Media Coverage of Israel/Palestine Presents False Equivalency Between Occupied and Occupier

The fatal flaw in the "both sides" narrative is that only the Israeli side has ethnically cleansed and turned millions on the Palestinians' side into refugees by preventing them from exercising their right to return to their homes.

by

Gregory Shupak

 

Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2021

by

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

A Palestinian child carries his cat after he and his family members survived the violent Israeli bombing of their homes in Gaza City, on May 16, 2021. (Photo: Momen Faiz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Media coverage of heightened violence in Israel/Palestine has misrepresented events in the Israeli government’s favor by suggesting that Israel is acting defensively, presenting a false equivalency between occupier and occupied, and burying information necessary to understand the scale of Israeli brutality.

The Wall Street Journal headline (5/10/21) presents the Gaza violence as a clear-cut case of aggression and retaliation.

Corporate media have presented Israel’s killing spree as defensive, as a reaction to supposed Palestinian aggression. A Financial Times headline (5/10/21) read, "Hamas Rocket Attacks Provoke Israeli Retaliation in Gaza." The New York Times’  description (5/12/21) was, "Hamas launched long-range rockets at Jerusalem on Monday evening, prompting Israel to respond with airstrikes." An article in Newsweek (5/12/21) had it that "Hamas rained down rockets on Israeli civilian targets, and the Israeli military responded with surgical air strikes against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad targets in Gaza." A CNN headline (5/12/21) said, "At Least 35 Killed in Gaza as Israel Ramps Up Airstrikes in Response to Rocket Attacks."

The Wall Street Journal (5/12/21) ran the headline, "Hamas Attack on Israel Aims to Capitalize on Palestinian Frustration," which makes it sound as if Israel were simply minding its own business and Hamas lashed out for no reason. The Journal reinforced this impression by describing Israel’s bombing of Gaza as merely a "response" to and a "counterstrike" against the rockets from Palestinian resistance factions.

Imagine for a moment that the entire history of Israel/Palestine began on May 10. Even then, Hamas’ rocket fire was a follow through on its promise (Ynet, 5/10/21) to fire rockets in "response" to and "retaliation" against Israel if the latter didn’t remove its forces from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheik Jarrah, where Israel has been attempting to force Palestinians from their homes and repressing the resultant protests, and from the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, which Israel had just raided during Ramadan, Islam’s holiest month (Jacobin, 5/14/21).

More to the point is that Israel, and its forerunners in the Zionist movement, have been carrying out a war against Palestinians for over 100 years, so Israeli self-defense against Palestinians is a logical impossibility (Electronic Intifada, 7/26/18). As an occupying power, Israel does not have a legal right to claim self-defense against the people it occupies (Truthout, 5/14/21). Israel has been subjecting Gaza to a military siege for 12–14 years, depending on the metric one uses to determine the starting point, which has left the territory effectively unlivable (Jacobin, 3/31/20); a siege is an act of war, so the party enforcing it cannot claim to be acting defensively in response to anything that happened subsequent to the start of the blockade.

‘Both sides’ narrative

NBC News (5/12/21): "Both sides appear to be preparing for more violence."

Similarly, media have had a long-running tendency to amplify the view that violence across historic Palestine should be understood as roughly equivalent fighting on "both sides." This remains a commonplace feature of the coverage, exemplified by NBC headline (5/12/21), "Over 70 Killed as Israel, Palestinians Exchange Worst Violence in Years."

A Washington Post editorial (5/11/21) was headlined "New Israeli/Palestinian Fighting Serves Political Agendas on Both Sides." It said that "the worst conflict in years has erupted between the two peoples, with Palestinian missiles raining down on Israeli cities and airstrikes rocking the Gaza Strip."

A David Ignatius article in the Post (5/13/21) was headlined, "The Vicious Cycle Gets Worse for the Israelis and Palestinians." The author wrote that Israelis and Palestinians "both" are "swept up yet again by the cycle of violence."

The word "clash" is frequently employed to avoid acknowledging that violence is overwhelmingly inflicted by one side on the other, as in headlines like Reuters‘ "Israeli Police, Palestinians Clash at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa, Scores Injured" (5/8/21). The headline gives no clue that 97% of the injuries were being suffered by Palestinians.

The fatal flaw in the "both sides" narrative is that only the Israeli side has ethnically cleansed and turned millions on the Palestinians’ side into refugees by preventing them from exercising their right to return to their homes. Israel is the only side subjecting anyone to apartheid and military occupation. It is only the Palestinian side—including those living inside of what is presently called Israel—that has been made to live as second-class citizens in their own land. That’s to say nothing of the lopsided scale of the death, injury and damage to infrastructure that Palestinians have experienced as compared to Israelis, both during the present offensive and in the longer term.

Amnesty International (5/10/21) declared unequivocally that "Israeli security forces have used repeated, unwarranted and excessive force against Palestinian protesters in occupied East Jerusalem."

The "both sides" approach, however, permeates the coverage. The New York Times (5/12/21) relied on a bogus symmetry between oppressor and oppressed, with Jerusalem bureau chief Patrick Kingsley writing:

For weeks, ethnic tensions had been rising in Jerusalem, the center of the conflict. In April, far-right Jews marched through the city center, chanting "Death to Arabs," and mobs of both Jews and Arabs attacked each other.

In contrast, Amnesty International (5/10/21) documented:

"Evidence gathered by Amnesty International reveals a chilling pattern of Israeli forces using abusive and wanton force against largely peaceful Palestinian protesters in recent days. Some of those injured in the violence in East Jerusalem include bystanders or worshipers making Ramadan prayers," said Saleh Higazi, deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

"The latest violence brings into sharp focus Israel’s sustained campaign to expand illegal Israeli settlements and step up forced evictions of Palestinian residents—such as those in Sheikh Jarrah—to make way for Israeli settlers. These forced evictions are part of a continuing pattern in Sheikh Jarrah, they flagrantly violate international law and would amount to war crimes."

Eyewitness testimonies—as well as videos and photographs taken by Amnesty International’s researchers on the ground in East Jerusalem—show how Israeli forces have repeatedly deployed disproportionate and unlawful force to disperse protesters during violent raids on Al-Aqsa mosque and carried out unprovoked attacks on peaceful demonstrators in Sheikh Jarrah.

The Wall Street Journal (5/12/21) presented the Israeli police as neutral peace keepers, obscuring power differentials between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel:

Israel is also facing an internal conflict, as pro-Palestinian Arab residents clashed with their Jewish neighbors in mixed towns, prompting the government to bring in border police troops to quell riots.

The reality is that Israeli police have violently assailed Palestinian demonstrators across Israel. That the Palestinians arrestees have been denied legal rights and necessary medical treatment is also omitted.

Another Journal (5/12/21) article referred to "Palestinian anger over what they see as years of efforts to push them out of Jerusalem and limit their access to land they claim, as well as infringing on their basic rights." Yet these views are not simply a matter of "what [Palestinians] see as" discrimination. As Human Rights Watch (5/11/21) noted:

Nearly all Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem hold a conditional, revocable residency status, while Jewish Israelis in the same area are citizens with secure status. Palestinians live in densely populated enclaves that receive a fraction of the resources given to settlements and effectively cannot obtain building permits, while neighboring Israeli settlements built on expropriated Palestinian land flourish.

Israeli officials have intentionally created this discriminatory system under which Jewish Israelis thrive at the expense of Palestinians. The government’s plan for the Jerusalem municipality, including both the west and occupied east parts of the city, sets the goal of "maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city" and even specifies the demographic ratios it hopes to maintain. This intent to dominate underlies Israel’s crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

Presenting as debatable the indisputable fact that Palestinians in Jerusalem are denied "their basic rights" is a form of "both sides-ism," taking incontrovertible factual information about the status of Palestinians in Jerusalem and reducing it to merely one of multiple possible narratives.

