THE BALTIC COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN A DISGRACE

I supported the Baltic countries fervently after 1989 and was overjoyed when they regained their freedom in 1991.

Since then they have either supported or been silent about almost all military occupations and invasions that I've opposed. Countries who I see to be in similar or even worse circumstances than they were until 1991.

Ukraine is the only case I can recall where they align with me. They support Israel in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, they support Morocco in Western Sahara, they support Indonesia in West Papua, they support United Arab Emirates in Sudan and Yemen like they supported United States in Iraq and took part in the occupation.

I don't remember them having even been vocal about Chechnya and Georgia. Perhaps I remember wrong.

But it seems if there's an occupied, oppressed nation somewhere, the Balts are keen to be the little henchmen of the oppressor. 

Because they claim they are somehow buying protection by helping to oppress others. That they must be on the side of the powerful against weak for their own sake. To support annexation of entire countries by invaders. To feed the mass graves in the hope they are rewarded for their role in the extermination.

I was right in 1991 and the Baltic countries have been wrong since 1991. Every oppressed nation deserves freedom, but when they have regained their freedom., they must help other oppressed nations, not the oppressors.

The Baltic countries have been a disgrace.

Yet they deserve their freedom, but the countries they now help to oppress also deserves  their freedom and the Balts need a moral reckoning for their support for crimes against humanity and their aid to war crimes.

MISLEADING READERS WITHOUT LYING - THE ART OF MANIPULATING 'WESTERN' AUDIENCES

10.10.2016

"Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred."

C. P. Scott(1846-1932), editor and owner of The Guardian, then still The Manchester Guardian

The Guardian's Peter Beaumont wrote an article about today's tragic events in occupied East Jerusalem whose headline alone is a masterpiece in misleading readers without lying outright.

Here we quickly go through the ways Beaumont and The Guardian manipulate their audience to create a misleading view benefiting the Israeli occupation.

TOTALLY FACTUAL AND UTTERLY MISLEADING

The headline of the article is "Two Israelis dead after drive-by shooting at Jerusalem tram stop". It's totally factual - and utterly misleading. Let's count the ways it misleads the readers:

1)Three people died, not two. The dead Palestinian Misbah Abu Sbeih and his death are both erased. This magnifies the death of the two Israelis and dehumanizes Abu Sbeih.

Misbah Abu Sbeih is just mentioned as a "39-year-old resident" at first. The dead Israelis are both named, and that "Levana Malihi, 60" was "a grandmother" is brought out to make her more sympathetic.

That Abu Sbeih, whose name is eventually mentioned much later in the article, was a father with at least three underage sons, is not mentioned so that he wouldn't appear more sympathetic.

The fact that Abu Sbeih's elderly father and underage sons were arrested by Israeli occupation afterwards can't be mentioned either, of course.

2)"Two Israelis". In here the usual 'Western' media trick is used: The "Two Israelis" implies that we are dealing with civilians only here. In reality, one of the two dead Israelis was an armed occupation forces' police member.

We call this the "all dead Israelis are civilians" -tactic, and it softens the audience's view of the dead, as they imagine the dead as civilians, no matter the actual circumstances.

By the time audience (those who actually read the whole article) get to the mention of one of the dead being 'police', the already created impression will not be lodged from its perch in the minds of many readers.

3)Jerusalem: the article's headline here toes occupier Israel's "united Jerusalem" line, considered legitimate by one state in the world - Israel itself.

Occupation is erased, the context for the events made to vanish. In reality, the events described in the article happened near the Green Line and mostly inside East Jerusalem.

In the body of the article itself, occupation continues to be magically absent and is only coyly hinted at: "close to the line dividing mainly Palestinian east Jerusalem from the mostly Jewish western side of the city".

This line is of the Green Line marking the armistice line from 1948, and which according from UN resolution in 1967 to such figures as former US president Ronald Reagan should mark the border of the state of Palestine.

But the readers of The Guardian can't be told this, because The Guardian and it's reporter Beaumont operate inside occupier Israel's "united Jerusalem" bubble.

Why "western side of the city" is "mostly Jewish"? Because it was ethnically cleansed in 1948, of course, but that The Guardian's readers naturally can't be told. The whole historical context for the current situation in Jerusalem is made to disappear along with the whole occupation.

4)Tram stop - here a civilian landmark is used to describe the location where the shooting happened. The shooting did happen partly near a light rail stop, but it started outside Israeli occupation's police headquarters and much of it took place on the roads around the block it's situated in.

