Political and media vultures circling Iran

Think the charge of Iran's 'nuclear weaponisation' is now beyond doubt? Think the latest IAEA report is untainted? Think the BBC is telling the whole story? Think again.

As Israel, the US and their Western accomplices extend the propaganda offensive, here's the latest Media Lens Alert, 'They Found Nothing. Nothing', revealing just how complicit our media are in demonising Iran in preparation for another murderous 'intervention'.

Also, for the record, my letter on the ML article to the BBC's Iran correspondent James Reynolds:

Dear James Reynolds

In their current Alert, the Media Lens Editors have drawn your attention to crucial objections from notable figures on claims that Iran is actively constructing a nuclear weapon.

They also offer definitive evidence showing that "Yukiya Amano, the IAEA director general, is ‘solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision’."

This is key information and context that any average viewer would reasonably wish to know about.

Given all the criminal distortions peddled over Iraq and the disastrous conflagration likely to ensue from any attack on Iran, one might think that more 'vigilant' journalists would want to be much more certain about the authenticity of Iran's 'weaponisation' programme.

One would also think that 'specialist' correspondents like yourself would be only too aware of informed people like Robert Kelley warning of flawed intelligence and the politicised nature of the current IAEA report.

At the very least, any serious and balanced coverage would include such voices in their output.

Instead, when fairly questioned by Media Lens on these gross omissions, we have these replies:

"thanks for your message. I appreciate your comments and insight."

"I received your message - thanks. I shall reflect on the points you raise. It is always important for me to hear from licence-fee payers - the lifeblood of the BBC."

"points noted."

Such evasion could be safely considered patronising and dismissive - the standard replies received by many other courteous, critical enquirers. But there also lurks the more distinct possibility that you know your 'journalism' has been blatantly exposed.

In failing to offer even the merest explanation or argument, one can only conclude that you fear risking even greater exposure of your journalistic shallowness, your safe BBC compliance, or both.

If not, why don't you simply answer the Editors' questions as well as "appreciate" and "reflect" on them?

Kind regards
John Hilley

Observers of the gathering plot to 'pick-off' Iran should also be keeping tabs on damning new evidence exposing the dark activities of recently-appointed UK ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, ex-Defence Minister Liam Fox and his adviser in subterfuge Adam Werritty.

Undisclosed meetings with Mossad, liaisons with neo-con forces, 'unofficial' UK briefings in preparing to attack Iran: read and learn of the British state's deep pro-Israel agenda and its part in plotting more appalling misery in the Middle East.

John   

Culling the poor

Here's the true, brutal face of Cameron's caring capitalism.

Helen and Mark Mullins took their lives after trying to get by on charity handouts and living in a single room of their house because they couldn't pay for fuel.

 

In the video, filmed shortly before their deaths, Mark explains the distressing problems Helen had faced in trying to have her benefits established and negotiating the unsparing appeals process.

 They had been walking twelve miles to get emergency food from a Salvation Army kitchen.

Two desperate souls who, punished and ignored by the benefits system, decided, in the end, that they literally couldn't afford to live.

While bankers enjoy billions in state welfare and dreamy bonuses, lost and abandoned people are simply giving up. 

This is the fear society, a society of chronic insecurity and mercenary market rules, a society of poverty and want while Sainsbury's, Tescos and the other  grocers of greed make astronomical profits.

Tragedies due to benefit insecurity and stress are becoming increasingly widespread.

Some more examples of suicide and death prompted by government cuts and the punitive benefits system:

Depressed 'Jobseeker' commits suicide - http://www.thisishampshire.net...

Cuts Kill: the story of a sister driven to suicide - http://www.dpac.uk.net/2011/05...

Man dies of kidney cancer after being told fit for work - http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli...

Woman's depressed brother commits suicide after benefits being stopped , at 3;40 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Two die while waiting for appeals to be heard - http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/...

Man dies of heart attack after being told by Atos 'fit for work' - http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/inve...

Author's suicide 'due to slash in benefits' july 2010 - http://www.scotsman.com/news/a...

3 die in West Dunbartonshire after being told fit for work, area also has one of the highest unemployment rates with 40 people chasing every vacancy - http://intensiveactivity.wordp...

Devastated Salford mum killed herself over redundancy blow - http://menmedia.co.uk/salforda...

Southfields dad committed suicide after housing benefit cut - http://labourinwandsworth.word...

Body found in River Wear is Leanne Chambers - http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk...

