person:ahmed jabari

Israel’s leftist media pushing for war with Gaza -

This is journalism that betrays its mission, fully and voluntarily co-opted over the most important issue of all
Gideon Levy
Mar 27, 2019

▻https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-israel-s-leftist-media-pushing-for-war-with-gaza-1.7063744

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.7063766.1553720413!/image/2950201196.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/2950201196.jpg

If there’s another war with Gaza, God forbid, it will be largely due to the incitement of the leftist media. If war is avoided, it will be largely thanks to the restraint of that media’s bête noire, the rightist Benjamin Netanyahu. Left and right, baying for blood in near-unison, clamoring for action. This periodic psychosis, journalism that pushes for war while still being considered leftist, has become the norm. This is our warrior journalism, fighting for war.

It works like this: First, for years they systematically and deliberately ignore the motives and justifications for Palestinian violence. They conceal the oppression and the occupation. It’s all terror, they’re all terrorists. Then they inflate the scope of the damage. Finally, they demand unimaginable vengeance. A primitive rocket that destroys a home in a farm community takes on the dimensions of an apocalypse. A few people were injured: near-genocide.

>> A war now will strengthen Hamas | Opinion ■ Choose calm, not punishment | Editorial

The headline, “A miracle: Tony the dog took some shrapnel and saved Grandma Susan,” is a parody of journalism. There were a flood of stories about Grandpa, Grandma, the children and the shrapnel. It’s emotional and familiar and it incites, and to hell with proportionality and professionalism.
Haaretz Weekly Episode 20Haaretz

Tens of thousands of Gazans who never had a swing in their yard as in Mishmeret are still homeless from the last war, but no one hears about them. In Mishmeret they are promising that the house will be rebuilt by Independence Day, but in Gaza there’s no Independence Day and no one to rebuild. Not a word is written about life under siege, dying cancer patients, hunger, unemployment and the fear of airstrikes in a land without bomb shelters. The press conceals this, derelict in its duties. Soldiers hit a blind man in his bed and kill a man in his car, for nothing; there are almost daily killings in the West Bank, and not a word. Only the destruction of the home in Mishmeret. The inescapable conclusion is that Israel mustn’t hold back.

A diplomatic reporter, a former military reporter, coldly asks the prime minister next to his plane in Washington, “How is it that there are no reports yet of fatalities in Gaza?” Indeed, how come you haven’t killed anyone yet, Benjamin Netanyahu? We’re all waiting. Army Radio puts on a Gaza man who describes a little of the suffering there, together with a man from Sderot, and social media erupts in screams: How dare they compare a Gazan to a Sderot resident, an animal to a human being? Army Radio, turning cowardly and insensitive, will no longer interview Gazans. Only in Sderot is there suffering, only one side of the fence are there human beings. Only in Mishmeret are there children. The headlines call out, “Enough,” “Exact a price.” Time is of the essence, there must be killing. It’s not enough to destroy a hundred homes. It should be a thousand, and with blood.

The experts in the broadcast studios: Hit them. Deterrence. The usual ridiculous clichés: “We can’t let this go.” Why not, in fact? “We can’t show restraint.” Why not? “We cannot remain silent.” Perhaps that’s preferable? And no one would even dream of lifting the blockade: That’s insane.
Stay up to date: Sign up to our newsletter
Email*

Bombing a helpless land: That’s logical. Generals argue over who was the hero who assassinated Ahmed Jabari, and no one calls it what it was: murder. All this is in the leftist media, many of whose journalists will vote for Benny Gantz or for Meretz, but that’s a trivial detail. What’s important is that they’re responsible for Israelis receiving tendentious, brainwashed information, a dialogue between the right and the extreme right. This is journalism that betrays its mission, fully and voluntarily co-opted over the most important issue of all.

The picture that it paints is that Palestinians were born to kill. They are beasts, we are human beings. They impose war on the most peace-loving country, a war that it so does not want. But the war that is never enough is now our dream. If Netanyahu doesn’t get that, then we, the leftist journalists, will explain it to him. It could end in the Gazan city of Rafah and in blood. If not this time, then the next. Thank you, Yedioth Ahronoth; see you around, Israel Hayom; good-bye to the television channels and the radio stations, we’ll meet at six, after the next war.

Pourquoi Israël a-t-il tué Jabari ?
Haaretz, 4 décembre 2012 par Reuven Pedatzur
►http://questionscritiques.free.fr/edito/haaretz/Israel_assassinat_Ahmed_Jabari_Pilier_de_Defense_Gaza_041212

Par conséquent, la décision de tuer Jabari montre que nos décideurs politiques ont décidé qu’un cessez-le-feu serait indésirable pour Israël à ce stade, et qu’attaquer le Hamas serait préférable. Il semble qu’un point de vue se soit développé selon lequel Israël avait besoin de renforcer sa dissuasion contre le Hamas plutôt que de parvenir à un accord avec lui sur une période de calme. Du point de vue des institutions [israéliennes] de défense et des cabinets du Premier ministre et du ministre de la Défense, un accord de cessez-le-feu aurait pu saper la dissuasion d’Israël et affaiblir son image de détermination. Vu sous cet angle, renforcer sa dissuasion serait accomplie en tuant Jabari, qui risquait de répondre favorablement à cette offre de cessez-le-feu à long terme.

