The Fanonite

Welsh Assembly Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis-Thomas is to be commended for urging colleagues to boycott a visit by Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor. In a leaked email he is quoted as saying “I am unwilling to accept the invitation to meet the ambassador because of my objection to the failure of the state of Israel to meet its international obligations to the Palestinian people of the Holy Lands. I would invite other colleagues to do the same.” This call has generated a lot of press: I count at least 9 newspaper articles including the Daily Mail, BBC, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Chronicle, AFP, Wales Online, etc. All of them negative I might add.

The BBC counters Mr Elis-Thomas’s email with 6 spokesmen and you’ll notice they quoted no-one who was in favour of the boycott. One of the 6 was Rodney Berman, the leader of Cardiff council, who believes Wales’ Jewish community would be shocked at the “strident tone.” He then adds “If AMs have concerns, as I do myself, about policies followed by the Israeli government then surely it’s better to use this event to talk about those concerns rather than to put up barriers which can only promote further misunderstanding.”

Frankly I was very impressed with the email and am delighted to hear that Dafydd is “standing by what he had written.” What Rodney Berman is missing is that there has been talk for the last 40 years of occupation and it has solved nothing. Israel has refused to obey International Law, as judged most recently in 2004 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and ignores countless UN resolutions. Israel knows well that it’s failing these commitments and we now need less talk and more political pressure to force positive action. I congradulate Dafydd Elis-Thomas for his stand - it would seem there are still some decent people willing to put their necks out for a just cause. Also Berman presumes that all Jews would be shocked, many I know would be delighted by this stand. The only people that will be shocked are pro-Israel supporters (Jewish or not) whose bias prevents them from acknowledging the horrendous Israeli human rights and legal record.

What’s more curious is why a Muslim member of the assembly invited Prosor in the first place? Mohammed Asghar claims that he knows a lot from the Palestinian side but not a lot from the other side. I would advise him that the Ambassador / Hasbara goon Prosor is not the best source for an objective opinion.

Of further interest is how fast Mr Elis-Thomas’s wikipedia page was edited. Is this a part of the information “war” launched by pro-Israel lobbying group CAMERA? The added content is certainly bias: including choice quotes such as, his objections target “a country that has withdrawn from 89 percent of the land it conquered in 1967, and he fails to deal with the complexity of a Gaza Strip controlled by ruthless radicals who mete out death penalties to gays.” This is ignoring Israeli’s legal obligations as judged by the ICJ and is rather crude propaganda.

More on US aggression towards Latin America - here’s an article by Berta Joubert-Ceci.

The U.S. Navy on April 24 announced the return of the Fourth Fleet to the Caribbean, Central America and South America, covering 30 countries in the region. The fleet had operated in those waters beginning in 1943, monitoring German submarines during World War II, and was dismantled in 1950.

In a press release entitled “Navy Re-Establishes U.S. Fourth Fleet” (defenselink.mil), the Pentagon tried to soften the appearance of this aggressive move, saying that “these assets will conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narcoterrorism, and theater security cooperation (TSC) activities.TSC includes military-to-military interaction and bilateral training opportunities as well as humanitarian assistance and in-country partnerships.”

The fleet will be the Navy component of the Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) and will be based in Florida. The new operations are scheduled to begin on July 1.

Read the rest of this entry »

What’s the BBC’s ‘Birthday’ present to Israel? A stream of propaganda following a story thats Israeli driven. Not content with 3 other, Israeli directed, Storyville documentaries (watch here), a birthday radio show (featuring 4 Israelis with one token Israeli Arab and zero Palestinians) and birthday articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc) the BBC has gone a step further and commissioned this 60 minute film by Jeremy Bowen, detailing the founding of the State of Israel. To be sure, the events are of immense import and considering their repercussions around the world, the level of coverage is merited. However it’s instructive that this documentary is called ‘The Birth of Israel’ and not for example ‘The Nakba’ - we get an idea of the focus from the start. In fact we might ask where all the Nakba articles (1?), audio and films are? Is it sufficient that it just happens to get a small mention in amongst all this ‘birthday’ nonsense?