Christelle and her baby died at the hands of a callous state - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

Woman who drowned in drain was upset about health check – http://www.thisishullandeastri...

Pregnant Mum leaps to Death after her benefits are stopped – http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

Stress of Tory benefits tests killed our dad, family claims – http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/t...

John

Palestine's UNESCO admission

In an act of calculated spite, the US has withdrawn $60 million in contributory payments to UNESCO following the vote to admit Palestine as a full member to the body.

Israel has wielded its own punishment by announcing the building of 2000 more settler homes in East Jerusalem and freezing Palestinian tax funds.

107 countries voted for Palestinian admission, 52 abstained (including the UK) and 14 opposed the motion (including the US, Israel, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Germany).

Washington later  mounted a paltry defence of its action, claiming that the vote was a "rejection of the international community", while repeating the default-line excuse that any UN recognition of Palestine creates a hostile atmosphere for the 'peace process'.

In resisting US/Israeli pressure, the mass of countries supporting Palestine's candidacy seem to have been motivated by three more elementary truths: the US is, as far as it's concerned, the 'international community'; the US backs Israel unconditionally; there is no peace process.

The extent of UN member state support for Palestine and resistance to US intimidation confirms the now-gathering diplomatic crisis for Israel.

Whatever resilient comfort Netanyahu may take from Obama's loyalty - always remembering, of course, what Israel gives America in return - he knows that the vote is yet another significant blow to Israel's standing.

Evidence of that concern can be gleaned in a recent Wikileaks cable detailing Israel's rearguard efforts to offset its increasing international isolation by pitching - unsuccessfully - for a top placement within UNESCO.

Meanwhile, news of the Palestinian admission to UNESCO barely rated a mention on the main BBC news.

As Craig Murray noted in a scathing indictment:

"BBC journalism hit a new low today. The BBC News channel devoted only a single sentence to Palestine’s diplomatic coup in gaining full membership of Unesco. It used that single sentence once at 18.23 and once during the following hour. And this is that single sentence: “Israel says that Unesco’s decision to admit Palestine to full membership will damage the prospects for peace in the Middle East.”

No other view was given, We did not hear what Palestine says, or what Unesco says, or what any of the huge majority of 107 countries which voted for Palestine say. The only view we were given was the Israeli view, and there was no questioning or discussion of that view.  

“Israel says” – what an astonishing opening two words to a report on a great day for Palestinian diplomacy. Everyone connected with BBC News should be utterly ashamed. Why don’t we just save the license fee and let Netanyahu’s office broadcast the news instead?"

Indeed.

Between US financial blackmail and loaded/curtailed reportage, Israel can still take some comfort in having its crimes funded and sanitised.

John

Media Lens: Killing Gaddafi

Anyone feeling squeamish or uncomfortable over the reporting of recent events in Libya might find solace in the latest Media Lens Alert, Killing Gaddafi, a most welcome antidote to the toxic inhumanity that passes for mainstream 'liberal' media comment on this gruesome execution.

The ML editors also lay bare the considerable evidence of Western lies and disinformation that allowed Nato and the National Transitional Council to ignore every possibility of productive negotiations with Gaddafi, resulting - despite Nato's 'mandate to protect' - in the much greater killing of Libyan civilians and ruthless destruction of cities like Sirte.

As with previous plaudits for Blair, the Alert shows just how far the BBC and other herd media have gone in praising Cameron as a leader 'vindicated' in his 'first war'.

The last section of the article sees ML at their most eloquent and humane, a rare oasis of compassion amid this desert of propaganda.

Where, the authors ask, is the basic concern for suffering others, whatever crimes they've committed? In particular, to those 'liberal humanists' who diminish Gaddafi's murder against the 'higher moral imperative' of Nato action, this searching question:

"Does anyone doubt that a Jesus or a Buddha would not merely have harboured sympathy for Gaddafi but would have intervened to save his life? And who would dare claim that doing so would make them ‘apologists’ for tyranny?"

Recognising the systemic conditioning that inhibits honest, independent journalism, ML offer their own compassionate thoughts on what drives even our most 'caring' media towards such hateful output:

"We suspect that most journalists are not actually unfeeling brutes. They are conformists wary of the high price they can be made to pay for even the suspicion that they might be 'apologists' for an official enemy."

Thus does the conformity multiply as further media endorsement of newly-appointed enemies and the case for more 'noble intervention'.

