‘Human Shield’ Propaganda Used to Justify State-Sponsored Massacres for Decades

gazaflickrzoom_artbrushIt’s been three weeks since Israel launched its bombing campaign and subsequent invasion of the Gaza strip. According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, over 1,500 Palestinians have been killed and over 6,500 have been wounded in what has become one of the bloodiest offensives ever launched in the region.

The overwhelming majority of casualties are civilians. On the contrary, three Israeli civilians have died due to Hamas launched rockets and 56 IDF soldiers have lost their lives. Over the last four days Israel has bombed more than 70 sites, including Gaza’s  power plant, the only provider of electricity to the 45 mile territory’s 1.8 million citizens. Additionally, Israel has targeted and shelled dozens of medical facilities, refugee centers and is wiping out entire families every day.

Yet despite the extreme disproportionality of this ongoing massacre, there are still thousands of people vehemently defending Israel’s right to self-defense. According to Israel and its defenders, the skyrocketing Gaza death toll should be blamed on the Palestinians for committing “self-genocide” by putting themselves in the line of fire. And the crux of this perversion of reality all stems back to one single, extremely loaded talking point: human shields.



Abby Martin Dissects the ‘Human Shield’ Propaganda Talking Point

**

IDF infographicFrom speeches and media appearances to incessant info-graphics, the human shield claim has been used as the crux of Israeli propaganda to absolve its government of any accountability.

There’s only one problem. Besides rockets found in an abandoned school, there’s been no evidence to back up the claim that is regurgitated without question across the media establishment. The pro-Israel talking point has been so repetitive that some critics, like Max Blumenthal have sarcastically suggested that “Hamas must be hiding rockets inside Palestinian children.”

On the ground journalists have corroborated the baseless nature of this claim. According to an article titled the ‘Myth of Hamas Human Shields,’

“Some Gazans have admitted they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they have been forced by the organization to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human shields…”

The unsettling reality is that for many Palestinians there is simply nowhere to go. The strip of land they live on is about 45 miles long and is one of the most densely populated places on earth. It’s borders are closed (immediately following the siege, Egypt closed it’s Rafah border crossing into the Gaza strip) and many people have made the decision to stay inside their own homes instead of trying to evade death on the streets.

Amazingly, despite the loaded term being parroted to absolve Israel of its blatant war crimes, one entity that has systematically used human beings as shields is Israel, and here are just three examples documented in the past five years:

Israeli soldiers use civilians as human shields in Beit Hanun
Israeli soldiers who used Palestinian boy, 9, as a human shield avoid jail
Palestinian Children Tortured, Used As Shields By Israel, UN Says

Using human beings as shields or conducting military operations from civilian areas is an undeniably cruel and inhumane tactic that stands in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which is exactly why it’s consistently projected to demonize the enemy.

Other countless propaganda points have aimed to do the same from ‘these people cut people’s heads off’ in reaction to the Nick Berg beheading to ‘they throw acid in women’s faces’ in response to the acid attacks in the Muslim world.

The establishment wants you to look at these people, and think they want to die, they encourage death; they have such little value for life they actually shield themselves with other civilians, including children. It’s the oldest trick in the book to make people feel the massacre they’re sponsoring is justified. This is exactly what’s unfolding in Gaza, and as a result the indiscriminate bloodshed is not seen as horrendous or even deliberate by the majority of people. Instead it’s shrugged off as “what are coalition forces supposed to do when enemies are firing at them hiding behind civilians?”

Israeli society even has a word for this technique, Hasbara. In Hebrew it literally translates to “an explanation” but 972 Mag gives us the modern definition:

“A form of propaganda aimed at an international audience, primarily, but not exclusively, in western countries. It is meant to influence the conversation in a way that positively portrays Israeli political moves and policies, including actions undertaken by Israel in the past. Often Hasbara efforts includes a negative portrayal of the Arabs and especially of Palestinians.”

 



How Israel Uses Hasbara on Social Media to Legitimize Murder 

**

This framework is used to build cases against nation states the US and Israeli government wants to topple. And the magical talking point is the enemy’s use of human shields.

