The sorties might have paused, but some things never change. At the time of writing the BBC News website leads with four stories about the three Israeli captives released as Hamas's part of the ceasefire deal. The dedicated Israel-Gaza War [sic] page is little different. 'What was it like to be a Hamas hostage?' goes one of the stories. 'Who are they?' asks another. Nothing on the Palestinian hostages Israel is releasing, on the abuses and torture meted out to the incarcerated. And you can forget anything about extra-judicial killings in Israeli jails. There are no interviews with Palestinian families welcoming home their loved ones, no human interest portraits about people being united amid the rubble of Gaza. The active phase of the massacre might be at an end, but the dehumanisation of Palestinians by the BBC continues unabated.
When the deal was announced last week, social media was awash with self-congratulation. Democrat supporters were praising the leadership of Joe Biden and thanking him for bring such a terrible episode of recent history to an end. It's as if the 50,000 tonnes of weapons shipped from American shores and making available United States surveillance capacity in service of the massacre of the Palestinians didn't happen. It was gut churning. But just as objectionable was their employment of the truce to score points against Donald Trump. "This is the Dems' victory. Trump had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT" was the flavour of many a contribution. It was, of course, completely wrong. Biden needed something for his legacy other than prices galloping ahead of wages, and Trump wants to start his second presidency on a high note. And so we had close collaboration behind the scenes in making sure a deal was done.
The truth is, as far as the US is concerned, Israel's massacre inadvertently led to rebalancing the Middle East squarely in the State Department's interest. Hamas might claim victory, but its most experienced cadre are nearly all dead, its tunnel network partially demolished, and its ability to wage asymmetrical warfare severely blunted. Likewise Hezbollah in Lebanon. The IDF's invasion was much bloodier than military planners were expecting, but its capacity is also stymied. It also appears the "reply" to the Iranian assault on IDF targets was more effective than the damage Israel sustained. And there was the small matter of Bashir al-Assad's collapsed regime, an Iranian ally, and the subsequent withdrawal of Russian military assets from Syria. The US did not foresee any of this, but with the benefit of hindsight the deaths of tens of thousands was a price they were happy for the Palestinians to pay for their regional goals to be met.
And now? Trump wants to keep everyone guessing with regard to his foreign policy, but it's not hard to discern what his priorities are. There is bipartisan agreement that China is the big threat to American hegemony. Biden did nothing to help thaw relations with Beijing, and Trump is keen to big up their "threat". It seems likely he doesn't want any distractions from confronting Xi Jinping. So a becalmed Middle East with Israel the regional arbiter, some sort of peace in Ukraine with a view to US rapprochement with Russia, and perhaps a rejuvenation of the North/South Korea peace process. Success is not just about boosting Trump's ego as a deal maker, they are steps aimed at isolating China diplomatically and reasserting American leadership on the world stage. By the end of his presidency and regardless of the horrors Trump commits domestically, centrist and establishment Democrats will show their appreciation for his positioning by carrying on where he leaves off - just as retiring old Biden did.
What that means for Israel and the Palestinians is anything but a lasting peace. The occupation continues, and so the resistance will continue. Assuming Trump's State Department follow through with the logic of peace through strength for the Middle East, that means an endless flow of weapons to Israel continues, and the turning of a blind eye to the pre-7th October business-as-usual of internment, "targeted" assassinations, and sporadic punishment bombings. Meet the new peace, just like the old peace.
Image Credit
8 comments:
If they want the Middle East to stay "peaceful" on Israel's terms, then they'll also have to mollify Putin sufficiently that he will promise not to supply any more long range hypersonic missiles to Iran and the Houthis.
Not much has been said in public about the warning shot landed on Tel Aviv, from Yemen with no love lost. Which hardly does anything to make it seem a less significant event.
Netanyahu's cancer announcement also looks foretelling. How better to avoid him going to the Hague or facing inconvenient trials at home, even amongst the complicated cooling of the hostilities which he has hitherto depended upon in order to keep his head?
