Puttin' on the RITZ, Song (Remixed)
RITZ = Rhetorical Immunity (for) Toxic Zionism
This song is based on AI-assisted research and a prior article I wrote about a larger phenomenon of bad actors shielding their impunity with counter accusations.1
Credits:
Singer: Rhea Miller
Music: Irving Berlin, “Puttin’ on the Ritz”, copyright 1927, public domain in 2023
Lyrics: Tim Langeman | original lyrics
Recording & Mixing: Spencer Studios, Lancaster, PA
Instrumental Backing Track: Robby Williams
RITZ: Rhetorical Immunity (for) Toxic Zionism
Lyrics (draft)
Introduction:
Have you heard them hush the critics?234
Shutting down the real debate910
A Rhetoric of Immunity13
Shielding14 them from scrutiny
Media is cowed15
A) "Shutdown/Deflect/Distract/Conflate/Project"
Afraid to lose, with a need to excuse18
Shutdown debate with this new trick — 19
B) Unchecked “Immunity” leads to impunity
With no check on immunity,22
Israel’s impunity must be ditched.23
Puttin’ on the RITZ24
C) "Gaslighting/Moral High Horse/Confuse/ Orchestrate Complexity"
Gaslighting is a prefer red tactic25
”Orchestrating Complexity”26 a racket27
Racket tactics28
D) "Immune” by definition" : there can be no legitimate critics.
No critique can one speak that is legit29 30
to challenge it. One must dismiss
Puttin’ on the RITZ
Interlude
Has the IDF really done everything31
possible to safe guard civilians?32
( Puttin' on the RITZ )
Disproportionate "Dahiya"-like force for .. 33
creating unbearable civilian suffering343536
"Power Targets", for the "shock"3738
high rise towers, no need to knock39
4 types of Targets to beware40
"No one is safe" anywhere.4142
The-IDF makes up for error43
Bringing Palestinians terror.44
E) Personal Attacks / Smear/ “cwae“ — “claims without any evidence”45
Smears and attacks,46 Not the issue, nor the facts47
Pressure tactics48 or guilt trips
Puttin’ on the RITZ
F) Misinformation: Atrocity Propaganda:495051 525354555657585960
Coverage is skewed, by Israel’s censors,616263 64
who review65 and act as repressors66676869
G) Suppress / Censor information:
Journalists70 and scholars7172 they do kill 73
Western press and politics they chill7475
Chilling killing
H) But Anti-Semitism and Atrocities are still real
We must not destroy the consensus on the reality of “Anti-Semitism” by conflating it with criticizing Israel
Wolves are real, but critics too, false wolf cries7677
we must review and then dismiss
Puttin’ on the RITZ78
Puttin’ on the RITZ
Puttin’ on the RITZ
Note:
Although I’ve worked as a computer programmer for the last 20+ years, I was a History major at university and have rediscovered my love of research, writing, and creativity through recent projects.
If you or someone you know is aware of paid work doing research and writing please get in touch.
AI Research:
For this article I queried AI, asking it the following queries:
What are some of the rhetorical techniques used by pro-Zionists in defense of Israeli policies and actions? (results saved, manually highlighted)
What rhetorical techniques do Pro- Zionists use that some consider “toxic”?
I did not take the AI results as valid, but tested the themes against recent Israeli PR.
Israel’s style of public relations:
“Less than 24 hours since the murder of these aid works in Gaza and I’d say we’re already about 5/7ths of the way through the routine.” @YousefMunayyer
The Narcissist’s Prayer
How Israel Censors American News Coverage
NYTimes Oct 7 Mass Rape Story Falls Apart
Previous Videos:
The humanity of Gazans not portrayed by the American media.
Watch on YouTube because this video contains depictions of violence. (writeup)
Monster Mash (Song Remix): Military Industrial Complex edition (writeup)
Elsewhere:
London Review of Books: The Shoah after Gaza
Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine, which calls for causing “unbearable” civilian suffering, originally developed in response to inability to defeat Lebanon in 2006.
“Power targets” which includes high-rises and residential towers in the heart of cities, and public buildings such as universities, banks, and government offices. The idea behind hitting such targets, say three intelligence sources who were involved in planning or conducting strikes on power targets in the past, is that a deliberate attack on Palestinian society will exert “civil pressure” on Hamas.
Footnotes:
Toxic:
Today, I listened to Sam Harris discuss what I might call “toxic” Islam.
Sam said that jihadism combines violence and "certainty" of eternal reward in a way that is toxic. In this article I'm not examining faith or religion, but a rhetorical system that attempts to define all criticism as illegitimate. Read more about a generalized rhetorical framework for “rhetorical immunity toxic shield” — “RITS” — in my prior article.
Abusing “Anti-Semitism” Charges:
While one must certainly recognize the existence of Anti-Semitism, one must also recognize that the charge of “Anti-Semitism” can readily be abused to shut down debate and avoid accountability, cutting off conversation.
Other tactics for dealing with critics:
If you can't respond to serious critics, conflate them with “kooks.” Example: The Washington Post writes a story a "a growing Oct 7 'truther' group say Hamas massacre was a false flag" staged by the Israelis.
Using this tactic, the work of real journalists is conflated with people who believe 10/7 was staged, chilling real debate, lest one appear to throw one's lot in with “kooks” and “Anti-Semites” who deny the Holocaust.
Or accuse opponents of aiding the enemy: families of the hostages accused of "helping Hamas" when they protest.
Marc Steiner Show: How Israel's supporters use Islamophobia to silence critics
Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine–Israel Discourse
Michael Plitnick and Sahar Aziz join the Marc Steiner Show to discuss the new report and its contents.
Each time they wanted to engage in debate they were being silenced as “Islamophobic
(Falsely) Alleging Anti-Semitism is an effective means of blocking debate, and public discourse threatening people’s jobs, but this strategy is also very harmful to Jews as it foments Anti-Semitism in a very conscious way.
The Anti-Defamation League conflates "Anti-Semitism" with criticism of Israel, but the ADL now associates themselves with those with white-nationalists leanings.
Jews are safe when they have allies, when they fight in solidarity with oppressed groups and causes like racism, patriarchy, settler colonialism, etc.
One of the key results of this trope is that it seeks to divide Jewish and Muslim groups.
When you weaponize “Anti-Semitism” you cause people to not believe you and you tear away at the fabric of society — digging a grave for all minorities.
“Should Arabs and Muslims exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly in defense of Palestinian human rights, they frequently become targets of aggressive intimidation, harassment, and blacklisting campaigns in their workplaces, towns, and universities.”
This creates a new era of neo-McCarthyism.
These tactics will boomerang back on Jews if they are not reformed.
Reform Ideas:
1) Foreign policy and media must be more diverse, including the perspectives of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim communities.
2) Universities must preserve academic freed and speech rights engaged in Palestinian rights.
3) The US government must hold Israel accountable for violating human rights
Even Jewish critics of Israel are called Anti-Semitic, because under this Rhetorical framework, Israel’s policies can have no legitimate critics.
IHRA definition of “Anti-Semitism” (2016)
The IHRA initially sought to combat racism against Jews and Holocaust denialism, but its definition of antisemitism serves as a tool to silence all criticism of Israel, making it harder to identify actual forms of anti-Jewish hatred.
.. The IHRA agreed on a definition of antisemitism in 2016, along with a list of examples, based on previous definitions. It has since become a kind of “soft law” that is binding in many institutions and even states across the world. The problem is that the IHRA definition deals obsessively — more than with any other topic — with the degree of antisemitism in criticism of Israel, making it far more difficult to identify real instances of antisemitism, while casting a cloud of suspicion over nearly all criticism of Israel. Meanwhile, the burden of proof lies with critics of Israel, who are constantly asked to prove that they are not anti-Semites.
.. its obsession with silencing criticism of Israel diverts attention from real antisemites who may support Israel while simultaneously posing a serious threat to Jews in the United States.
Put differently, one does not need the IHRA definition to identify people like [Richard] Spencer as antisemites, but once antisemitism becomes identical with criticism of Israel, people like Spencer are off the hook. After all, they are great supporters of Israel.
.. Using the IHRA’s poor definition of antisemitism, they have succeeded in completely changing the discourse: rather than talk about the occupation, the Nakba, or its violation of national, human and civil rights, the dominant public discourse now revolves around what is or is not forbidden when it comes to criticism of Israel, and to what extent said criticism is antisemitic. In this reality, Israel no longer needs to defend itself against allegation — it has a free hand to throw around accusations.
- Amos Goldberg and Raz Segal, 972 Magazine
Video & Article: Why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism
“Anti-Semitism is a Sin”
Today I heard a presentation by a Palestinian Christian who labeled “Anti-Semitism” a “sin.” Can all Abrahamic faiths agree on that, agree that hatred of and prejudice towards Jews is especially deeply rooted, while also condemning other forms or hate and prejudice?