One has to look no further than the infamous Bin Laden compound raid by Seal Team Six, where US officials claimed he was using his wives as human shields when he was shot. But when all was lied and done, officials were forced to admit that there was no use of human shields. In fact, according to the official narrative, the world’s most wanted man wasn’t even armed when he was allegedly executed.

Shortly after the Bin Laden raid, Pakistani Assistant Political Agent Javid Khan told the Inter Press Service “The [Taliban] militants [in Pakistan] have been using civilians as human shields.” Three years later, Khan would be accused of leading an armed militia into a Pakistani neighborhood which threatened an elderly woman at gunpoint.

But it’s not just Bin Laden and Pakistan. Nearly every major world conflict or war involving the US in the last 60 years has included this argument. In Libya, despite Gaddafi being boys with US politicians just the year prior to the NATO bombing campaign, the human shield talking point was used ad nauseum. Yet the only uncorroborated citation of this was through the same NATO supported rebel fighters that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, killing and sodomizing him with a metal pole.

RumsfeldIraqHumanShields

Bangor Daily News: Feb 20, 2003

Leading up to the Iraq war, Bush also included the human shield talking point as a main tenant of his campaign to oust Saddam. There is evidence of Saddam holding people hostage near military targets during the invasion of Kuwait. However, like much of the Bush era propaganda which inflated kernels of truth into a hysterical echo-chamber, little evidence exists of a systematic use of human shields during his reign. Of course, a lack of evidence didn’t stop Bush’s cabinet from fear-mongering the world about Saddam’s allegedly long history of devaluing human life through the use of human shields or gassing his own people by weapons provided to him by the US government.

CIASaddamHumanShieldDuring the height of the US propaganda push for a second unjustified war, a lengthy CIA document was dedicated to Saddam’s use of human shields. In the document, the Bush administration tried to preemptively justify the mass civilian death toll they knew was certain to come by saying the Iraqi dictator plans to shield his military and blame coalition forces for civilian casualties that Saddam has caused.

After Paul Bremer, Iraq’s Civil Occupation Governor, announced Saddam’s capture, his spokesperson, Dan Senor, conveniently transferred the human shields talking point to the independent insurgents that took the place of Saddam’s army.

Kentucky New Era:  Dec 1, 2006

Kentucky New Era: Dec 1, 2006

The propaganda was modified so that the human shield claim could be used to justify hitting civilian targets. If an American soldier bombed or shot at a Mosque resulting in the deaths of civilians, the immediate retort from Senor was a variant of “they are using places of worship to stockpile weapons.”


Moving on to Afghanistan, where Taliban militants were accused of using civilians as human shields, according to government officials. Yet again, another narrative spun by the military with little evidence used as a cover for mass civilian casualties.

Despite the frequency of this term being applied in a post-9/11 world, it has been long practiced before the so-called War on Terror. Searching through print newspaper archives you can find the use of human shields applied to virtually every enemy involved in a military conflict with the US.

During the Vietnam war, the Viet Cong was accused of using defenseless civilians as human shields.

VietnamHumanShield

Lewiston Daily Sun Nov 6, 1967

Vietconghumanshield

The Free Lance-Star: Sep 6, 1968

During the Korean war, the North Koreans were described similarly, but with even cruder 1950’s slang.

Koreahumanshields

Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Jul 26, 1950

Koreahumanshields2

The Milwaukee Journal: Jul 26, 1950

Even during World War II, the Nazis and Japanese army were accused of doing the same. 

HitlerHumanShield

The Evening Independent: Nov 17, 1939

The further one goes back in the historical record, the more difficult it is to verify or debunk the veracity of these claims. But the propaganda has served the same purpose – to dehumanize entire populations. In almost every instance, the enemy was painted as having zero regard for human life, making it easier for nations like the US to blow up countries, desecrate culture, torture, slaughter, and hold thousands of people indefinitely without charges.

Francis Fukuyama, influential DC neoconservative and co-sponsor of PNAC’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ displayed a rare moment of candor when he admitted that modern American foreign policy is even inspired by Israeli Hasbara: 

“Many Neoconservatives have adopted the point of view, the strategic prism of many hardliners on the Israeli right, including their interpretation of Arab motives and behavior, this idea that the Arabs don’t understand any principles of legitimacy, its only force that they respect.”