Considering that the number one aim of the 'war' on Gaza was the eradication of Hamas, and the American have said that there are almost as many Hamas fighters now as at the beginning, it is clear that Israel has not come out of this victorious. Eliminating the main leaders is the only achievement Israel has (unless they thing alienating most of the world, and turning Gaza into a wasteland are acheivements). Ditto with Hezbollah. This is primarily aimed at preventing the movement becoming politically influential outside its own core group. Israel wants to maintain fractured neighbours and expand its territory. In the long run this is unsustainable. Internally, the Israelis are facing long term fractures of their own. The 'war' suppressed them, but they will burst out again. Secular vs Religious. Centre versus Far right. Jew vs non-jew. Genocidists vs those uncomfortable with becoming pariahs. Environmentalists vs exploitationists. Race supremacists versus rational people. Greater Israel expansionists vs the sane. Socially conservative vs socially liberal. Those who want to be part of the wider world vs the insulationists. And so on. Then there is the likely impact of climate change on the area. Israel may last another 50 years, probably less. It will either become uninhabitable through natural processes, or through their own insane actions. It has no future.
Yes, the coverage by the BBC of the release of the hostages with nothing about the Palestinian prisoners was so awful I had to shout at Alexa to shut up.
Craig Murray(1) is broadcasting on YouTube from Beirut. I learned that the US embassy is on 40 acres of hillside, and has enough room for 5,000 people. A local journalist alleged that it contains jail cells at the bottom. Today I learned that half the salaries of the Lebanese army is paid by America. The new head of state is going to be the head of the army, despite the constitution forbidding this.
(1) ex ambassador who opposed the Iraq war, was sacked, and expert on this area.
Jailed in Edinburgh for annoying the powers that be on something else.
When I wrote to him in jail, I discovered that he owns a music festival “Doun the Rabbit Hole”
An interesting and well rounded person.
BBC on the Middle east - their correspondent is Raffi Berg, a devout Zionist. The BBC is full of them in the higher management. Dissenters get shown the door.
Careful of Murray; his blogging in the lead-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was so close to being basically press releases from Putin, that he surely must be on Vlad's payroll. Presumably he had to take his sugar daddies where he could find them after he made himself persona non grata with the USUK hegemons.
BBC news has actually covered the atrocities in Gaza, though. It's been on the front page nearly every day of the last year, and not very flattering to Israel, even if not nearly as unflattering as it SHOULD have been. Which is why the Zionists have got their knives out for the BBC - if they had their way, which they still might, then it would basically be right-wing Israeli state media, and you'd hear nothing on it about any atrocities committed by Israel.
That's classic BBC speak. "We aren't as bad as GB News so leave us alone." True. They aren't. But, neither are they impartial or unbiased, or even speaking truth to power. They consistently report in the same skewed way. Just enough of stuff about the suffering of Palestinians to allow them to claim to be unbiased. But always with the careful framing. No context. No history. It all began on 7-10-23 - as if the 1948 Nakba , the occupation and the ongoing expansion of settlements and theft of land was imaginary. Palestinian deaths are regrettable accidents, Israeli deaths are deliberate, intentional savagery.
How often have you heard something on the lines of "in response to the Hamas atrocities of October 7th"? How often "in response to the massacres and expulsion of their population, the 56 year occupation and oppresive control of their people, the seizure of land, the destruction of homes and livelihoods, the theft of resources, and the kidnapping, torture and imprisonment of thousands, including women and children"?
How often do the BBC explain that there is no access into Gaza for their journalists because the Israelis won't allow it? So alot of their content is essentially from the IDF press releases. The only reports from Gaza that are not via the IDF are from local journalists - more than 200 of who have been killed. The highest number of reporter deaths for any conflict ever. Almost as if they were being targeted... Has the BBC bothered to mention that? Maybe once. Whereas every mention of number of deaths is "according to the Hamas controlled ministry of health".
The BBC is careful not to be too openly, obviously biased, but you don't get to be management in the BBC if you don't know how to subtley slant the news.
That's all true, but arguably missing the point; because "subtly slanting the news" is still a lot better than you can get anywhere else, and a lot better than Israeli agents would like you to have available at all.
By all means recognise the limitations. We should definitely keep doing that. But that's only part of recognising the reality.
And for sure it would be nice to have something better! But there's a reason why we don't. Because it's HARD. Same essential reason why we don't all have flying cars and personal jetpacks.
Post a Comment