As arrest warrants are issued for Israeli leaders, it must not be forgotten that they confessed to their crimes from the start. Western media outlets chose to suppress the truth
by Owen Jones
Part 2 - “We are fighting human animals”
Two days after the 7th October attacks, the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant - now subject to an international arrest warrant - told a news conference that Israel was:
“Imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
This was unambiguously the declaration of multiple war crimes: not least, depriving a civilian population of the essentials of life. Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions legally prohibits collective punishment, a factual point which readers and viewers should have been made aware of.
“Imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
This was unambiguously the declaration of multiple war crimes: not least, depriving a civilian population of the essentials of life. Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions legally prohibits collective punishment, a factual point which readers and viewers should have been made aware of.
Indeed, Human Rights Watch - a prestigious NGO - declared this a call “to commit a war crime”, noting its criminality on grounds of collective punishment and “using starvation as a weapon of war.” Here was a quote from a credible source which media outlets could have used to offer proper legal context. Indeed, in its statement, HRW asked the International Criminal Court to take note - and eight months later, its chief prosecutor issued a request for an arrest warrant against Gallant, specifically focusing on the crime Human Rights Watch correctly identified.
As I noted at the time, “this is genocidal language”, not least given the use of “human animals”. Indeed, dissenting media outlet The Intercept correctly identified it as such the same day. As we will see, Gallant was not alone in using this specific phraseology, which can hardly be dismissed as coincidental.
Yet in most of the Western media, the significance of Gallant’s comments was disregarded. At the time, the sole mention on the BBC news website - the world’s most read news site - was in an article headlined ‘Israel’s military says it fully controls communities on Gaza border’. Gallant’s statement was buried towards the end of the article. There was no mention of how this violated international law. Indeed, the BBC went on to mention that Gaza had been under a “tight Israeli-Egypt blockade since the Hamas takeover 16 years ago”, adding: “The two countries say it is for security reasons.” Nothing countered this official reasoning, such as the humanitarian impact of the longest blockade of the 21st century.
Yet in most of the Western media, the significance of Gallant’s comments was disregarded. At the time, the sole mention on the BBC news website - the world’s most read news site - was in an article headlined ‘Israel’s military says it fully controls communities on Gaza border’. Gallant’s statement was buried towards the end of the article. There was no mention of how this violated international law. Indeed, the BBC went on to mention that Gaza had been under a “tight Israeli-Egypt blockade since the Hamas takeover 16 years ago”, adding: “The two countries say it is for security reasons.” Nothing countered this official reasoning, such as the humanitarian impact of the longest blockade of the 21st century.
That month, the only other mention on the BBC website was in an article about protests at US colleges. In an article with language slanted in favour of Israel throughout, the reference to Gallant’s quote was an example of dishonesty by omission. It said:
“Israeli officials have used extreme language, with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Hamas militants as "human animals".”
But this interpretation would be completely undermined if it was quoted in full, given Gallant made clear the siege would be against the civilian population, and - as we will see - his key ally used “human animals” squarely to refer to civilians, a fact which is omitted.
While the Times of Israel ensured Gallant’s comments were quoted in the headline - in an article clearly indicating approval - and the Middle East Eye accurately reflected his statement in its headline, mainstream Western outlets largely did not.
“Israeli officials have used extreme language, with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Hamas militants as "human animals".”
But this interpretation would be completely undermined if it was quoted in full, given Gallant made clear the siege would be against the civilian population, and - as we will see - his key ally used “human animals” squarely to refer to civilians, a fact which is omitted.
While the Times of Israel ensured Gallant’s comments were quoted in the headline - in an article clearly indicating approval - and the Middle East Eye accurately reflected his statement in its headline, mainstream Western outlets largely did not.
In news coverage, the New York Times buried Gallant’s commitment to grave war crimes. The day it was made, it appeared 13 paragraphs down in an article devoted to discussing whether the bipartisan consensus in support of Israel would hold. 8 days later, it was again buried in another article - not to place it in a context of clear criminal intent, but to investigate Arab backlash against US and Israeli policy. The statement is similarly buried in another article 11 days after it was made, expressing US concerns about “some Israeli officials, including Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant” being “blind with rage”, but again, nothing about the significance of these comments in revealing Israel’s intent.
Outside of news coverage, the New York Times editorial board included the statement in a piece reflecting the newspaper’s official position, headlined ‘Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values’. It claims “what Israel is fighting to defend is a society that values human life and the rule of law”, urging its onslaught to be consistent with that, and describes Gallant’s unambiguous criminal intent simply as proof that “this war is unfolding in an atmosphere of intense emotions.” Its assertions about the values underpinning Israel’s assault have been proven false in the most brutal sense possible - and Gallant’s statement should have represented obvious evidence about that from the start. The newspaper further covered preemptively covered for Israel’s war crimes, claiming Hamas was using civilians as “human shields”: in fact, there is far more evidence of Israel using human shields. The editorial further suggests that “Israeli soldiers will look to their leaders to guide their actions and decisions on the battlefield to make sure that they, unlike Hamas, make distinctions between civilians and combatants.” No evidence was offered for this claim and - as we will see - such a claim deliberately ignored Gallant offering his soldiers impunity days before the editorial was written.
Yes, The New York Times featured opinion columns that October which, to varying degrees of seriousness, criticised Gallant’s words. But again, the point is the failure to frame news coverage around what the Israeli state said it would do.
Other than opinion pieces, the statement did appear in a Washington Post analysis - headlined ‘Israel ordered a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza. Here’s what that looks like’ - two days after it was made. While the article does look at the potential human impact of such a siege, there is no discussion of international law, the Israeli justification is quoted without challenge, and it ends with a quote from analyst concluding “ultimately, Hamas knew exactly what was going to come.” Commendably, in his newsletter, the foreign affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor declared that Gallant had invoked “rhetoric that rights groups claimed was tantamount to announcing war crimes”, although this leaves an objective fact open to interpretation. Like other newspapers, that Gallant’s statement made clear Israel’s criminal intent was not woven into wider coverage, or used to map out Israel’s inevitable strategy.
Other than opinion pieces, the statement did appear in a Washington Post analysis - headlined ‘Israel ordered a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza. Here’s what that looks like’ - two days after it was made. While the article does look at the potential human impact of such a siege, there is no discussion of international law, the Israeli justification is quoted without challenge, and it ends with a quote from analyst concluding “ultimately, Hamas knew exactly what was going to come.” Commendably, in his newsletter, the foreign affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor declared that Gallant had invoked “rhetoric that rights groups claimed was tantamount to announcing war crimes”, although this leaves an objective fact open to interpretation. Like other newspapers, that Gallant’s statement made clear Israel’s criminal intent was not woven into wider coverage, or used to map out Israel’s inevitable strategy.
In other newspapers, there were only cursory mentions of Gallant’s words in the month they were made, such as The Telegraph. In The Times, you can find his words only quoted 10 days later, buried in a news article with no legal context. The only exception is two days after that, in an article in which actor Sam Heughan is forced shamed into apologising for signing a letter condemning Israel’s onslaught, with the letter then quoted, including its justified denunciation of Gallant’s genocidal words.
Source, links:
Comments
Post a Comment