De cette façon, les dirigeants d’Israël ont fait d’une pierre trois coups : Ils ont assassiné l’homme qui avait le pouvoir de passer un accord avec Israël ; ils se sont vengés de quelqu’un qui avait causé un grand nombre de pertes dans les rangs israéliens ; et ils ont signalé au Hamas que les communications avec lui ne seraient menées qu’a travers la force militaire.

En dehors du fait que les résultats de l’Opération Pilier de Défense n’ont pas rempli les attentes de ceux qui l’ont lancée, les décideurs politiques [israéliens] doivent répondre à une question importante : S’il savaient qu’il était possible, sans faire la guerre, de parvenir à un accord de cessez-le-feu (dont les conditions, soit dit en passant, étaient meilleures [pour Israël] que celles de l’accord obtenu après l’opération), pourquoi ont-ils assassiné Jabari et, par-là même, assassiné également les chances de parvenir au calme sans tirer un coup de feu ? Est-il possible, grands dieux, que Barak et Netanyahou aient eu peur que l’occasion de conduire une opération militaire à la fin du mandat de leur gouvernement leur échapperait, et que c’est la raison pour laquelle il ont ordonné la liquidation de Jabari ?

Pour nous éviter de porter des soupçons sur leurs motivations, le Premier ministre et le ministre de la Défense [israéliens] doivent expliquer leurs réflexions et leurs décisions dans l’affaire Jabari.

http://questionscritiques.free.fr/edito/haaretz/Jabari_Shalit.jpg

Israeli Ground Invasion of Gaza Imminent

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 12:50 AM PST

IDF heavy weaponry, including tanks and armored personnel carriers are massing near the Gaza border, signalling Israel’s intent to launch a ground invasion of the enclave. 16,000 reservists have been summoned for military service, another sign of a planned assault. The AP has been speaking of tomorrow as the date for launching the new offensive. If these indications prove correct, then the killing machine will move into high gear and we should expect a rise in the casualty count (on both sides).

My Israeli source tells me that there is one dominant reason why Bibi must invade. He can’t allow himself to be outdone by his rival, Ehud Olmert, who had an invasion of his own in 2009. Ehud Barak too, needs an invasion because he was defense minister during the first Gaza war and couldn’t stand for accepting less than what he “achieved” then. You may argue that this is overly cynical. My response? First, this perspective comes not from me, but from someone who has played senior roles in past governments and knows the players in this game well. Second, this should tell you how much great Israeli decisions of state are motivated by naked ambition, self-pride, and political survival. It may be true that when other world leaders launch a war they do so with strategic objectives in mind and for well-thought-out reasons. Not so, Israel. There, an election or a petty political rivalry is enough to cause the deaths of thousands. It reminds me of Nero’s fiddling while Rome burned.
no to gaza war

“No to Gaza War: Protest”

Till now, 15 Gazans have died (including several small babies) and three Israelis have died. Today, a rocket struck Rishon Lezion, a southern suburb of Tel Aviv and a missile landed in the sea near Tel Aviv. This is the first time these communities have seen such weapons since the 1991 Iraq War.

Israel has the Iron Dome anti-missile system. But as of yesterday, it only intercepted 20 of 80 projectiles fired into Israel. Even if we discount those which it detected would land harmlessly and which it didn’t target, clearly Iron Dome is quite fallible. It’s supposed to have an 80% success rate. I doubt it’s achieved that level of effectiveness.

In my ongoing effort to deconstruct the lies and myths of the Israeli propaganda machine, it’s been common to hear Ahmed Jabari, the assassinated leader of Hamas’ military wing, spoken of as Gaza’s Osama bin Laden. It’s a great sound byte, punchy, visceral, dramatic. But as usual with these things, if you spend a few seconds contemplating the parallel, it’s entirely inapt. Jabari and bin Laden have only one thing in common: both were Muslims. Aside from that, little or nothing. Jabari stood for Islamism in the context of Palestine. He was a Palestinian nationalist, unlike bin Laden who dreamed of a world caliphate. Jabari believed in the gun, but only as a tool, not as a permanent strategy. He was, in fact willing to negotiate with Israel when it suited his purposes, which is how the Gilad Shalit deal was reached.

A much more apt analogy is between Jabari and Israeli pre-state military heroes like Rabin, Sharon, Begin, Shamir or Avraham Stern. They too were radical in their demands. Truculent and willing to kill both the enemy (Arab and British) and their own fellow Jews if it advanced the cause of Jewish-Israeli nationalism. You hear few Israelis concede that if they look closely in the mirror they see Palestinians as reflections of themselves, their own national aspirations, and violent guerrilla past.

One of the most disturbing developments today, is this article published by Haaretz, which reveals for the first time that Gershon Baskin, who was the Israeli mediator with Jabari in the Shalit deal, had transmitted to the Hamas leader only a few hours before his murder, a draft for a permanent truce agreement. The Israeli government appointed a staff committee to work on the project. The deal would’ve provided for Israel and Hamas to put down their weapons over an extended period of time. The agreement, if implemented, might have radically transformed the southern front and created room for further peace initiatives.