The man who led the drafting of the IHRA definition,
Kenneth Stern, argued that trying to use the definition as a guideline for regulations around hate speech and discrimination was inappropriate. Stern has expressed concern that the inappropriate use of the definition that he led in drafting could constitute a serious threat to free speech.
“I am a Zionist, and anti-Zionism can be painful to hear. But on campus, students and faculty have a right to express these ideas and to expect those who object to push back. Asking the university to adopt a definition that says anti-Zionism is in effect antisemitism is pernicious.
There is a danger when the academy is asked to say what political views are acceptable. What’s to stop it from having other pronouncements tomorrow, ones with which we might disagree? Have we forgotten when political opponents were able to institutionalize the UN’s equation of Zionism = racism for campus application decades ago?
Look at the effect of the IHRA definition on campus speech. As much as I disagree with Israel Apartheid Week, it is free expression. Yet the Simon Wiesenthal Center not only applauded when a UK university outlawed this event based on the definition, but it also said no other university should allow it either. And as I document in my book, a UK professor was investigated after a complaint that an article she wrote violated the definition. If that’s not McCarthyism, I don’t know what to call it.”
www.jewthink.org, Ken Stern
If you can’t win the debate,
shut it down with an accusation of Anti-Semitism or “Hinduphobia,” etc.
A new film examines American Jews’ growing rejection of Israel’s occupation”
Simone Zimmerman (herself Jewish):
There is an outdated “Old Guard” establishment that will:
“Attack, marginalize, and silence anyone who dissents from a narrow orthodoxy and support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza”
It used to be that Anti-Semitism was defined as prejudice against Jews for being Jewish. Previously, one could still criticize Israeli policies without being considered Anti-Semitic, but the new IHRC definition has conflated anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.
Craig Mokhiber argues that the reason why the South Africans were able to provide the ICJ with ~500 statements of genocidal intent was because 75 years of impunity conditioned many Israelis to think they could get away with stating their intentions out loud.
The charge of “Anti-Semitism” can act as both “sword” (to attack critics) and “shield” to defend Israel’s own behavior.
Media like CNN have their Israel coverage censored by the Israeli censor, which governs their Jerusalem bureau.
Biased/One-side US Coverage:
There is minor criticism in the “mainstream” media, but Israel is insulated. It may be coincidence, but coverage of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) Genocide coverage was literally “one-sided”.
US and British broadcasters provided full coverage of Israeli defense, but skipped coverage of South Africa’s argument that genocide had been committed. And it is unpersuasive to excuse this based on their not having time in the 24-hour schedule or that it was not as interesting as the Israeli side. Here is a portion of the argument made by South Africa’s Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC.
Failure of US and British broadcasters to cover the case against Israel is the literal definition of “One-sided” coverage.
See: “Manufacturing Consent”, by Edward S. Herman & Noam Chompsky.
Caitlin Johsntone is one of the clearest voices piercing through "mainstream" (corporate) propaganda and calling for radical change.
Johnstone describes how organizations like the BBC, New York Times, and CNN all function as if they were indistinguishable from state propaganda, representing the plutocrats who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo power structure upon which their kingdoms are built.
She describes an article in The Guardian about how staff at CNN are reacting to the leadership of new CEO Mark Thompson, who previously held leadership positions at the New York Times and BBC.
Unfortunately many western journalists tend to view the “mainstream” press as allies and potential employers.
Not only is “Anti-Semitism” frequently used as an excuse, but in Israel’s defensive strategy, they regularly tried to deflect to “Hamas” as a catch-all excuse.
This RITZ approach used to be more effective when it was “fresher”, but now it feels like late-stage McCarthyism, when accusations of “Communism” were starting to wear thin in the mid 1950s. Might more people be willing to call out abuse of the tactic?
Earlier, I wrote a general article about Rhetorical Immunity – “Puttin’ on the RITS”, (“S” for “Shield) but I was encouraged to make this song focus on Israel’s use of rhetorical impunity because the “Puttin’ on the RITZ” song is so short – only 2 minutes long – and Israel’s rhetoric was particularly newsworthy given its military fighting in Gaza and its lawyers at the ICJ defending against a preliminary case on the issue of genocide.
Israel is deflecting the results of the Genocide verdict by reframing it as a “yellow card” “warning” and then shifting the focus back to 10/7 and implying that there is a systemic issue within UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugee in the near east). The agenda appears to be to remove funding for UN aid, which would allow them to intensify the humanitarian crisis.
End of “Impunity”?
Will the ICJ court’s preliminary ruling mark the beginning of the end of Israel’s impunity – freedom from “punishment?” At this point the punishment is mostly reputational.
that include false dichotomies, such as "You must be Pro Hamas"
As an example: When President George W. Bush attempted to pressure people to support the Iraq War by telling them “You’re either with us or with the terrorists,” they could have told him “stop Puttin’ on the RITS.” The S is represents the generalized term I described in my earlier article:
(The “Z” was added later to keep the spelling the same (RITZ) for the Israeli version on the occasion of the ICJ Court preliminary verdict).
Gaslighting is common in contemporary politics. Psychology Today defines gaslighting as
“an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control in which victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. An example of this is Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev’s claim that the IDF was doing everything humanly possible to safeguard innocent civilians.”
By telling such a bold-faced lie CNN viewers questioned their own ability to judge other reports they had heard. Thankfully Jake Tapper questioned the Israeli spokesperson, but contradiction was partly prompted by the fact that he personally knew someone affected.
Kamala Gaslights on Ceasefire
“Orchestrate Complexity”: make it seem “too complicated”
In some forms of abuse, such as DARVO, abusers use “Deny-Abuse-Reverse-Victim-and-Offender”, not seek to persuade the listener, but to “orchestrate complexity” – to make the situation seem too complicated for outsiders to feel they know what’s going on. They therefor choose to withhold judgment, which has the result of defaulting to the benefit of the offender. Gaslighting also aims to make both participants seem untrustworthy, preventing meaningful intervention.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, the DARVO framework may provide insight but the binary “victim” or “offender” typology can be disputed, when the parties may be seen by members of the public as operating as both “victim” and “offender.”
Rather than focusing on the labels of “victim” and “offender”, skeptics of the binary labels may find it helpful to read about the described dynamics, irrespective of the labels, to see if the described framework is useful.
Racket - a dishonest scheme, trick, business, activity, etc. (This came to mind because of Matt Taibbi’s “Racket News”. ) I do not assume all those who abuse “Anti-Semitism” using the RITZ framework are doing so intentionally, but I suspect that some do have partial or full awareness, just as I assume occurs in RITS usage in the US and India described in my prior article.
Other “racket tactics” include “confusing” the issue, or “moral high horse” in which one positions oneself as occupying a privileged moral position.
In a RITZ or RITS framework (the general term), there can be no legitimate criticism. In RITZ (Israel), all critics must be either “Anti-Semites” or “Conspiracy theorists.” Similar rhetorical frameworks have been used by US and India. I also illustrate how Saudi Arabia could hypothetically use a “crybully” technique to defend its killing of Jamal Khoshoggi, a journalist for the Washington Post.
In Anti-Semitism, Jews Can’t Win: Jews are both ‘subhuman” and “superhuman”:
The idea that there are no "legitimate" critics also has it's opposite:
Jews are hated no matter what position they take:
(Sam Harris interviews Rabbi David Wolpe)
“.. one driver of anti-Semitism and as you said it is a protein hatred I mean people hate you for being capitalist for being communist for being stateless for for being uh in a state for wandering for being in a place for being powerless for being powerful there's nothing for which you cannot hate Jews on the left on the right as you said but as you said first of all the fact that were other was really significant all through history because they were the minority in other people's lands ever since they were kicked out of their own and you know I as I said once or twice in in debates actually um you know if you think that human beings are basically good you should visit a playground and when you go to a playground a new kid comes on the playground they don't say oh look a new child you know let us share our toys no there there's something about otherness that makes us uncomfortable that was then given really as you said theologic Rocket Fuel because of Jews and Jesus because Jesus was Jewish the Jews did not accept him as the Messiah and now just think about this psychologically if God walks on Earth and you don't and he he's standing right next to you and after all he's part of the Jewish community and you don't see him as God you're either foolish or Wicked there are no other choices because it can't be that God's not impressive or that God's not God and so what is really a family quarrel which is what it was with Jesus because everybody was Jewish a family quarrel which are sometimes the most toxic got enshrined in sacred books and that here I will make a concession to your side of the debate that's not a good thing because that doesn't change and so Christian the roots of Christian anti-Semitism Heyman Mcabe the English scholar had a theory about this that's very interesting he said Judaism is one of the few hatreds where you're both subhuman and superhuman because to kill a God you have to be a devil you can't just be a bad person and so from the beginning hatred of Jews was supercharged and then”
The Washington Post has a Nov 10 article that supports my suspicion that Israel has been using a “punishing” military doctrine called the “Dahiya” doctrine and that Mark Regev is gaslighting CNN’s Jake Tapper.