Every society, culture and country has extreme aspects to it, and Muslims are no different. But taking the most severe scenario that exists and exploiting it to generalize an entire demographic is extremely disingenuous and frankly, racist. When these terms are used, it paints Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians as monsters, ignoring that we’re all human beings, bleeding the same blood, feeling the same pain and suffering the loss of our loved ones just the same.

Written by Abby and Robbie Martin

Follow @AbbyMartin & @fluorescentgrey

Photo by flickr user Zoom_Airbrush

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

Media Roots Radio – Exclusive Interview with AT&T, NSA Whistleblower Mark Klein

Abby and Robbie Martin interview former AT&T technician and whistleblower Mark Klein about his experience exposing AT&T’s cataloging and duplication of private user data for the NSA, and why every American should be concerned about private sector surveillance. Mark goes into his personal history of being an anti-war activist during the Vietnam War and how it led to his distrust of the two party system. He also discusses NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks and the journalists distributing them.

If you would like to directly download the podcast click the down arrow icon on the right of the soundcloud display. To hide the comments to enable easier rewind and fast forward, click on the icon on the very bottom right.

This Media Roots podcast is the product of many long hours of hard work and love. If you want to encourage our voice, please consider supporting us as we continue to speak from outside party lines. Even the smallest donations help us with operating costs.

Listen to all previous episodes of Media Roots Radio here.

**

Watch Abby Martin interview Mark Klein on Breaking the Set starting at 15:30:

Abby Martin Breaks the Set with AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein

**

Cenk Uygur Tells Abby Martin That Her Network’s More Tolerant than MSNBC

MEDIAITE – The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur appeared on RT recently with anchor Abby Martin where he was asked about the ongoing controversy surrounding the network’s coverage of Russia’s invasion of Crimea and press freedom in the United States. Uygur said that the distinction between the two countries was evident in the fact that he lost his job on MSNBC for criticizing President Barack Obama while Martin retained her job after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Uygur told Martin that he lost his MSNBC show because the White House was not “happy” with his criticism of Obama from the left.

“People give RT a lot of flak for toeing the line of the Russian foreign policy perspective, but here we have a media apparatus entirely funded by corporations that toeing the line of the U.S. government,” Martin opined.

Martin added that CNN is moving to “reality TV” and entertainment journalism. “I think a lot of people on TV are good people and they don’t even quite realize that they’re part of this machine,” Uygur said. “But, what happened was, they got promoted because they toe the line.”

Both Martin and Uygur criticized CNN further for what they said was their “soap opera” coverage of the missing Malaysian passenger plane.

“It seems like this network is constantly in the crosshairs of the U.S. media,” Martin later opined. She asked if Uygur was surprised by that. Uygur replied by saying an “honest” discussion about the funding of cable news networks would also include criticism for networks like CNN and Al Jazeera.

“CNN has lost so much credibility all across the world because everybody knows they cater to the government,” Uygur said. “You criticized the Russian actions in Crimea, you’re still on RT. I criticized the Obama administration and the U.S. government on MSNBC, I’m no longer on MSNBC.”

“So, who has the freer media?” he concluded.

***

Media Roots Radio – Abby Martin’s Stand, PNAC 2.0’s Neocon Attack

Abby Martin and her brother Robbie do the first Media Roots Podcast since Abby made international headlines for off-script remarks opposing Russia’s involvement in Crimea. They discuss the corporate media hijacking the message to further demonize Russia and outline how an influential DC think tank called the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) was directly involved in smearing her and RT as a tool to “rally” the people into the brink of a new Cold War.

All roads lead to a tightly knit young group of hardcore neoconservative players who place themselves in ‘millennial’ publications like the Daily Beast, Daily Banter and Buzzfeed to push insidious neoconservative propaganda that derives from William Kristol’s Foreign Policy Initiative. James Kirchick, a senior fellow at the FPI, also used to be an employee of a US funded ‘white propaganda’ radio network that spreads Pro US military and policy views to adversarial nations in regional languages (i.e.: broadcasting in arabic in Iraq during the US occupation).

***

The above timeline is interactive. Scroll through it to find out more about the show’s music and to resources mentioned during the broadcast. To see a larger version of the timeline with clickable resources go to the soundcloud link below the player.