Although this film is good in many places, covering the massacre of Deir Yassin for example, overall it fails to place the responsibility of the conflict firmly in the hands of the Israelis and Europeans. It fails to present the Palestinians as the victims of Zionist colonialism which was approved of by the Europeans because of guilt from the Holocaust and because 60 years ago the idea of colonialism, ‘civilised’ Europeans settling land that native ‘barbarians’ are wasting, was still acceptable. Time and again Israelis under interview blame the conflict on the Palestinians for not accepting the 1947 UN partition plan, where the UN carved up the land of Palestine and gave much of it to the colonialists. In the 21st century we should by now understand that the UN had no right to give away another mans home, the Zionists were incorrect in thinking they could colonise another peoples country and that resistance to this dispossession was legitimate. What nation would accept its land being given away to immigrants by the UN? Especially with such a bad deal: Israelis owning 10% of the land but getting 50% while only accounting for only 33% of the total population.

Counting the number of Israelis interviewed we find there were 11 with 10 Palestinians representatives. The number of times they appeared differs more: Israelis appearing 30 times and Palestinians 22. In a 60 minute film this approximately translates to about 8 minutes (15%) more air time. Personally I don’t believe balance is about giving both sides equal time - I follow Robert Fisks example of giving more time to the victims no matter who they are. In the ‘birth’ of Israel the victims were the Palestinian natives: 700,000 of whom were ethnically cleansed and many men, women and children were brutally massacred. This crime has continued as although under international law refugees have a Right of Return this has been denied. And Palestinians that remain in Israel and the Occupied Territories live in Apartheid conditions. Therefore its significant that they are not given priority.

The other big issue I have with the film is its failure to convey the true nature of a Two State solution. Israeli colonialism has continued with the illegal gaining of territory through military force in 1967. It is by now clear the continued Israeli rejection of peace for expansion and settlement of the Occupied Territories has led to a situation where a Two State solution is now unworkable. Only a One State solution where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights and share the land will provide any meaningful resolution to the regions problems. The idea of a predominatly Jewish State is non-inclusive and racist, it can only be maintained through further ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Read the rest of this entry »

Britain’s state propaganda organ BBC continues the government’s campaign against Venezuela. “Chavez ’stifles Venezuelan media‘”, it writes. In a country where press is gagged with legal injunctions for revealing government secrets (e.g., the UK gag over the minutes of the meeting where Bush-Blair discussed bombing Al Jazeera), it takes more than mere chutzpah to attack another government’s media practices. It takes willful blindness, for instance, when the CIA links of Inter-American Press Service, the organization criticizing Venezuela for its alleged stifling of the media, are overlooked.

IAPA has long served as a useful tool when any Latin American country undergoes democratic or revolutionary change. The scholar Fred Landis describes how newspapers in the target country become propaganda instruments manipulated by the CIA and its affiliated organs:

IAPA stands ready, with all its hundreds of cooperating member newspapers, to scream “Marxist Threat to Free Press” if any attempt is made by the target government to restrict the flow of hostile propaganda. In 1969 the CIA had five agents working as media executives at El Mercurio, all of whom in subsequent years were elevated to the Board of Directors of IAPA. The owner of El Mercurio was made head of the Freedom of the Press committee, and later President. IAPA bylaws permitted only working owners to be members, so the bylaws were changed to accommodate him. Then many of the CIA operatives at Copley News Service were made members of the Board of Directors of IAPA. Immediately before the campaign to oust socialist Prime Minister Michael Manley, Jamaica Daily Gleaner publisher Oliver Clarke was added to the Executive Committee; he has now been promoted to Treasurer. At the last annual convention in San Diego, IAPA elevated Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, Jr., to its Board of Directors. At that time he was not an editor or publisher of La Prensa, but the CIA needed him because he had the same name as his martyred father. After his elevation he was belatedly made Assistant Director of La Prensa, and when he was recently added to the IAPA Executive Committee, La Prensa began carrying the IAPA membership credential in its masthead. At the last IAPA meeting in Rio de Janeiro in October, speeches, including those by Vice-President Bush, were dominated by alarmist references to the situation of the press in Nicaragua.

Obviously the owner of a conservative newspaper in Latin America does not need CIA money to be against a socialist government. The assistance provided by the CIA is primarily technical, not financial. Without CIA help, the local newspaper’s opposition would be openly stated on the editorial page in language reflecting the ideology of the local conservative elite. That would be ideological warfare, not psychological warfare. But the CIA is not concerned, in these operations, with local ideology; it is concentrating on the use of its bag of technological dirty tricks. One of these tricks is disinformation.

Fred Landis, CIA Media Operations in Chile, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 16, March 1982, pp. 34 — 35.

BBC published a report on its website entitled “Israel warns of Gaza ‘holocaust’” where Israel’s deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai was repoted threatening Gaza with a ‘holocaust’. However, if you visit the same report now, you will notice that the headline has been modified to read “Gaza militants ‘risking disaster’”. This is clever: an Israeli threatening ‘holocaust’ may be unpalatable for those who routinely invoke its spectre to deflect criticism from the Jewish state’s Nazi-like behavior. The ‘holocaust’ reference redacted, the current headline shifts culpability neatly into the hands of ‘Gaza militans’ instead. (I just checked and BBC has changed the headline yet again to now read “Israel warns of invasion of Gaza”; checkout the excellent NewsSniffer to keep track of any further changes to the original report).

Sadly for the BBC, some of us keep an eye. Search for the original article and you’ll notice that it is still there in the cache. But once you click on it, you will be transferred to the santizied page. I have taken a screen shot, just in case.

BBC is a truly transnational agent; while its operations are underwritten by the British taxpayer, it frequently serves as a propaganda organ for a foreign state.

Read the rest of this entry »

How would this report be any different had it been written by a PR company in Bush’s pay rather than Britain’s respected public broadcasting company?

If the obsequious tone weren’t bad enough, Bush’s photo is actually accompanied by the caption: ‘Mr Bush is hoping to promote democracy in the Middle East’. How does the BBC know? Because he told them so. A clown from the Bush’s British Circus is apparently accompanying him on the tour, and from the uncritical way he reproduces Bush’s propaganda against Iran, it appears he is being kept on a short leash. Farther, he even makes a reference to something called the Arab “street” — yes that old Orientalist cliche: a disparaging reference to Arab public opinion.

Hugh O’Shaughnessy is a veteran Irish journalist who has been covering Latin America for many years. In the following article he argues that it is precisely because of the successes of Hugo Chávez that Western media and politicians will continue their attempts to discredit him. (Incidentally, it appears that when New Statesman published this article, it for some reason redacted references to the Zionist clown Denis MacShane). (thanks Paulo)

On Sunday 2 December 16 million Venezuelans vote in a referendum: all the signs are that they will approve constitutional reforms proposed by President Hugo Chávez.

Popular as ever for having put a big dent in the shocking gap between rich and poor in an oil-rich country, he wants a chance to bury 19th century Leninist shibboleths, strengthen already rumbustious local democracy and stand for election again.

It is very likely that the electors will give Chávez what he wants: it is certain that spinners in Washington, London and elsewhere will do their best to pull the process to pieces.

Read the rest of this entry »

The reports of sabotage on French rail networks appears like the first step in the classic approach to counterinsurgency. It usually takes the form of some kind of violent or seemingly senseless incident that can be used to discredit the strikers and turn the population at large against them. The system was first perfected in the US in the early 20th century to subdue a massive strike by steel workers, and has since been applied in every corner of the world.

Once again, the distinctly pro-State reportage of the British state propaganda organ BBC is noteworthy. Also note the call at the end of the article, for both those affected by the strike and the ones striking to send in their perspectives. The implicit message being that this is some kind of contest between those two parties, rather than the strikers and the state.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has called for those who sabotaged his country’s high-speed TGV rail network to be punished with “extreme severity”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Recall the disgraceful role played by the British state propaganda organ, BBC, in helping defeat Margaret Thatcher defeat the miners’ strike in Britain? If anything, things have only gotten worse at the corporation, as evident from this propagandistic article about the strikes in France. Indeed, the Independent — only marginally better than the BBC in this instance — is raising the question whether this is going to be Sarkozy’s Thatcher moment.

Strikes. Sabotage. Student unrest. Transport, schools and hospitals disrupted. National newspapers halted. Factories running out of raw materials.

France faces a Black Tuesday today. Is this President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ” Thatcher moment”? Is this another May 1968? Is the New France promised last spring by a combative new president, struggling to emerge from the muddled, but often charming, Old France of street protests, government climbdowns and generous social benefits?

Read the rest of this entry »

Columbia University invites the Iranian president to speak, presumably in the interest of ‘dialogue’, only to have the host insult him before he speaks. This is the same spineless Lee Bollinger who refused to stand by distinguished academics when Zionist hoodlums staged a smear and intimidation campaign right inside the Columbia premises. But more amusing is the coverage of the event. First we had the CNN’s world class coverage which took the form of a reporter asking a small band of protesting Jews (most wearing yarmulkes and carrying the Israeli flag, but of course representing ‘America’) such challenging questions as ‘Do you think the Iranian president is a terrorist?’. Not to be outdone, BBC sent its own clown, a man with an uncanny resemblance to a boiled egg, who made a point of repeating the fictional quote about Ahmadinejad wanting to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ even though it has known to be false for more than a year now. Pathetic.