"the IDF really has done everything that is humanly possible to try to safeguard innocent civilians,"
Safeguard Civillians vs Civilian Suffering
In theory, the IDF has safeguarded civilians by ordering those in the north to leave there homes and go to the south. There is a suspicion that this has the ulterior motive of ethnic cleansing — that these people will not be able too return to their homes (many of which are damaged or demolished).
But there are reports that those who left their homes are subjected to indiscriminate bombing in the south.
The fact that the Dahiya doctrine calls for civilian suffering to be used to pressure militants and the targeting instructions calls for bombing “power targets” and residences with the “knock” policy not in effect also contradicts the idea that Israel is doing everything possible to safeguard civilians.
Dahiya Doctrine:
The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine,[1] is a military strategy of asymmetric warfare, outlined by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot, which encompasses the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to create civilian suffering to pressure combatants.[2] and endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end.[3][4]
(Wikipedia).
This military doctrine was developed in 2006 after Israel was not able to defeat Lebanon militarily and chose to flatten the civilian infrastructure in Dahiya, which is a suburb of Beiut.
The Third Lebanon War: (Target Lebanon)
by Giora Eiland
(retired Major General in IDF, head of Israeli National Security Council)
“Intense suffering among the population”
“There is one way to prevent the Third Lebanon War and win it if it does break out (and thereby prevent the Fourth Lebanon War): to make it clear to Lebanon’s allies and through them to the Lebanese government and people that the next war will be between Israel and Lebanon and not between Israel and Hizbollah. Such a war will lead to the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure, and intense suffering among the population. There will be no recurrence of the situation where Beirut residents (not including the Dahiya quarter) go to the beach and cafes while Haifa residents sit in bomb shelters. Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behavior more than anything else.”
Google Bard AI:
I asked Google’s AI questions:
Question:
What does the Dahiya Doctrine say in regard to targeting?
AI Answer:
The Dahiya Doctrine, attributed to the Israeli military, is highly controversial due to its stance on targeting. Here's what it suggests:
Disproportionate Force: The doctrine advocates for using overwhelming and disproportionate force against enemies like Hezbollah, who often operate within civilian populations. This means causing far greater damage and destruction than the enemy inflicts, aiming for a swift and decisive victory through intimidation and fear.
Civilian Infrastructure as Targets: The doctrine blurs the lines between civilian and military targets. It argues that civilian infrastructure, such as power grids, communication networks, and even homes in areas where militants operate, can be legitimate targets. This rationale stems from the belief that crippling civilian infrastructure weakens the enemy's support base and hinders their ability to wage war.
Creating "Unbearable Suffering": The doctrine's ultimate goal is to inflict "unbearable suffering" on the civilian population in enemy territory. This suffering, it claims, will pressure the population to turn against the militants and demand an end to the conflict, effectively achieving Israeli objectives without engaging in protracted guerilla warfare.
Humanitarian Law Violations: Critics widely condemn the Dahiya Doctrine as a violation of international humanitarian law. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is explicitly prohibited under Geneva Conventions and customary international law. The doctrine's disregard for proportionality and distinction between combatants and civilians raises serious concerns about its legality and ethics.
Israeli Ambiguity: Officially, the Israeli government has never explicitly endorsed the Dahiya Doctrine. However, its application has been observed in various military operations, particularly during the 2006 Lebanon War and subsequent conflicts in Gaza. This ambiguity fuels ongoing debates about the doctrine's true nature and its place in Israeli military strategy.
It's important to note that the Dahiya Doctrine remains a contested concept. While some view it as a necessary tool for deterrence and achieving quick victories against unconventional enemies, others condemn it as a form of collective punishment and state terrorism. The debate surrounding its targeting principles and adherence to international law continues to this day.
Question:
In what conflicts has the Dahiya Doctrine been applied?
Answer:
The Dahiya Doctrine, named after the southern Beirut suburbs heavily damaged during the 2006 Lebanon War, is a controversial military strategy attributed to former Israeli Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot. While its exact details and official status remain debated, it's understood to advocate for:
Disproportionate force: Using overwhelming power against non-state actors like Hezbollah, even if it causes significant civilian casualties.
Targeting civilian infrastructure: Damaging roads, power grids, and other facilities to hinder enemy operations and pressure their leadership.
Swift and decisive action: Aiming for a quick and brutal conflict to minimize Israeli losses and deter future attacks.
Here are some conflicts where the Dahiya Doctrine's application is suspected or debated:
2006 Lebanon War: The heavy destruction in southern Lebanon, particularly Dahiya, and the high civilian death toll fueled accusations of the doctrine being employed.
2008-09 Gaza War: Similar patterns of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage led to renewed concerns about the doctrine's influence.
2014 Operation Protective Edge: The extensive Gaza bombardment and civilian deaths again raised questions about the doctrine's role in shaping Israeli strategy.
2021 Hamas-Israel conflict: While the intensity was shorter, the use of airstrikes and the civilian death toll reignited the debate about the doctrine's potential influence.
It's important to note that attributing specific actions to the Dahiya Doctrine is challenging. The doctrine itself is not officially acknowledged by the Israeli military, and its exact content and application remain unclear. Additionally, other factors, like wartime chaos and evolving military strategies, can make it difficult to isolate the doctrine's precise impact.
Despite the ambiguity, the Dahiya Doctrine raises critical concerns about proportionality in warfare, civilian protection, and the potential for escalation in conflicts involving non-state actors. Whether explicitly stated or not, its shadow looms over discussions of Israeli military strategy and its impact on both Palestinian civilians and the broader dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2) The Analysis of Dahiya Docrine:
In the Context of Israel’s Further Security Claim
Zafer Balpinar:
Destroy 100 houses for each rocket
The mentioned Israeli intention is understood from Deputy Prime Minister, Eli Yishai’s statement “even if the rockets they have launched land on open areas or sea, we must destroy 100 houses for each of rockets” (Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 2009: 332), and Minister of Interior, Meir Sheetrit’s statement “inflict Gazan people 100 times more losses they have given you” (Byman, 2011: 200).
Disproportionality a Plan for the Future
Prime Minister Ehud Barak denoted that the operation was carried out by violating proportionality and that the operational method would be guiding doctrine in Israel’s future wars.
Weizmann E (2010), Legislative Attack, Theory, Culture & Society, 27 (6), 11-32
Target Civilian Infrastructure
The commission underlined that Israel hit not only military targets but also civilian infrastructure in order to get a decisive result (Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 2009: 114). The commission’s impression, namely, the similarity of Gaza operation to Dahiya case, was accepted by outsiders and security analysts too (Harel, 2014; Khalidi, 2014: 5-13; Katz, 2010; Flibbert, 2011: 65; Bhatt, 2012: 820; Harel, 2008).
Unbearable Losses to Traumatise Civilians
What is aspired via serious destruction and unbearable losses is to increase the enemy’s psychological trauma, and then to refer it to desperation, and in very end to cause to change its political/military behaviour. Disproportion dose functions as force multiplier in the military success.
Blur Concept of Civilian
It can be said that the doctrine’s employment as a flexible form of military action is closely related to blurring the concept of civilian. In context of this association, Israel accepts that the harmed non-combatants are not in fact civilians, that are in the way of aiding and abetting the combatants and that civilians act as armed elements when appropriate.
Unbearable Suffering
The message to the other party is that, if they attack Israel, they have to take into consideration unbearable sufferings which will be determined by Israel in terms of size and timing.
“Unbearable Suffering”: (Highlights below, see above for more information)
The "Dayhiya" doctrine was named after a suburb of Beirut, Lebanon that was flattened in the 2006 Lebanon war. It was developed after Israel was unable to militarily defeat Lebanon in the 2006 war.
The current policy is not necessarily the same as the 2006 Dahiya Doctrine , but one can see the evolution of these ideas in current practice.
Giora Eiland, a retired Major General in IDF, head of Israeli National Security Council
.. make it clear to Lebanon’s allies and through them to the Lebanese government and people that the next war will be between Israel and Lebanon and not between Israel and Hizbollah. Such a war will lead to the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure, and intense suffering among the population. There will be no recurrence of the situation where Beirut residents (not including the Dahiya quarter) go to the beach and cafes while Haifa residents sit in bomb shelters. Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behavior more than anything else.
Google Bard:
The doctrine's ultimate goal is to inflict "unbearable suffering" on the civilian population in enemy territory. This suffering, it claims, will pressure the population to turn against the militants and demand an end to the conflict, effectively achieving Israeli objectives without engaging in protracted guerilla warfare.