If you would like to directly download the podcast click the down arrow icon on the right of the soundcloud display. To hide the comments to enable easier rewind and fast forward, click on the icon on the very bottom right.

This Media Roots podcast is the product of many long hours of hard work and love. If you want to encourage our voice, please consider supporting us as we continue to speak from outside party lines. Even the smallest donations are appreciated and help us with our operating costs.

Thanks so much for your support!

Listen to all previous episodes of Media Roots Radio here.

PBS Mask of Respectability Sells Iran Nuclear Propaganda

CharlieRosebyDavidShankboneThere are few things more harmful to the public discourse than the cloak of false respectability – especially on a nationally or globally disseminated news network. When corporate media broadcasts propaganda, a benighted public is duped into believing the twaddle of stark raving mad political ideologues as though they were the very words of Socrates by satellite. The mainstream’s reach and influence is staggering, and when unchallenged, fatal. Take, for instance, the estimable Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan. Let’s consider for a moment the aura of respectability that enveloped, like a hot towel on a transatlantic flight, the mindless bluster Rogers so thoughtfully aired for the nation last month on The Charlie Rose Show.

PBS’ Charlie Rose commands a high station in the china shop of American respectability, somewhere above the delicate porcelain of Frontline and slightly beneath the glittering chandelier of The New York Times. Rose has an impressive array of interviewees on his lengthy resume, which doubtless adds to the gravitas of the man, as he peers across an oaken table at his terrified guest, his long and rugged face and watery eyes outlined against a pitiless backdrop of black.

Beyond the matchless imprimatur of Charlie Rose, Rogers is preceded by his own titles, which unfurl like royal insignia across the screen: Rep. [R] Mich. Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee. Most of us haven’t the slightest notion of the “Permanent Select Committee” is, or what is does. Nor does anyone on air explain its significance. We know only that it has the ring of authority to it (it is in fact a committee tasked with providing oversight of the intelligence community).

Next is Rogers’ personal demeanor, which itself suggests everything fine and decent about the state of Michigan. He is white, middle-aged, modestly overfed. His hair pleases with its bland and faded side parting, and he assumes a look of kindly and good-humored politesse.

Rogers is beamed in from the beltway, where all things of significance occur. He is said to be in the “Russell Rotunda”. He stands or sits, flanked by a few impressive Dorian columns, which signify decorum and justice and tradition, of which, presumably, Rogers humbly partakes. On the other side of the camera sits Rose, his left hand, like a satyr’s mangled claw, carving new grooves into his line-saturated brow. Charlie is distraught over something. What might it be? After expressing his consternation visually, Rose stammers himself toward a coherent question: What do you make of this deal with Iran?

Cut to Rogers, his manly, Midwestern, and homely smile, for a moment untroubled, suddenly drops off his face as the most fearsome four letters in the idiom surge through his earpiece. Inside Washington, the phrase, “Iran” serves like a Pavlovian on-switch for beltway fearmongerers. Rogers begins to drone through his talking points: Iran has gotten everything it wanted from this deal, namely the ability to continue enriching uranium; America did not get what it wanted, namely the eternal cessation of all Iranian nuclear activities; Rogers himself is “worried” and “concerned” and clearly afraid for the fine people of Michigan that Iran will continue its “nuclear weapons program”.

Rose, picking up that Rogers is more or less savaging the Obama administration in his drubbing of the temporary pact with Iran, breaks in and forces Rogers to admit that the cessation of fuel-related work at the Arak facility is a good thing, since it will prevent Iran from pursuing a bomb via plutonium, as against its supposed present pursuit via uranium. Briefly derailed, Rogers recovers and paints a few more worrisome images for the edification of the trusting viewer, namely an “arms race in the Middle East”. In this he parrots Shimon Peres, who touts the idea that Iran achieving a nuclear bomb would cause all other Middle Eastern countries to crave one. Rose, his visage now curdling into a painful clutch of arched wrinkles, attempts to interrupt, but Rogers cuts him off three times (with all the forcefulness of Peter denying Christ). Finally, with the utmost decorum and courtesy, Rose bids Rogers adieu, thanking him for gracing the American public with his matchless sagacity.