For those of you with longer memories of the conflict, this will echo another historic assassination of a Hamas leader, Saleh Shehadeh in 2003. At that time, news reports spoke of his exploration of a long-term deal that would’ve called for a de-escalation of the conflict with Israel.

This tells you that Israel doesn’t want stability on the Palestinian side. It doesn’t want a responsible partner. If a potential partner is responsible, better that he be killed.

There is yet another historical parallel here to what happened among the Palestinians in the 1970s and 80s. Those who pursued a pragmatic approach that involved accommodation with Israel were pursued and assassinated by the radical elements of the Palestinian movement: Issam Sartawi was but one example. The rejectionists, whether Israeli or Palestinian, need chaos in order to achieve their ends. For Bibi, the end is permanent decimation of the Palestinians so they pose no threat to his expansionist national agenda.

Do not believe another Israeli government representative who tells you Israel wants peace, Israel wants a ceasefire (as Michael Oren mendaciously told NPR today), etc. Israel wants war until it pulverizes the Palestinians into permanent submission.

Speaking of Michael Oren, if you heard his interview, did you note both the interviewers relatively softball questions (BBC interviewers are MUCH tougher), and the fact that they interviewed no one critical of the Gaza assault to balance his hasbara? It reminds me of Oren’s last visit to Seattle during which Steve Scher of KUOW interviewed him for 20 minutes during which there was no guest to offer a counter-perspective, nor were listener call-ins permitted. Our U.S. media has caved shamefully to the hasbara steamroller. Instead of being journalists, they allow themselves to be exploited on behalf of Israel’s national interests.

I was also tickled by Oren’s practically beseeching Hamas to accept a ceasefire, one that the Islamist movement offered Israel a day or so before it murdered Ahmed Jabari. The Gentleman Liar wants the world to believe that Israel doesn’t want to kill Gazans, but that the victims simply give them no choice. Diabolical, as is so much of Israeli hasbara these days.

The hasbarafia of UK Jewry has rallied to Israel’s defense, touting the IDF’s “Jewish ethical ethos.” This is a moral abomination. Killing babies is neither Jewish nor ethical. Support this travesty if you wish. But not in the name of Judaism.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former leader of Reform Judaism, has also attempted to co-opt Jewish progressives by arguing that this war is just, and that continuing the intolerable status quo:

…Undermines the sovereignty of the Jewish state and strikes a fatal blow at the very raison d’etre of Zionism.

L’hefech, learned rav. Murdering babies does far more to undermine Israeli sovereignty and the Zionist Idea. I was raised to respect rabbis and the rabbinate. But such nonsense reminds me that even rabbis can be just as stupid as the rest of us.

#Gaza : A qui la faute ? #OpIsrael | shaman
►http://reflets.info/gaza-a-qui-la-faute-opisrael

Une fois encore, la bande de Gaza se retrouve au centre de l’actualité. Si les violences du début de semaine n’avaient pas attiré les media, habitués à l’embrasement de cette minuscule frontière, la situation a changée depuis avant-hier soir. L’assassinat par Israël de Ahmed Jabari, chef de la branche armée du Hamas a sonné comme un gong. Les projecteurs médiatiques se sont à nouveaux braqués sur cette région. Et voilà les IDF (« Israel Defense Forces ») et les mouvements de résistance palestiniens prêt à en découdre dans un nouveau round de violence aveugle et destructrice. Nous ne nous lancerons pas dans un article de fond cette fois ci. Car sur la situation en Palestine, tout le monde s’est déjà fait sa petite idée. Les médias sont depuis bien longtemps un terrain d’affrontement de prédilection des Israéliens et des Palestiniens. Et à ce jeu les rôles sont depuis bien longtemps répartis. Penchons-nous sur les déclarations de quelques seconds rôles de ce nouvel acte, seconds rôles qui possèdent en partie les clefs d’une éventuelles sortie du conflit : les dirigeants des pays occidentaux. Déclaration de la maison blanche : « Le président a exhorté le premier ministre Netanyahu à faire tous les efforts pour éviter les victimes civiles. Ils ont convenus que le Hamas doit stopper (...)

Gaza, assassinats et désinformation | Alain Gresh (Les blogs du Diplo)
►http://blog.mondediplo.net/2012-11-15-Gaza-assassinats-et-desinformation

L’homme assassiné par Israël, Ahmed Jabari, était le chef de l’aile militaire du Hamas (sur cette organisation, lire « Qu’est-ce que le Hamas ? »). Nombre de médias le présentent comme « un terroriste » responsable de toutes les attaques contre Israël. La réalité est assez éloignée de ce portrait — au-delà même de l’usage du terme « terrorisme », pour le moins ambigu. Une nouvelle fois, c’est un journaliste israélien Aluf Benn qui fait remarquer (« Israel killed its subcontractor in Gaza », Haaretz, 15 novembre) : « Ahmed Jabari était un sous-traitant, en charge du maintien de la sécurité d’Israël dans la bande de Gaza (...) Source : Les blogs du Diplo