Using 'tram stop' instead of 'police headquarters' is meant to underline the civilian nature of the setting of the shooting, and again imply the civilian status of the "two dead Israelis".

Using police headquarters in the headline would create different images for the readers, and work against how The Guardian wants readers to perceive the incident in question.

THE OCCUPIER ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH

A "Western" journalist in Israel and occupied Palestine always believes the occupier, minimizes Palestinian casualties, erases Palestinians of dual nationality and always, always believes that occupier Israel tells the truth.

Writing an article, like in the case of Peter Beaumont for The Guardian, becomes a simple case of copying and pasting what Israel claims. Journalism made easy.

So Beaumont writes: "About 218 Palestinians have been killed during that period. Israel says the vast majority of them were attackers."

Most 'sources made Abu Sbeih the 236th, 237th or 240th Palestinian dead during the current uprising - not counting prisoners dying of medical negligence, of wounded dying from injuries arising earlier or people dying in ambulances on occupation checkpoints while waiting to be allowed through.

Beaumont, using dated figures, raises some twenty people from death to minimize the number of Palestinians killed and thus the impact among his audience. And if someone is troubled, Beaumont assures them that according to Israel "vast majority of them were attackers".

If you can't trust an occupier tell the truth about the people who it killed, then who can you trust?

A journalist could be expected to do some investigations, to look whether the Israeli claim is valid. But Beaumont is above such things as looking critically at an occupier's claims - copy and paste what it claims is good enough for him.

Beaumont has a job to do - and it isn't informing The Guardian's readers as well as possible about what happened, where it happened and why it happened. No, he's in damage control mode for the occupation, painting as pretty picture as possible for Israel.

Counting the Israeli dead, he erases both those of Palestinians of Israeli nationality killed by Israel and the eight Israeli Jews 'mistakenly' killed by Israel's occupation forces' and Israelis as Palestinians.

Lynched Egyptian Haftom Zarhum(29) is a victim of Beaumont's magical journalism tricks along with the eight "mistakenly" killed Israeli Jews. The Guardian's audience, 'naturally', can't read about mobs lynching people because they look like they might be Palestinians - or just because they are dark-skinned.

MAKING THE MOTIVATION INCOMPREHENSIBLE

Misbah Abu Sbeih was imprisoned for a year for 'incitement' on Facebook by Israeli occupation; in Beaumont's hands 'incitement' - which can any kind of negative mention of the occupation - becomes "encouraging violence against Israelis".

Notice the absence of occupation, notice how it's "against Israel", not against an occupier and it's occupation. Context is made to vanish and those "Israelis", implied yet again to be "civilians", reappear.

The anger of a man who lived his whole life under occupation is made incomprehensible for the readers of The Guardian, because putting the readers of The Guardian in the shoes of the Palestinians, giving them even a faint idea of what Abu Sbeih went through and what made him act like he did, is the last thing Peter Beaumont and his employer want.

The Guardian and Beaumont have a job to do - to make everything appear as positive to Israel as possible. Ask not for whose behalf The Guardian and Peter Beaumont fight - it's not journalism and people's right to know - ask only what they get out of it.

SOURCE:

Two Israelis dead after drive-by shooting at Jerusalem tram stop

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/09/drive-by-shooting-at-jerusalem-tram-stop

"PEACE FOR OUR TIME"

If being run as a personal fiefdom by a US president - USA that has made the genocide possible - is good enough for occupied Palestine's Gaza according to UN, then surely Crimea & eastern Ukraine could be run for example as a personal fiefdom of North Korea's Kim Jong-Un.

Sudan's Darfur could in similar manner be made a personal fiefdom of United Arab Emirates' ruler Mohamed bin Zayed, who has made possible the genocide there (with the approval of his US overlords). 

Like Trump, he needs a 'reward', right? This is the world 13 states of the UN Security Council want.

"Peace for our time" etc.

EUROPEAN UNION AND OCCUPIED PALESTINE'S GAZA STRIP

The European Union has done nothing to end the genocide in occupied Palestine's Gaza Strip and yet now, according to the EU, nothing else can be done except to hand Gaza Strip to be a personal plaything for Trump and Blair.

But shouting few times "Slava Ukraini!" will surely wash such unpleasantness from the mind...

THE WEST PLAYS HELPLESS BEFORE AN ONGOING GENOCIDE BY APARTHEID ISRAEL'S REGIME AGAINST OCCUPIED PALESTINIANS

According to the West, including the European Union and all but few of its member states, there's no possible way to end the genocide and famine in Israeli occupied Palestine's Gaza Strip without the Israeli regime's permission.

Israel can only be nicely asked to allow aid in and to agree to a ceasefire, and as long as it refuses, nothing can be done.

Genocide must go on as long as the genocidaires want to continue it.

NETANYAHU ISRAEL AND ISRAEL IS NETANYAHU

Netanyahu is Israel and Israel is Netanyahu.

Those who claim otherwise are denying the reality where Netanyahu has made Israel in his image in the last 30 years.

Even if Netanyahu the man would be removed from power, Israel would still be his manifestation.

23.03.2020

Israel's occupation forces shot and killed a young man on the occupied West Bank late on Sunday March 22nd.

THE FATAL INCIDENT

Sufian Nawwaf al-Khawaja(29) was shot by Israeli occupation forces at the village of Ni'lin in the Ramallah district.

He was was mortally wounded when occupation soldiers opened fire at his car near the entrance to Ni'lin.

Sufian was left to bleed when the occupation troops stopped a Palestinian ambulance crew from reaching him, a common tactic, and instead waited for an Israeli ambulance to arrive.

Sufian al-Khawaja never reached a hospital, dying on the scene of his shooting. A final photograph shows him on a stretcher, surrounded by Israeli occupation soldiers.

ISRAELI OCCUPATION ALLEGATIONS

Israel's regime has spread quite a different narrative of the fatal incident; this was 'naturally' picked up and spread by 'Western' news agencies like the Reuters. In it Sufian was the aggressor and the occupation forces were defending illegal Israeli settlers from stone-throwers.

The occupation narrative is all about trying to justify the murder of an unarmed person by painting him as an attacker against whom his killers would have been defending themselves - but there is no evidence that this standard narrative has truth to it beyond the fact that it at least acknowledges that Israel's occupation soldiers killed Sufian.

RETALIATION BY THE OCCUPATION?

Sufian had no part in throwing stones at illegal settlers' vehicles  in Palestinian press reports; he was passing through with his cousin when they were targeted by the occupation. This would be far the first time.

This fatal retaliation against bystanders by the occupation is common - and so is the deliberate 'mistaking' of pedestrian stone-throwers with persons in a car: 15-year-old Mahmoud Rafat Badran was shot and killed by Israeli occupation soldiers near Beit Sira on occupied West Bank on June 21st 2016 by Israeli occupation troops which claimed that they had made such 'a mistake'.

The village of Ni'lin is one of the centres of non-violent popular resistance against the Israeli occupation and the illegal Apartheid Wall, organizing a weekly Friday demonstration for the past decade.

This resistance makes it likely for Israeli occupation soldiers to react with random and fatal violence against stone-throwing by opening fire at an easy target like a passing driver.

Like the case of Mahmoud Badran shows, killing innocents has no negative repercussions to the occupation soldiers, which means that it has a stamp of approval from the regime itself.

SOURCES:

IOF kills Palestinian in Ramallah

https://english.palinfo.com/news/2020/3/23/IOF-kills-Palestinian-in-Ramallah

Israeli Soldiers Kill A Young Palestinian Man In Ramallah

https://imemc.org/article/israeli-soldiers-kill-a-young-palestinian-man-in-ramallah/

Palestinian killed by Israeli soldiers in West Bank village

http://english.wafa.ps/page.aspx?id=wGFYtZa115477143243awGFYtZ

Palestinian man killed by Israeli gunfire in occupied West Bank, ministry says

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestinian-man-killed-israeli-gunfire-occupied-west-bank-ministry-says

استشهاد شاب برصاص الاحتلال غرب رام الله

http://pnn.ps/news/499396

20.10.2024

Kamala Harris' is the old Liberal Zionist idea that if Israel (which "only wants peace") is able to kill a certain number of Palestinians, or a particular Palestinian, then it will be ready to make a lasting peace.

When Israel killed Hamas' founder Sheikh Yassin 2004, was Israel ready to make peace? No.

1942 & 2025

To claim that a self-identified Jewish state can't commit genocide, and to say so is 'antisemitism', is really no different than claiming a self-identified German state couldn't commit a genocide.

Only difference between 1942 & 2025 is that Germany tried to hide the genocide of Jews, Roma & Sinti.