Among their many fine articles, this ML offering deserves particular praise for highlighting not just Libya's true human suffering and media complicity in that avoidable tragedy, but the more pernicious language of cruelty and spite so-readily adopted in denouncing 'our' foreign 'foes'.

In exposing such media apologetics for war and destruction, it advances, by another promising increment, the urgent construction of a truly moral, compassionate and radical journalism.

John

Resilience of Occupy Oakland

Some heroic actions from the 99 Percenters of the Occupy Oakland movement in California as they resist police stun bombs, tear gas, rubber bullets and other brutal efforts to break-up their protest encampment.

Street demonstrations in Syria are commended by Washington.  Opposition forces in Libya can be lauded and backed by Nato bombers when it suits American political, military and business interests. But any peaceful dissent at home must be ruthlessly crushed.

As with the state's violent oppressions on Wall Street, it's another illustration of just how much the US regime fear and suppress real democracy.

Expect more such brutality from the anxious 1 percent and their state enforcers.  As Chris Floyd says: "You can smell the fear in the boardrooms."

John

Occupying liberal street

As a radical new surge of people power sweeps around the globe, politicians and the mainstream media seem worryingly perplexed about how to respond.

Stuck in the safe world of machine politics and parliamentary-type reporting, their comprehension of the current unrest still speaks of 'errant' political/financial behaviour and 'misapplied' capitalist democracy.

Such was the intonation when Jeremy Paxman asked Michael Moore what he hoped Occupy Wall Street could achieve.

Did Moore want to change capitalism or end it, Paxman enquired? "End it", came the unequivocal response.

Capitalism is an "evil", inequitable system, Moore asserted, adding, as importantly, that the very function of standard politics has been to protect the rich and help maintain that very system of power.

For Moore, that's why people are now on the street, rejecting both the life-sucking power of greedy bankers and what's been handed-down to them as 'political partcipation'.

While Paxman seemed to acknowledge the frustration behind such action, he struggled to see how its aims could be advanced outwith the 'political process', the assumption being that OWS is not, in Paxman's BBC world, 'political'.

Thus, does Paxman (BBC annual salary, circa £750,000), like so many comfortable liberal media careerists, maintain a homogenised notion of what constitutes 'political life'.

Nor does the spectre of global occupation and rejection of corporate existence easily register in the liberal mindset as 'political crisis'.

That term denotes, more-readily, perceived 'emergencies' in party and governmental life: corruption/expenses scandals and the like.

Witness the liberal buzz as the BBC, Guardian and other 'vanguard' media recover the scandalous detail on fallen Defence Secretary Liam Fox.

Of course, Fox's demise is newsworthy, the media copy serving to reveal a little more of the cosy relations between our political and business elites.  But it also helps cement the notion of a 'liberal protectorate' acting to 'insure' us against those 'shocking abuses' of the system.

It speaks, implicitly, of Fox as some aberration within an otherwise functional, if still imperfect, system. In the process, we're encouraged to believe that the liberal media, like liberal politicians, are doing 'their job' in working to expose and weed-out the offenders. Rarely, if ever, does this come with any more damning indictment of the system itself.

But liberals also need to be 'on the street', to be seen as present, aware, 'involved'. 

And so liberal politicians and journalists 'shadow' the new direct-action politics - as with the radical blogosphere - like 'awkward oldies' fascinated by an edgy young trend, wanting to get in with the 'subculture', the people, 'the kids', the 'zeitgeist'; a hovering, anxious force afraid of being shut-out.

Thus do the dynamics behind Occupy Wall Street make for instructive observation on liberal sensitivity and its identity crisis.

Chris Hedges, a prolific chronicler of the OWS and wider protests, sees this nascent rejection of corporate life as a key threat to capitalist and liberal interests, alike:

"Tinkering with the corporate state will not work. We will either be plunged into neo-feudalism and environmental catastrophe or we will wrest power from corporate hands. This radical message, one that demands a reversal of the corporate coup, is one the power elite, including the liberal class, is desperately trying to thwart.

 For Hedges, the space for liberal response is becoming acutely narrowed:

"But the liberal class has no credibility left. It collaborated with corporate lobbyists to neglect the rights of tens of millions of Americans, as well as the innocents in our imperial wars. The best that liberals can do is sheepishly pretend this is what they wanted all along."

And with this has come a heightened resistance to liberal co-optation:

"The Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can’t carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings."

As the resistance of OWS to any friendly endorsements from Obama or advances from his Democrats shows, the movement, worldwide, appears particularly vigilant to party takeovers.

With the protest movement exercising new strategies of real political action, the potential displacement of standard liberal politics is of gathering concern both to party and media liberals as well as the system of corporate power they serve.

Here's to the intensification of their common crises.

John

Gaddafi's execution - the killing of empathy

Hillary Clinton's laughing pronouncement on the execution of Muammar Gaddafi gives disturbing insight into the callous minds of those who control today's main imperialist empire:

"We came, we saw, he died."

Extolling the Nato ‘mission', Obama, Clinton, Cameron and their peers have been busy denouncing the 'Mad Dog' and rejoicing his removal.

And, in ever-subservient tune, our media offer barely a word on Nato's aggression or the hypocritical gloating of such leaders.

Whatever Gaddafi's own crimes, how telling that the BBC and other leading Western media have offered only nominal space to the illegality of this gruesome lynching, selecting to accentuate the 'necessary cost' of Libya's 'assisted liberation'. 

Amnesty has already called for investigations into a prima facie war crime.

There's seems little doubt that Gaddafi could have been taken alive. Nor is there the slightest credibility in National Transitional Council claims that he was killed after his ambulance was "caught in crossfire". It's reasonably obvious that Gaddafi's capture and murder constitutes a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Meanwhile, the 'liberal' Guardian's Ian Black dispensed with the merest humanitarian formality over Gaddafi's brutal termination in declaring: "good riddance".

Even for our most 'humane' media, the elimination of 'them' merits little compassionate regard.

Could we ever imagine people like Black writing such lines after the deaths of Bush, Rumsfeld or Blair?

Noting more of Clinton's ugly utterances, the Independent's Peter Popham offers a more familiar line in liberal excuses:

" "OOOMGOOOMG I just saw Gaddafi's body video," she wrote. "My heart won't stop racing... I can't believe this day has come. My whole life I've waited, prayed, wished, this is it no words."

For us, the footage of Muammar Gaddafi's body – dead or alive, who knows – being dragged off a truck by a crowd of screaming men, who then hauled it about and kicked it like a football, was deeply disturbing: the lynch mob at its 'most primeval. But who are we to judge? We never lived under the man's all-powerful terror."

But we, the wider world, do know about the all-powerful terror of American and Nato aggression. Where's the damning judgement here on that merciless force?

Gaddafi's execution by Libyan 'rebels' is, of course, the most convenient outcome for the West, shielding Nato's own vital role in his killing, while sending to the grave more key evidence of the West's - notably Tony Blair's - dealings with their former associate.

The Guardian's Simon Tisdall also notes the 'good result for the West' line, but without a word on Nato's vast, aggressive input: "And after all the waiting, the killing and the tears, the wheel of history turned inexorably, and all who watched knew it would never turn back. The Arab spring had claimed another infamous scalp. The risky western intervention had worked. And Libya was liberated at last." Yes, as ever, that "risky intervention". The BBC, in truest Orwell-speak, sought to excuse Nato to the very last:   "Nato, which has been running a bombing campaign in Libya for months, said it had carried out an air strike earlier on Thursday that hit two pro-Gaddafi vehicles near Sirte. It was unclear whether the strikes were connected with Col Gaddafi's death." As if Nato's overall actions could somehow, even at this last brutal stage of its murderous campaign, be isolated from Gaddafi's actual death.

Newsnight's Gavin Esler could offer no more searching effort in questioning arch neo-con John McCain.

Jubilant over Gaddafi's demise, McCain promised that other world dictators, such as Assad, Putin and the Chinese leadership, would now be more worried over potential protest against their regimes. Esler let the comment pass without even a cursory reminder of the historic happenings on Wall Street and gathering mood of dissent across America.

Another report from Tim Whewell asked if Blair had made "a mistake" in dealing with Gaddafi and whether 'we' should be engaging other tyrants, the core assumption being that ‘our’warmongers are morally fit to make such judgements.

Clinton's "we came, we saw..." jibe, a crass allusion to conquests past, reveals an inhuman lack of empathy for suffering others, whatever their enemy status.

How can supposedly civilized senators and leaders speak in such ways? And how is such open cruelty being reflected in the wider society?

As Craig Murray fittingly puts it, "we seem to have become as dehumanised as ancient Rome."

That dark truth is all the more ironic given America’s own home crisis and the declining legitimacy of its political-corporate elite.

Perhaps a case of ‘Rome burns while Clinton giggles’.

John