Rose then breaks for commercial, presumably a horrifically tepid message from Arthur Daniels Midland Company, one of the world’s leading food monopolies, much to the chagrin of numberless third world subsistence farmers; or perhaps a thoughtful piece of mendacity from BP, one of the world’s leading thieves of Iraqi oil, much to the bootless anxiety of the Iraqi people.

Sins of Omission

NuclearSymbolbyFreeGrungeTexturesMillions of viewers were exposed to this dialogue, and millions more will see it in syndication. As they watch, few will be aware of some damning omissions.

First, Iran is fully within its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA). It has the right, as do all signatories, to develop peaceful nuclear energy (as contrasted with non-peaceful nuclear energy of the kind being perpetually pursued by the United States).

Second, there isn’t a shred of evidence that suggests Iran is trying to develop a nuclear warhead. Not if you believe successive National Intelligence Estimates of the United States. Perhaps Rogers has overlooked these fine reports. After all, he repeatedly misrepresents Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, calling it a “nuclear weapons program”. He would deserve censure for this, were not his voice drowned in the din of his Republican and Democratic colleagues rehearsing the same lie.

Third, Iran made concessions in this agreement. It agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to five percent, a level from which, perhaps, a dirty bomb might be cobbled together, were Iranian leadership of a mind to pursue collective suicide by building and using one. It also agreed to halt fuel production at the Arak site. An additional facility would likely have to be built there to reprocess spent fuel into plutonium, like enriched uranium a fissile material usable in a nuclear weapon. It also agreed to convert all its existing 20 percent enriched uranium into unusable formulae. Lastly, it agreed to grant the IAEA regular access to its enrichment facilities. For this, a mere four billion of its rightful monies was unfrozen by the U.S. and its allies. The remaining tens of billions in sanctions on the Iranian economy and money tied up in foreign banks have been left in place, frozen, and untouched. No matter that these sanctions have had devastating effects on the Iranian economy and society.

Fourth, the United States’ attempt to sharply curtail Iran’s nuclear program is hypocritical, to put it mildly. Not only did the U.S. support civilian nuclear energy in Iran during the Shah’s reign decades ago, but America can hardly be regarded seriously when it suggests that other nations don’t have the right to pursue nuclear weapons. The United States possesses thousands of nuclear weapons, and its viciously aggressive and perennially aggrieved Middle Eastern proxy Israel has an additional 80 nuclear weapons—and a total monopoly of weaponized uranium in the Middle East. Rogers seems to think Iran has an interest in not only pursuing a weapon, but in launching a pointless and suicidal arms race against the two most powerful nuclear states in the world. Not to mention his conjuring of a certifiable former Israeli prime minister whose own histrionic notions—that Iran would instantly bomb Israel if only it could—has been contradicted by saner members of the Israeli military who have admitted that Iran poses no “existential threat” to its statehood, including former defense minister Ehud Barak.

Thanks to Charlie Rose, Rogers’ ceaseless fatuities have been aired and absorbed by countless Americans, while none of his lies have been challenged, countered, or discredited. We only got to witness Rose and Rogers exchanging pleasantries at the conclusion of the dialogue, as though they had just finished a highly erudite tete a tete on the Higgs Boson particle.

Now, when the viewer turns to CNN or FOX News, he or she will sooner or later be served images of some Arab Imam (perhaps Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah) frothing with fury, his trembling turbaned head and well-fingered beard striking fear into the heart of clean-shaven, well-meaning Americans, who prefer the easy decorum of the Rose-Rogers dialogue to the visceral anger of an aggrieved party. What they won’t see or hear is what Nasrallah may be saying, possibly condemning American interference in Syria—not an unreasonable critique.

Having heard gentlemanly Mike Rogers, and having seen Nasrallah, they might readily conclude that one is sane and reasonable and the other a madman of historic proportions. This invidious conclusion, equal parts ignorance, misinformation, and xenophobia, is what you get when you treat the unreasonable as respectable and the unfamiliar as threatening. On its face, the mainstream media seems rather inconsequential, with its grim-faced interlocutors soft-peddling questions to tendentious Congressional lightweights. But as Hannah Arendt once said, even evil can be banal.

Jason Hirthler can be reached at [email protected]

Photo by David Shankbone, Free Grunge Textures

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply