Transparent and Trustworthy Israel

How good of Netanyahu to allow journalists to accompany Israeli forces when they intercept the international aid flotilla bound for Gaza in the next few days. This – apparently – is to ensure that "transparent and trustworthy coverage" is widely available to the viewing world. How absurd. Do you honestly surmise that these "journalists" will be neutral, honest commentators with no affiliation to the interests of Israel? Will they sympathize with the ongoing struggle of the Palestinian people? Of course not. They will merely provide a counter to the truth-telling anecdotes of the political activists attempting to provide aid to the suffering Gaza population.  

Just days ago, Israeli authorities were threatening that any journalist accompanying the so-called "dangerous provocation" convoy would be banned from entering Israel for 10 years and denied the chance to use whatever footage they gain during the Gaza voyage. However, since these threats were made public, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has distanced himself from any such action stating that "there’s no way to stop the media in this day and age… it is better not to clash with them". These latest events once again highlight the large propaganda machine at work in Israel. 

Following Netanyahu’s comments regarding freedom of the press – or, at the very least, his skewed version of it – it was announced that Israeli media would join any intercepting fleet in order to enable neutral reporting. I guess – in his warped mind – the viewing public would value the opinions of brainwashed Israeli reporters over the tales of a multinational group of peaceful journalists. Then again, perhaps he has a point. After all, following last year’s flotilla raid, western media opted to exclusively show Israeli footage of the deadly attack on civilian activists by Israeli military forces. The event was reported uncritically by the BBC and other such news stations. 

Moreover, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has claimed that this latest pro-Palestinian aid mission is "not necessary or useful" stating that Israelis have the "right to defend themselves". Pardon me? Does she – for even a split second – perceive this aid mission as threatening? What possible harm could basic civilian goods and foodstuffs cause the people of Israel? Why is it that Mrs. Clinton – along with her feeble leader Mr. Obama – care so much about the "suffering" people of Libya yet continue to ignore the plight of the suffering masses in the Gaza Strip?  

Western powers were quick to state that, with regards to their "intervention" in Libya, they were following strict UN procedures. How many times did we hear the words "UN" and "resolution" used as some kind of justification for their imperialistic rampage? Yet, when that very same organization describes events in Gaza as "illegal" and "unlawful", they turn a blind eye. Interestingly, America’s government seems keen to point out laws when it suits it (i.e. Clinton’s "right to defend themselves" nonsense) yet ignore what many countries saw as a blatant "violation of international law" just over a year ago when nine peaceful activists were brutally murdered aboard the Mavi Marmara whilst attempting to distribute humanitarian aid.     

The latest – frankly laughable – accusation being spread by senior Israeli officials is that there are "radical elements" within the peaceful flotilla wishing to "spill the blood of Israeli soldiers". Proof? None whatsoever. On the contrary, the convoy describe themselves as "dedicated to peace" and merely wish to assist a tormented population. Only America is daft enough to believe such Zionist twaddle. In fact, only America will stand by Israel once they have successfully sabotaged this latest humanitarian mission.  

The question is, why the contention? During World War II, British planes flew over Berlin – who were by no means considered an ally – and delivered aid parcels to help the suffering people of Germany. When aircraft aid was so widely accepted during warfare over 70 years ago why is flotilla aid condemned so much nowadays? Has humanity sunk to such low levels that we can no longer see beyond our own borders and help distressed populations elsewhere? Regrettably, these latest events have led me to believe that only a one-state solution is the realistic outcome of this incessant predicament.  

With America’s failure to support the Palestinian cause and the West’s overall silence on the matter, when Palestine applies for statehood in September, it would not surprise me to find that many nations will bow to strong Israeli pressure and veto the proposal. History will once again prove that it is always the victim who must "compromise." The famous expression "bullies never prosper" will once again be proven inaccurate and the Palestinian people shall remain oppressed. Silenced. Denied the right to freedom and peace.

When you view the latest flotilla assault on your television screens, please keep in mind the starving, beaten, tortured individuals of the Gaza Strip, for they will not be shown. Instead you will be treated to images of "clashes" and "comings together." You will hear – before anyone else – the voice of an Israeli official claiming how they were "provoked" into "acting" – as opposed to attacking or murdering – and how Israel was at threat. You might be lucky enough to see some activists being escorted away in Israeli police vehicles. The cameras will be conveniently switched off before the interrogation begins. But silly me, how foolish. Israel is trustworthy. Transparency will of course be top of their agenda.

Author: Scott A. Hill

Scott Hill is an independent journalist from Bedfordshire, UK. He specializes in domestic and global politics and is inspired by the writings of Robert Fisk, John Pilger, and Christopher Hitchens.