreted as a call to act outside the confines of international laws of war"). It called on the IDF soldiers to ‘show no mercy’ (not only a statement born of hatred and a refusal to differentiate one Palestinian form another, but also a call for IDF soldiers to avoid the usual ‘rules of war’ which explicitly call for mercy and humanity, especially towards civilians, women, children, the elderly and the wounded). The leaflet went on to claim the IDF’s "cruel enemy" was "terribly immoral" and advised soldiers they were fighting "murderers." The booklet, it transpired was written by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a main figure in the Jewish settler movement in the occupied West Bank – and thus a proponent of an act which is illegal in law and at the heart of the ongoing conflict – illegal settlement. Now, consider for one moment if news had emerged that the chief Imam to Hamas had distributed a comparable leaflet – we’d have heard once again that Hamas are a terrorist organisation dedicated to wiping Israel off the map and who exhibit all the signs of religious fundamentalism and extremism that threaten to eradicate the very fabric of civilisation. This may well be true. But why would one side elicit one reaction and the other side none?

Finally, consider the declaration reported today by the leader of Israel's right-wing Likud party, Binyamin Netanyahu. In the run up to the forthcoming general election in Israel Netanyahu informed Tony Blair, the Middle East Peace Envoy (setting aside the cynicism and hypocrisy of that appointment for one moment to allow us to consider the point), that if elected Prime Minister (which seems likely) he will continue to expand existing settlements on the West Bank. Now, how was this reported in most western media? Why, of course, it was reported as “Netanyahu vows, No New Settlements”. How cynically disingenuous. Of course no one is denying that Netanyahu did indeed make that promise (whether to believe him is another matter entirely). But the angle that was most definitely NOT reported was “Netanyahu vows to continue illegally expanding illegal settlements in illegally occupied land belonging to Palestinians, taken from them by force, and illegally occupied in breach of a number of UN resolutions for over 40 years”. Because of course that might help people understand a little more about this conflict. We are of course told, and supposed to believe, that this conflict is so complex, so long standing, that it defies human comprehension. Utter bollocks. For those with time (say half a day), and the ability to read (at above, say, a Key Stage Three level), the situation is easily understandable. As is the reason for the current impasse. No lasting, viable settlement is going to be reached without a viable Palestinian state being established. To be viable you need to not be occupied by a foreign ,military power. You need to not have checkpoints manned by said foreign military power hindering the free movement of people within your territory, you need to have control over your natural resources, access to water, aquifers and farmland, and you need to not have expanding illegal settlements, separated from you by barbed wire, fences and trenches, serviced by separate roads and defended by an illegal occupying army and armed religious extremists. And yet Netanyahu can come out and brazenly boast about his intention to continue to expand existing settlements on the west Bank – an act illegal in law and preventing any hope of lasting peace between Israel and Palestine – without censure. Let us consider for a moment the scale of his boast. Since 1967 Israel has built 120 illegal settlements on the west Bank, housing 261,879 people. A further 102 ‘Outposts’ have been built. An ‘Outpost’ is an illegal illegal settlement; often no more than a couple of caravans on a hill top they are usually home to the most extremist settlers, and despite not being formally recognised by the Israeli government, enjoy the same protection from the Israeli military, the same funding from Israeli nationals and the same special treatment from Israeli authorities, such as roads, utilities and schools for the exclusive use of settlers, as the settlements themselves. The “outposts” are, in fact, settlements by another name, as a report on the “outposts” commissioned in 2005 by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pointed out. Further more, there are illegal settlements in East Jerusalem too. As noted above this is illegal, a breach of a UN Resolution (446), and a flagrant attempt to alter ‘the facts on the ground’ prior to any negotiated deal with the Palestinians. In just 12 settlements in East Jerusalem 182,460 illegal settlers live, protected as usual by the might of the worlds fourth largest army. In total therefore, there are currently 417,723 Israelis living illegally on the West Bank. And yet no one talks about this, no one censures this fragrant breach of law and morality, this barest of thefts and ongoing provocation to the Palestinians who are supposed to be constructing a viable state on the 58% of their country which is not illegally settled by an occupying army. And Netanyahu and the rest can openly boast of their support for expanding existing settler communities and still be reported as moderates.