(It looks like Google Bard returns multiple results. Here's a link to some similar to the result in the prior footnote)
bard.google.com/chat/0023db00275e95a2
Zafer Balpinar, Ph.D, Marmara University, Turkey:
What is aspired via serious destruction and unbearable losses is to increase the enemy’s psychological trauma, and then to refer it to desperation, and in very end to cause to change its political/military behaviour. Disproportion dose functions as force multiplier in the military success.
The message to the other party is that, if they attack Israel, they have to take into consideration unbearable sufferings which will be determined by Israel in terms of size and timing.
The genocidal IDF Snuff films demonstrate that (some) Israeli revel in Palestinian humiliation, suffering, and death and that Israel will propagandize these deeds in the absence of military “success” against Hamas militants:
Unbearable Civilian Suffering:
In addition to the consequences of the bombing, Israel's preventing the importation of medical supplies leads to surgeries performed without anesthesia, such as cesarians and amputations:
.. what can you tell us uh about cesarian births over the last four months um you know as as you mentioned uh just horrifying stories about um cesarians after death um but but you know I mean Cesar sometimes they need to be done immediately you know in very um you fraught emergency situations um what do you know about the rate of cesarians and uh and and the safety of cesarians right now it's hard for me to give you exact rates like I said the the situation is very precarious um it's always moving and we have had very little access almost almost none in the north for example but even in the areas where there are existing facilities we get bits and pieces from the shelters where births are taking place just to give you an idea it's about 180 births per day so we have no idea what happens even if you could get to safety what happens to those mothers and children afterwards we only have anecdotal evidence but let me just give you uh probably again some of the most difficult circumstances that no human being no woman and certainly no physician um should ever have to be put in that situation where a woman arrives and there is no anesthesia and she needs to undergo a C-sect on to save her life and the choice then becomes C-section without anesthesia without a hygienic situations in some cases that we know of in a corridor not even in a proper operating theater and where she would have to go home if she could survive that within the hours pick up her baby there may be a blanket or not to wrap the child in and walk now for anyone who's ever had surgery um particularly in their lower abdomen you know that getting up and walking after a few hours and carrying another small human being is incredibly painful I can't imagine what goes through the mind of the mother and the poor father who's watching his his wife having to go through this um The Physician who has to make that choice and then what the the parents have to endure even if they could survive that for me it's it's not only unbearable it's inhuman to put anyone in that uh in that predicament and then you know assuming that uh that she is able to walk um you know we're seeing thousands and thousands of people crammed into these shelters especially in the South little to no access to uh you know bathrooms let alone sanitary supplies to change the dressings or I mean this is Major abdominal surgery um plus trauma uh emotional and physical trauma um what happens after what you know I mean I I just I I have no words to even try to imagine you know this must be maybe my 40th interview if not more and I wonder what it's going to take for people to connect to say I it's so horrendous to ever have to put someone in that situation these are the lives of people so when we say that there are 180 births a day that's 181 women who have to go through excruciatingly painful physically and emotionally circumstances and then those are the lives of herself her new child there may be other family members and the community at large so for me it goes Way Beyond just getting through the safety of that birth which is incredibly important don't don't misunderstand me but I fear I fear for the collective at this point what will it take also for the International Community to wake up and say this is inhumane it's unacceptable it must stop and we have to focus on ensuring that everyone especially women and children who have by no fault of their own they were just born into Gaza they just want to live a good life they want to bring their children into this
Create a “Shock”
The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it.
Scaring the population by toppling residential buildings (Terrorism)
Owen Jones interviews Major General Charlie Herbert, who has 34 years experience in the army.
Herbert calls bombing residential buildings "wishful thinking", a "bizarre way of fighting a war", punitive" "nonsensical and illegitimate.
.. Israeli intelligence officers uh who gave basically an explanation of how this war was been conducted um and they spoke about so-call power targets which are for example high-rise buildings so one of them says the perception is that it really hurts Hamas when high-rise buildings are taken down because it creates a public reaction in the Gaza Strip and scares the population they wanted to give the citizens of Gaza the feeling that Hamas is not in control of the situation sometimes they topple buildings and and sometimes Postal Service government buildings the reason I mentioned 2006 is they go on to say although it's unprecedented for the Israeli Army to attack more than 1,000 power Targets in five days the idea of causing Mass Devastation to civilian areas for strategic purposes was formulated in previous military operations in Gaza honed by the so-called Dahiya Doctrine from the second Lebanon war 2006 now that was developed by the former IDF chief of staff is now part of he current War cabinet in the war against for example Hezbollah the idea you use disproportionate an overwhelming Force while targeting civilian government infrastructure in order to establish deterrence and force the civilian population to pressure the groups to end their attacks that sounds a lot like terrorism to me if I'm honest and one of the Intelligence Officers themselves actually said to them they said um that they said that if for example they attack an Islam Islamic Jihad office sorry a tower block which just has on the 10th floor uh an office you could say is Islamic Jihad you bring down the entire high rise including civilians and they say you know with the aim of pressuring civilian families who live in it in order to put pressure on terrorist organizations he said if we said that this would be seen as terrorism so we don't say it what do you think about that yeah it's um there's a lot of theories around Warfare and how to win Wars and in the second world war there was this view if we attack by German industrial base you know it will shorten the war some some truth from that if you attack with transport hubs you know the major sits Dresden and Berlin and places like that that will hasten you know shorten the war and and they're never necessarily found and for a number of years for I least for the last 20 years people have been looking for the the Silver Bullet but will bring Wars to an end quickly we we talk it identifying the enemy center of gravity and striking it that that thing which will cause him to collapse a very very often you know that that center of gravity is defined as the leader if you hit the Right leader or the right group of senior leaders the organization will collapse and Splinter or Surrender this this kind of notion that that you refer to that you bomb residential buildings um in order to bring about effect of military Victory I I don't really know where that comes from I don't know any other military that follows a Doctrine that's related to that one I I think it's a wishful thinking I think it's a bizarre way of fighting a war and I can't help thinking Owen but it's punitive it's intended to punish rather than actually intended to achieve anything who's it punishing the civilian population why because Israel perceives them as supporting Hamas I mean that's not nonsensical it's nonsensical it's probably illegal in terms of international humanitarian law and it certainly appears to me to be unethical it's absolutely illegitimate to target Yaya simoa it's absolutely legitimate to target the tunnel system absolutely legitimate to target you know factories that might be producing Rockets or or or any of that stuff but to target residential accommodation blocks for some reason is is bizarre but I Also I think that's what what we're seeing some of the some of the imagery we're seeing at the moment from North Gaza it it's it's post-apocalyptic it almost looks like somebody's dropped a nuclear bomb on it looks like hirosima or Nagasaki I mean it's staggering I you know I know there's a lot of collateral damage when you fight in an urban area you know whether that is in moosul or whether that is in raaka or whether that is wherever I get that but I'm afraid an awful lot of the the damage the the sheer extent of the damage in the northern part of the Gaza City looks to me to be deliberate it's hard to view it as anything other than delivered not as collateral damage as a result of a tough urban fight it looks almost like and I've said this it looks almost like a deliberate policy to prevent the Palestinians from returning to that area and that's uncomfortable I mean do you think as you know speaking of military experience you look at this and think well actually eliminate this can't be based on a kind of military end because OB a lot of Israeli ministers are very open about the fact they want to ethnically cleanse Gaza of the Palestinian population altogether and a lot of them keep using this term voluntary migration which is an absurdity people don't want to leave their homes but the way you frame it is you make it an inhospitable place to live and therefore you say for humanitarian reasons those who have survived D are going to have to leave and you and and and do you think that's the danger here what you're seeing from a military perspective is basically you raise you make it inhospitable and therefore you lay the grounds for just getting rid of the Palestinians I we we called it ethnic cleansing in the Balkan Zone you know we didn't we didn't mince our words about it it was called Ethnic Cleansing the deliberate destruction of property fear and intimidation and violence in order to drive a population out of an area and and and all factions did that in the Balkans in the 1990s and now now the only thing that I take issue your comment there is I think you said you you suggested that all Israelis think like this I'm not sure oh no no no I didn't say that no I I I I think the major Israeli ministers sorry absolutely I I I you the the the galance and the far right the lick of members and all of that absolutely no doubt about this they've said this is their policy yeah um I think there were 12 cabinet ministers weren't there at this sort of resettled Gaza um conference party last week um yeah it's they've said it they've said this is their aim um you know and and I think you when one looks at the level of Destruction in North Gaza you know there mat be evidence that backs up their words yeah acts words and deeds is what we've seen there to be quite honest it's hard to view it as anything other it's hard to suggest anything other than that just some of the excuses that have been used and I I worry a little bit about kind of contagion about how basically war crimes are normalized um where Israel will argue well or Defenders of Israel's behavior in in Gaza will say uh either oh always move the conversation back to 7th of October and where atrocities were committed and obviously no should be any illusion about that the clock didn't begin on the 7th of October and obviously you mentioned that that horrific history the Palestinian population have suffered they've been occupied displaced ethnically cleansed um on a grand scale met various International organizations call it apartheid uh they sorted Mass Slaughter incarceration we could go on um but they'll say 7th of October uh or they'll say well Hamas commit war crimes or they'll say because you know they'll claim it start 7th of October therefore H they started it and therefore everything that happens everything Israel army does they'll say well that's hamas's fault altogether and that just means you give yourself a charter to behave as you wish you can anything then and just say well blame Hamas and that for me seems like there's a you know a lot of people who regard who w ll call themselves moderate and sensible and all the rest of it end up normalizing overt war crimes and where does that leave yeah I mean as you rightly say sea was abhorrent was utterly repellent and I said everybody involved in the massacre on that day you know deserves a special place in Hell there's no doubt about that indefensible um but as you rightly say history didn't start on the 7th of October it didn't and irrespective of the evils that were committed by Hamas on the 7th of October that doesn't give anybody it doesn't mean that that you know the Israeli Defense Forces have any right to resort to those levels of barbarity it doesn't that's not what proportionality is all about people say proportionality means that the Israelis should be allowed to do exactly what Hamas did on the 7th of October now that's not the case all of those would be war crimes but the difference of course in my mind is Israel is a on the face of it a democratic State Hamas is a non-state actor it's not it's not wrong that we should be holding Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces to a much higher standard of behavior than we do Hamas this is the kind of key point and and if if Israel if the Israeli Defense Forces lose their moral compass and commit war crimes or acts but are bordering on war crimes which are unethical then then they they lose that moral superiority that moral Supremacy which they have all that they had it's absolutely appr we should be holding them you know we held ourselves in Afghanistan to a higher standard of accountability than we did the Taliban of course we did absolutely right and it's it's it's Madness to suggest others otherwise I'm I'm I'm struck daily by by the number of people who just say what about 7th of October Charlie what about the 7th of October you know Hamas did it Hamas you know raped and murdered and whatever they did all of those abhorent things um you know and suggest that that gives the Israeli Defense Forces legitimacy to do that absolutely absolutely not absolutely not IDF must hold themselves to a higher standard than that mustn't stoop to about level and occasionally I fear that they have done just a couple of other things about by the way the point you made I think because you you you mentioned the balkans a few times and um it's interesting quite a few Bosnian figures have have spoken out um and made parallels and just on that and I've made this point before the Bosnian Serb population themselves civilians suffered horrible atrocities against them there were terrible atrocities committed against Bosnian serbs that didn't give any legitimacy to the crimes then committed by the Bosnian Serb armies including for rean where they were obviously charged with genocide um but but they they did use the atrocities committed against Bosnian Serb civilians to justify that behavior and I don't think anyone rational would look at that and think that that in any way legitimize that Behavior
Roof Knocking no longer Policy:
Regarding the IDF’s attack policy in Gaza, the source clarifies that the “roof knocking” policy, whereby the IDF has previously used text messages, phone calls, or an initial strike on the roof to warn residents of a building that it is about to be struck, is not the system currently applying.
4 Types of Targets:
According to the sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call, the targets in Gaza that have been struck by Israeli aircraft can be divided roughly into four categories.
The first is “tactical targets,” which include standard military targets such as armed militant cells, weapon warehouses, rocket launchers, anti-tank missile launchers, launch pits, mortar bombs, military headquarters, observation posts, and so on.
The second is “underground targets” — mainly tunnels that Hamas has dug under Gaza’s neighborhoods, including under civilian homes. Aerial strikes on these targets could lead to the collapse of the homes above or near the tunnels.
The third is “power targets,” which includes high-rises and residential towers in the heart of cities, and public buildings such as universities, banks, and government offices. The idea behind hitting such targets, say three intelligence sources who were involved in planning or conducting strikes on power targets in the past, is that a deliberate attack on Palestinian society will exert “civil pressure” on Hamas.
The final category consists of “family homes” or “operatives’ homes.” The stated purpose of these attacks is to destroy private residences in order to assassinate a single resident suspected of being a Hamas or Islamic Jihad operative. However, in the current war, Palestinian testimonies assert that some of the families that were killed did not include any operatives from these organizations.
(+972 magazine)
Nowhere is Safe Anywhere:
Tariq Haddad, a Palestinian American and cardiology doctor, talks about how his extended family in Gaza has been devastated by Israeli bombing:
No Where is Safe Anywhere:
On December 1st, as a seven-day temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas ended, Omar al-Najjar rushed to his family in eastern Khan Younis. His elderly parents and his two siblings were sheltering with relatives who received an automated phone call from the Israeli Army, telling them to leave. Israeli military operations against Hamas had been focussed on northern Gaza, but now they were proceeding south. His family had already relocated four times. They weren’t sure where to go next. (New Yorker)
Lynn Hastings, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory, said these warnings are ineffective. “For people who can’t evacuate — because they have nowhere to go or are unable to move — advance warnings make no difference,” Hastings said in a statement.
“When the evacuate routes are bombed, when people north as well as south are caught up in hostilities, when essentials for survival are lacking, and when there are no assurances for return, people are left with nothing but impossible choices,” she added. “Nowhere is safe in Gaza.” (The Hill)
At least 100 Palestinian men detained by Israeli forces have been stripped to their underwear, blindfolded and made to kneel on a street in northern Gaza, according to images and videos widely circulated on social media and confirmed by the Israeli army.
.. About the Israeli response on the images, Khan said that the army statement was unapologetic.
“This is simply a tactic that they are going to use. They don’t care about the criticism from the international community or the human rights groups,” he added.
.. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said the men were “arbitrarily arrested” in the northern Gaza Strip after Israeli forces surrounded two shelters in the town of Beit Lahiya for days.
.. “This is a way to humiliate, this is a psychological warfare, designed to break the Palestinian people and tell them no place is safe, including shelters,” he told Al Jazeera.
Is the IDF "making up" for errors in preventing October 7?
FBI definition of "Terrorism"
The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives
A) President Biden has described Israel's bombing of being "indiscriminate". Gazans feel there is "no where safe" in Gaza.
B) Israel's targeting of "residences" and "Power targets" with the intention of "shocking" the civilians
.. combined with the Dahiya doctrine's intention of creating unbearable civilian suffering to pressure the population to demand militants stop the conflict.
“Cwae” - claim without evidence
(Tim’s newly coined word; origin: me on Twitter)
(pronounced: "kway")
Usage 1: On the same date that the court released a preliminary verdict, Israel cwaed that 12 UNRWA staff were involved in the October 7 attacks. (Source)
Usage 2: The State Department Spokesperson cwaed that Hamas is withholding hostages who have been raped because Hamas doesn't want them to speak publicly. (Source)
.. Note: Evidence may actually exist and be provided at a later date.
Sidestepping fact and law:
In 1936 Carl Sandburg included an instance in his book length poem “The People, Yes” which contained a large number of quotations and sayings that were circulating in the U.S.
“If the law is against you, talk about the evidence,” said a battered barrister “If the evidence is against you, talk about the law, and, since you ask me, if the law and the evidence are both against you, then pound on the table and yell like hell”
Ad hominem
– a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate.
Pressure Tactics:
Israel’s actions in regard to Gaza have precedent 15 years ago, when South African Richard Goldstein (himself Jewish) investigated Israeli actions in Gaza in 2008-2009. His UN Commission found that Israel had conducted a:
“deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability”
Goldstein was put under enormous pressure and later changed his report’s attribution of intent.
Jefferey Gettleman, the New York Times journalist who wrote the "Screams without Words" piece, adopts the same stance as New York Times journalist Judith Miller, who wrote that her job was not to evaluate whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but to accurately reflect what her sources were saying.
we interviewed almost 200 people over the course of two months and what we found I don't want to even use the word evidence because evidence is almost like a legal term that suggests you're trying to to prove an allegation or prove a case in court that's that's not my role um we all have our roles and and my role is to is to document is to present information is to give people a voice
Ms. Miller’s main defense is that the experts she relied upon — intelligence officials, weapons experts, members of the Bush administration and others — were wrong about Mr. Hussein’s weapons. She acknowledges being wrong but not making any mistakes. She quotes herself telling another reporter: “If your sources were wrong, you are wrong.” This is where she gets stuck.
Journalists, especially those who have a talent for investigative work, are taught early to write big, to push the story as far as possible. Be careful; nail the facts; be fair, but push hard. Nobody pushed harder than Ms. Miller. In this case, she wound up implicitly pushing for war.
“Review: Judith Miller’s ‘The Story: A Reporter’s Journey,” New York Times, April 7, 2015.
“Atrocity propaganda” is designed to be outrageous.
If it is true that Israel used atrocity propaganda, it will not be the first country to do so.
To justify the first Gulf War, the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton coached the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter to testify that Iraq had looted Kuwati incubators and left hundreds of premature babies to die. Iraq did not actually commit these crimes but Amnesty International, initially corroborated the claim. A similar charge has been made recently by the Palestinians against Israel.
Atrocity Propaganda: (Wikipedia)
According to Paul Linebarger, atrocity propaganda leads to real atrocities, as it incites the enemy into committing more atrocities, and, by heating up passions, it increases the chances of one's own side committing atrocities, in revenge for the ones reported in propaganda.[5] Atrocity propaganda might also lead the public to mistrust reports of actual atrocities. In January 1944, Arthur Koestler wrote of his frustration at trying to communicate what he had witnessed in Nazi-occupied Europe: the legacy of anti-German stories during World War I, many of which were debunked in the postwar years, meant that these reports were received with considerable amounts of skepticism.
.. It contains the following three elements:
moral outrage or indignation;
authorization of punitive measures;
mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators.
.. Atrocity propaganda is violent, gloomy, and portrays doom to help rile up and get the public excited. It mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators., making them easier to kill
.. “falsehood is a recognized and extremely useful weapon in warfare, and every country uses it quite deliberately to deceive its own people, attract neutrals, and to mislead the enemy”
.. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man
.. The extent and devastation of World War I required nations to keep morale high. Propaganda was used here to mobilize hatred against the enemy, convince the population of the justness of one's own cause, enlist the active support and cooperation of neutral countries, and strengthen the support of one's allies.[14] The goal was to make the enemy appear savage, barbaric, and inhumane.
.. During World War II, atrocity propaganda was not used on the same scale as in World War I, as by then it had long been discredited by its use during the previous conflict.[32] There were exceptions ..
However, the Germans often claimed that largely accurate descriptions of German atrocities were just "atrocity propaganda" and a few Western leaders were thus hesitant to believe early reports of Nazi atrocities, especially the existence of concentration camps, death camps and the many massacres perpetrated by German troops and SSEinsatzgruppen during the war.
LBJ’s Pig “F--cking” Strategy:
Rape is common during war, but evidence does not currently support allegations of systemic mass rapes, although that possibly has not be ruled out. "Mass Rapes," beheaded babies, and other atrocities, the Israelis may have taken a page out of LBJ’s book of dirty trick playbook. Lyndon B Johnson once accused his opponent of having sex with pigs, with the goal of putting his opponent in a “double bind” defensive — where both options are a trap.
An example [of a “double bind”] from Gerald M. Weinberg in a non-family situation: "I suggest you find someone who you feel is more capable in this role". This requires the recipient to either confirm that the current incumbent in the role is sufficiently capable, or accept that they choose someone else based on their feelings – not an objective assessment of whether the incumbent is capable.
Hunter S. Thompson writes about LBJ’s strategy:
“This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas.
“The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitchh deny it.”While conceding that it is much more likely that Hamas militants (and the civilians that escaped and followed after them) conducted mass rapes than that LBJ's opponent had sex with pigs, the goal is the same -- spread a rumor that hurts the opponent, whether they respond with avoidance or denial.
I found a well-written summary of how this tactic has tactic has affected American politics, but it is written by a somewhat partisan lawyer, who is a Democrat (so if you're Republican, take that as a “trigger warning”)
Israel coverage freer in Israel than US:
It is true that there were Hamas atrocities, but Israel appears to be using the power of atrocity propaganda to justify a disproportionate response.
Some of this propaganda has been debunked in the Israeli media, but US and UK press continues to maintain the false narrative:
Allegations of 40 beheaded babies + baby in oven + fetus cut from pregnant woman have been discredited, but a significant portion of the public heard the accusation but not the retraction, creating strong animus and creating a populous more willing to accept war crimes against the Gazans. I hope the ICJ investigates the origin of these claims, as they lead to incitement of genocide.
Perspective: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but New York Times later had to admit that Judith Miller’s stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were unfounded.
Miller defended her reporting, stating:
"My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Is the New York Times now parroting US and Israeli propaganda without critical analysis?
Hamas did commit atrocities on 10/7 and sexual violence happens in most wars, but the New York Times story by Jeffery Gettleman (12/28/2023) makes accusations of systemic rape (dozens), even though the primary source evidence is weak. One thing these claims do is provide some westerners with a de-facto “moral license” for for potential war crimes and genocide. (Is this the point?)
Introductory Video: Max Blumenthal & Aaron Mate (both Jewish) critique Jeffrey Gettleman’s New York Times column in which the alleged lead rape victim’s family denies the rape story - both sister, mother, and brother-in-law.
The one person who came forward later as an alleged witness did NOT originally mention anything about sexual violence in his original interview on 10/9 and recorded himself acting in an unconcerned manner near the time of the alleged rape.
The Israeli organization that collected the bodies on 10/7, (ZAKA) was:
“unqualified to provide forensic evidence,” and founded by Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, who after he was awarded the Israel prize, “multiple accusations surfaced of his having committed sexual assaults against women, girls and boys over several decades, with the knowledge of others in the community.” I think it is significant that this appears to have been know within the community, as well there have been reports “documenting corruption and theft of donations by ZAKA leadership.”
Note: I see a lot of what appears to me to be “flak” about Max Blumenthal when I search for him. Could someone provide a link in the comments to a report about the expertise of these fact-checking / censorship sites and how they are able to avoid capture by big interests, as Matt Taibbi reported to Twitter in the Twitter Files.
I don’t deny that mass rape could have have happened, but at this point the evidence appears weak. I want to caution people that allegations of war crimes often beget more more crimes, even if the original claims prove to be unfounded or exaggerated.
Israel made efforts to publicize accusations of “mass rape” in late November and December, but it has been unwilling or unable to provide primary source evidence to substantiate these claims, which got widespread circulation in outlets like the New York Times, which claimed that Hamas committed “dozens” of rapes.
Here’s a writeup of Max Blumenthal critique of the New York Times reporting. It argues that the rape charges were deployed 2 months after 10/7 as an effort to garner support to an ailing war. (Blumenthal is speculating here about Israel’s motivation.) Blumenthal says police can’t find women to match the alleged charges and the family of one of the featured alleged victims say there is no evidence she was raped. An alleged witness did not report rape charges when initially interviewed (Rising video) and some of the witness’ other claims (such as beheadings) have been discredited, as all bodies have been accounted for, with heads.
Israel says they have 60,000 videos of 10/7, but they appear to have not been able to provide a single video that persuasively depicts a rape or sexual assault. This seeems fishy.
We know Hamas committed atrocities on 10/7, and rape is common in war, but the claim that Hamas used systemic mass rape as a weapon of war (dozens of victims) is not well supported.
The New Times “pulled a story” about Hamas “mass rape” from their podcast “The Daily” after facing internal and external opposition, according to Max Blumenthal. (By “pulled,” I assume they mean they decided not publish something, rather than “retract”)
Israel refused to provide evidence of systemic mass rape to UN investigation:
Reuters reported on Nov 30, 2023 that Israel refused to provide evidence of 10/7 rape to the UN commission. Israel says it doesn’t trust the UN. My suspicion is they will refuse to cooperate as long as they think it is in their interest to do so, which may be forever if they don’t have confidence in their evidence.
If they did have solid evidence and do not trust the UN investigation, they could have provided it to a third-party like the New York Times, but thus far they do not appear to have done so.
Note: the original NYTimes report alleged “dozens” of rapes.
A fair-minded Reddit poster observes:
“.. the narrative being presented is a systematic campaign of mass rape involving dozens of victims across at least seven locations. And it's being presented, at least in part, because it conjures such an emotional reaction in people ..
Every other paragraph seems to have an explanation for why there's no evidence. There was no time to collect samples, bodies were burned, bodies had to be buried, responders weren't allowed to take photos, this victim can't be located, this victim won't go on record because they're traumatized, this witness won't go public because they fear retribution. They say "don't look for some golden evidence, the bodies tell the story". What bodies?
And it starts to freak me out. It's a little too much. I want to believe people. I want to trust that Israel would not lie, even to exaggerate the number of assaults. But I'm also keenly aware that wars are fought not only with bombs but with propaganda. On both sides. So I hope you understand that there are some of us who feel intense anguish reading these stories, but still grapple with feeling that something is truly off about all of this. You make it sound like it's unreasonable to see a video showing a dead body with no underwear and not conclude with 100% certainty that a rape had occurred. Is it? I'm not denying that Hamas did something terrible to her. They killed her! ..”
Unwillingness to Admit fact-finding missions:
This doesn’t relate specifically to 10/7 atrocities, but in addition to barring foreign journalists and killing 85+ journalists, Israel argued at the ICJ (International Court of Justice) Genocide preliminary hearing, that they did not have to allow fact-finding missions.
Don’t Investigate 10/7 failures:
Jewish Press (Jan 25, 2024)
“IDF Chief of Staff Hertzi Halevi on Thursday decided to freeze the establishment of a committee of inquiry to investigate the failures of October 7, 2023, following the criticism leveled at him by members of the cabinet”
“Atrocity propaganda” is designed to be outrageous.
If it is true that Israel used atrocity propaganda, it will not be the first country to do so.
To justify the first Gulf War, the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton coached the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter to testify that Iraq had looted Kuwati incubators and left hundreds of premature babies to die. Iraq did not actually commit these crimes but Amnesty International, initially corroborated the claim. A similar charge has been made recently by the Palestinians against Israel.
Atrocity Propaganda: (Wikipedia)
According to Paul Linebarger, atrocity propaganda leads to real atrocities, as it incites the enemy into committing more atrocities, and, by heating up passions, it increases the chances of one's own side committing atrocities, in revenge for the ones reported in propaganda.[5] Atrocity propaganda might also lead the public to mistrust reports of actual atrocities. In January 1944, Arthur Koestler wrote of his frustration at trying to communicate what he had witnessed in Nazi-occupied Europe: the legacy of anti-German stories during World War I, many of which were debunked in the postwar years, meant that these reports were received with considerable amounts of skepticism.
.. It contains the following three elements:
moral outrage or indignation;
authorization of punitive measures;
mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators.
.. Atrocity propaganda is violent, gloomy, and portrays doom to help rile up and get the public excited. It dehumanizes the enemy, making them easier to kill
.. “falsehood is a recognized and extremely useful weapon in warfare, and every country uses it quite deliberately to deceive its own people, attract neutrals, and to mislead the enemy”
.. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man
.. The extent and devastation of World War I required nations to keep morale high. Propaganda was used here to mobilize hatred against the enemy, convince the population of the justness of one's own cause, enlist the active support and cooperation of neutral countries, and strengthen the support of one's allies.[14] The goal was to make the enemy appear savage, barbaric, and inhumane.
.. During World War II, atrocity propaganda was not used on the same scale as in World War I, as by then it had long been discredited by its use during the previous conflict.[32] There were exceptions ..
However, the Germans often claimed that largely accurate descriptions of German atrocities were just "atrocity propaganda" and a few Western leaders were thus hesitant to believe early reports of Nazi atrocities, especially the existence of concentration camps, death camps and the many massacres perpetrated by German troops and SSEinsatzgruppen during the war.
How Israel Censors American News Coverage
American journalists in Israel must submit stories to the Israeli Censor
Did you know that American journalists in Israel are required to submit their stories to the Israeli Military Censor before they can be published to their audience back in America?
The Intercept recently described how this affects the news Americans get from Israel.
Ranked 97th in the world
This prompted me to do a little bit of research and I was surprised to see Israel is ranked 97th in the World Press Freedom Index. I suppose the fact that Israel engages in “prior restraint”1 much more frequently than the US explains Israel’s low rank.
CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor
CNN has long been criticized by media analysts and journalists for its deference to the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces in its coverage of the occupied Palestinian territories, and the cable network admitted Thursday that it follows a protocol that could give Israeli censors influence over its stories.
A spokesperson for the network confirmed to The Intercept that its news coverage about Israel and Palestine is run through and reviewed by the CNN Jerusalem bureau—which is subject to the IDF's censor.
The censor restricts foreign news outlets from reporting on certain subjects of its choosing and outright censors articles or news segments if they don't meet its guidelines.
.. In practice, the staff member told The Intercept, "'War-crime' and 'genocide' are taboo words. Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as 'blasts' attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed."
Read More: Salon Magazine | Original Intercept article
Gantz taps Kobi Mandelblit to serve as next military censor
Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Thursday nominated Col. Kobi Mandelblit to serve as the next military censor.
Israel is something of a rarity among democratic countries in its use of a military censor to prevent the publication of classified material. Under Israeli law, all news articles — in both traditional media and social media — dealing with national security and related issues must be approved by the censor before publication.
Over the decades, the censor unit has faced allegations that it has been used politically and to prevent embarrassing the military and government, rather than to prevent direct harm to national security. In the current age when information can be easily published by anyone on the internet, censorship has also been criticized as an outdated tool.
Times of Israel, March 24, 2022
Israel: Government to shut down critical media alleged to ‘undermine national security’
The Israeli government has approved on 20 October a new regulation that will allow for the temporary shut down of news channels which ‘damage national security’. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urges Israel to review its decision in the name of media pluralism and the public’s right to know.
The proposed regulations, approved on 20 October, aim to prohibit news organisations from ‘undermining national security, public order or serving as a basis for enemy propaganda’. While the regulation appears to be aimed at the operation of Qatari channel Al Jazeera, the IFJ fears they could also be used to shut down other media operating in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
According to the Times of Israel “the communications minister — with the agreement of the defence minister — will be able to order TV providers to stop broadcasting the news outlet in question; close its offices in Israel, seize its equipment, and shut down its website or restrict access to its website, depending on the location of its server.”
The latest decision of the Israeli government to restrict press freedom is another blow for the international journalism community and the public’s right to know..
IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger said: “We are deeply concerned at Israel's attempt to censor media coverage of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict using national security as an excuse to restrict critical media that do not confirm its narrative of the ongoing war. This is a clear attack on media pluralism and the public's right to know. The whole world must be allowed to see what is happening in the ongoing conflict and we urge Israel to review its decision."
International Federation of Journalists, Oct 20, 2023
Wikipedia: Censorship in Israel is officially carried out by the Israeli Military Censor, a unit in the Israeli government officially tasked with carrying out preventive censorship regarding the publication of information that might affect the security of Israel. The body is headed by the Israeli Chief Censor, a military official appointed by Israel's Minister of Defense, who bestows upon the Chief Censor the authority to suppress information he deems compromising from being made public in the media,[1][2] such as Israel's nuclear weapons program and Israel's military operations outside its borders. On average, 2240 press articles in Israel are censored by the Israeli Military Censor each year, approximately 240 of which in full, and around 2000 partially.[3]
Articles concerning potentially controversial topics must be submitted to the Israeli Military Censor in advance; failing to do so may cause the reporter to lose his right to work as a journalist in Israel[4] and, in the case of foreign reporters, to be barred from the country
Reporters Without Borders report on Israel states that "Under Israel’s military censorship, reporting on a variety of security issues requires prior approval by the authorities. In addition to the possibility of civil defamation suits, journalists can also be charged with criminal defamation and "insulting a public official". There is a freedom of information law but it is sometimes hard to implement. The confidentiality of sources is not protected by statutory law"
Every journalist working within Israel is required to be accredited by the Israeli Government Press Office. The office is allowed to deny applications based on political or security considerations.[9]
.. Before the Oslo Accords, Israeli police and government controlled the Palestinian territories, and with this, Israel censored the books and information Palestinians can read and output. By 1991, some 10,000 books had been banned, fax machines had been banned, and a number of phone lines had been cut. In addition, publications of anything with content considered "political significance" in the West Bank, Palestinian territory, had been prohibited, and Arab publications had been be "completely stopped"[dubious – discuss].[12][better source needed]
Reporters Without Borders have raised serious concern regarding the treatment of journalists in Israel, particularly Palestinian journalists. Their current section on Israel states: "[…] journalists are exposed to open hostility from members of the government. Smear campaigns have been waged against media outlets and journalists by politicians with the help of their party and supporters, exposing the targets to harassment and anonymous messages and forcing them seek personal protection. […] The Israel Defence Forces often violate the rights of Palestinian journalists, especially when they are covering demonstrations or clashes in the West Bank or Gaza Strip"
.. One notable instance where a newspaper was closed temporarily was in the case of the Kav 300 affair where it was eventually discovered that the censor was used by the Shin Bet to cover up internal wrongdoings in the agency and led to one of the biggest public scandals in Israel during the 1980s.
.. In 2018, the censor prohibited the publication of 363 news articles, and partially or fully redacted 2,712 news items submitted to it for prior review.[26] This amounts to more than one news piece being censored and seven news items being redacted per day, on average.
Israel has banned the use of the word Nakba in Israeli Arab schools and textbooks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the ban by saying that the term was "propaganda against Israel".[30]
Wikipedia: Censorship in Israel
.. Two years ago, +972 Magazine reported that the censor fully or partially redacted one out of every five articles submitted for review. According to data for 2017, the censor fully or partially redacted 21 percent of the articles submitted to it that year — more than one out of every five articles. Between 2010 and 2017, it banned the publication of 2,298 articles.
Once an article has been censored, the journalist and publication are forbidden from revealing what information was removed or redacted.
Forward, Jewish Independent. Nonprofit, Jul 6,, 2018
This pattern of “repressing” the news is apparent in the headlines of other outlets too:
The New York Times almost seems to be saying “nothing to see here”, declining to say something like:
“UN Court Finds that Israel’s Actions are Plausibly Genocidal,” and instead saying:
UN Court Declines to Demand Israel Stop its Military Campaign, even though the correct inference was that Israel was required to stop its genocide.
The result of this news “repression” was that many Americans haven’t realized that the court ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and must stop. It is only through the collaboration of the US that Israel is able to act with impunity.
Outlets that source their news stories out of an Israeli bureau were not allowed to attribute killings to Israel, unless Israel approved, resulting in Israel’s killing of a 6 year-old girl being described in the same way as one would describe a natural death or accident:
Compare these headlines:
“Missing 6-Year-Old and Rescue Team Found Dead in Gaza, Aid Group Says,” (NYTimes) with:
“A 6-year-old Palestinian girl was killed — as were the paramedics trying to rescue her — by Israeli tanks.” (The Independent)
I haven’t conducted a broader survey of publications to verify that these phenomonon applies accross news organizations with Israeli news bureaus.
Report: Military censor says PM unjustifiably pressing him to clamp down on reporting
Israel’s military censor Brig. Gen. Kobi Mandelblit has complained privately that the prime minister and other senior government officials are pressing him to muzzle some media publications without a valid security justification for doing so, according to a report Wednesday.
Haaretz said Mandelblit vented on the matter to other senior IDF officers in a recent private conversation, during which he made several harsh remarks about the prime minister and told them he fears Netanyahu wants to remove him from his post or deprive the censor of authority.
.. Two senior officers who were present during the conversation told Haaretz that Mandelblit said he had been asked to tighten censorship policy by Netanyahu himself, National Security Adviser Tzahi Hanegbi and by Netanyahu’s military secretary Maj. Gen. Avi Gil.
Mandelbit ostensibly told the gathering that there was no security justification for the requests and that the pressure being applied on him was unusual. According to the report, the other officers present agreed with him.
Times of Israel, Nov 29, 2023
Enough with the Censorship?
According to media reports in recent days, the Prime Minister’s Office has been putting pressure on the Chief Censor (the head of the Israeli Military Censor, which is tasked with preventing publication of information that may harm national security). It has been pressuring the chief censor to prevent the publication of certain news items, which the Censor did not think were worthy of censorship, some of which relate to the prime minister’s own private affairs. In addition, journalists from various media outlets have reported being subject to discriminatory treatment by the Military Censor, in that reports from certain media outlets are censored, while the same reports from other media outlets are approved.
Gaza war: Israeli government has Haaretz newspaper in its sights as it tightens screws on media freedom
The Israeli government is putting pressure on the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz to line up in support of the government in its conduct of the war in Gaza.
The communications minister, Shlomo Karhi, has suggested financial penalties be applied to the paper accusing it of “lying, defeatist propaganda” and “sabotaging Israel in wartime”. The proposal aims to cancel state subscriptions to the paper and “forbid the publication of official notices”.
In response, the Israeli Journalists’ Union called the move a “populistic proposal devoid of any feasibility of logic”. Haaretz, which is an independent daily newspaper, has been publishing since 1919, and has frequently been the target of right-wing administrations.
On October 20 the government enacted emergency regulations, enabling it to temporarily shut down foreign media seen as harmful to the country. This legislation allows for the closure and signal blocking of any media for 30 days at a time.
.. In attacking the newspaper, Shlomo Karhi wrote a letter to cabinet secretary, Yossi Fuchs, in which he quoted from a couple of pieces which were, in fact, opinion columns rather than straight news reports.
One was written by Gideon Levy on October 9, under the headline: “Israel Can’t Imprison Two Million Gazans Without Paying a Cruel Price”. In the article Levy opined: “Behind all this lies Israeli arrogance; the idea that we’ll never pay the price and be punished for it. We’ll carry on undisturbed.”
In another column, Amira Hass, was also mentioned as proof of Haaretz’s “defeatist and false propaganda”. Karhi quoted from a piece she wrote on October 10: “In a few days Israelis went through what Palestinians have experienced as a matter of routine for decades, and are still experiencing – military incursions, death, cruelty, slain children, bodies piled up in the road.”
The Conversation, Nov 28, 2023
As of January 28, 2024:
83 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 76 Palestinian, 4 Israeli, and 3 Lebanese.
16 journalists were reported injured.
3 journalists were reported missing.
25 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings of family members.
Source: Committee to protect Journalists
“The Israeli army has killed 94 university professors, along with hundreds of teachers and thousands of students, as part of its genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, ongoing since 7 October 2023, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said in a statement issued on Saturday”
At least 13 poets were killed, most notably Refaat Alareer, who Israel called prior to his killing and gave him the option of leaving the public shelter so that the “collateral damage” from his “assassination” would not also kill other members of the shelter.
Was 10/7 not bad enough to overcome Israel’s embarrassment, and justify their response?
It is true that Hamas committed atrocities. However the claims expressing outrage over 10/7 frequently make reference to the most extreme claims of beheadings, babies, and mass rape that are the least substantiated. Were Hamas’s actual atrocities not enough to cover for Israel’s embarrassment over its 10/7 military failures and to offset Israel’s own retaliatory actions?
Would the public feel differently if the alleged “Atrocity Propaganda” allegations — beheaded babies, baby in oven, systematic mass rapes — had never been made?
Does this qualify under incitement to genocide and what does accountability look like?
In addition to the close ties and bias towards Israel, British and US media chose not to cover of the South African argument, that Israel committed genocide, but gave full coverage to the Israeli defense.
“I can NOT find the International Court of Justice hearing on CNN, BBC, Channel 4, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, NBC, I24, DW, Sky News, or any mainstream US/EU TV channel... What explains this unprecedented campaign of disinformation by omission?”
Australian Broadcaster – ABC – banned their journalists from using the word “genocide”, even in quotations. (The Hill)
Policing “Anti-Semitism” and policing abuse:
Just as one should not abuse or trivialize invocation of the Nazis, one should not abuse the invocation of Godwin’s law when a Nazi comparison is actually appropriate.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a moral hazard to invoking the Holocaust to win an argument on the internet. And since it is so easy and effective to do so, people become lazy and sloppy.
Just as comparing one's opponent to Nazis is a tactic that can be abused, invoking Godwin's law can be abused.
Thus one would expect abuse to happen at every level if it is not policed:
Zionist Jews and Christian Zionist play the "Anti-semitism card" when they shouldn't.
Next, we can expect people to play the ”Anti-Anti-Semitism card” ("Puttin' on the RITZ") when they shouldn't to defend against actual Anti-Semitism.
This same dynamic could be abused in application a George W Bushian "You're either with us or against us" or invalid accusations of "Hinduphobia."
There are valid critiques of George Soros that are not Anti-Semitic. One can still make them but one must recognize how this can be problematic and be careful not to be sloppy. (see Rabbi David Wolpe below)
Critics of Roger Waters: Falsely Accuse of “AntiSemitism”
I’m not familiar with Roger Waters’ fascist stage character “Pink Floyd,” but defenders say that Waters is one of the longest-standing anti-fascist performers (over 40 years) and that his depictions can not be misunderstood by an informed fair-minded critic.
(“Strong Language” & Leftist Anti-Zionist perspective)
Roger Waters is in character as Pink Floyd a rock star that overdoses and descends into madness hallucinating he is a dictator at a fascist rally and the audience are his supporters. It is a role famously played by Bob Geldof in the movie Pink Floyd The Wall 1982 and I will say as somebody who's seen it in concert the statement is very effective. If you actually see that in concert if you're familiar with the album you know there's an entire segment saying is anyone in the audience tonight and he names all these different identities get them up against the wall and you have a whole chorus striking chimes. I mean it's it's a very clear statement also on the weird overlap between Rock concert audiences and rallies, right. I mean that's something that Oliver Stones The Doors kind of played with that the weird chemistry in a in a rock concert audience. So there's a lot going on there but certainly if if you know the lyrics of these songs uh in which fascists are compared to worms certainly not anything any fair-minded person could interpret as being supportive of it.
In my original, broader article, I suggested the idea that charges of “Anti-Semitism” must still be seriously considered, but caution should be taken that this appeal not be abused to shut down debate and avoid accountability.
To clarify, it important to call out people for “Anti-Semitism” when appropriate, but the charge has been abused and we need to have Rhetorical “police reform.”