Important facts left out

I looked at Gaza coverage during the first four days of Israeli airstrikes and Palestinian rocket fire, focusing on the databases of the five US newspapers with the highest circulation: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. Crucial aspects of what is happening in Gaza have been severely underreported.

For instance, Israel closed Kerem Shalom Crossing on May 10, "blocking the entrance of humanitarian aid and fuel destined for Gaza’s power plant" (Gisha, 5/12/21). Kerem Shalom is also Gaza’s main commercial crossing, which means that the closure will further devastate Gaza’s economy, already in ruin thanks to the Israeli siege. Between May 10 and May 13, the five newspapers published a combined 114 articles that refer to Gaza. Only two pointed out that Israel has tightened the siege during the bombing campaign. The New York Times (5/10/21) ran an article that noted that Israel "shut a key crossing between Gaza and Israel," but said nothing about the consequences of doing so.

In the first four days of the assault on Gaza, this Washington Post article (5/13/21) was the only report in a major US newspaper that mentioned that the Israeli government had blocked humanitarian aid, including Covid vaccines, from entering the occupied territory.

A Washington Post report (5/13/21) quoted Sasha Muench, Palestinian territories director for the US-based humanitarian group Mercy Corps:

At the moment, no goods or people can enter Gaza because the border crossings are closed. This means no medical supplies, including vaccines, can enter…. In addition, no fuel to run the generators can enter, and Gaza authorities are warning of increased blackouts, including at hospitals, and potentially having no electricity in Gaza at all within a few days.

The latter is the only one of the 114 articles that mentioned that Israel has been blocking the entrance of humanitarian aid even more so than before it began this round of violence against Gaza.

On May 12, the Israeli human rights group Gisha noted that Israel is "banning all access to Gaza’s sea space, a cynical and punitive measure that harms fishermen’s livelihoods and food supply," and that this move is a form of collective punishment that is illegal under international law. Restricting Palestinians’ food access is particularly egregious, given that 68.5% of Gaza residents are already food insecure.

Collectively, the five newspapers ran 88 articles that mentioned Gaza between May 12 and 13. Just one mentioned anything about Israel barring access to the sea, a New York Times piece (5/10/21) that said Israel "barred fishermen from [Gaza] from going to sea," but did not point out that there is already a major problem with food access in the Strip that Israel’s move is sure to worsen. In fact, zero of the 88 articles mention that there is widespread food insecurity in the territory that Israel is incinerating.

Thus, the enthusiastic cheers for attacks on Palestinians, coming from, say, the New York Times’ Bret Stephens (5/13/21), are not the only form of media misdeeds against Palestinians. It’s the inversion of attacker and attacked, or the flattening of distinctions between the two. It’s the burying of information that clarifies the scope of Israeli criminality. Such approaches can confuse the public about the differences between those who fight for liberation and those who fight to snuff it out.

Gregory Shupak teaches media studies at the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto. His book, "The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel and the Media," is published by OR Books.

'Thuggish and Orwellian Abuses of Power': Dems Demand DOJ End Practice of Spying on Journalists

"Simply put, the government should not collect journalists communications records unless it's investigating them for a crime or as part of an investigation into foreign espionage in which case it should get a warrant."

by

Andrea Germanos, staff writer 

 

Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Then-President Donald Trump talks to reporters before departing the White House March 22, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A pair of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday urged the Biden administration to revamp Justice Department guidelines to stop surveillance of journalists as a way to identify their sources.

The call came in a letter sent by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) to Attorney General Merrick Garland in which they urged the administration to seize the "opportunity to voluntarily leave behind the thuggish and Orwellian abuses of power of the last administration, and stand up as a world leader for press freedoms."

Very important: Sen. Wyden and Rep. Raskin call for the Biden DOJ to categorically bar the surveillance of journalists for the purpose of going after their sources. https://t.co/qDLNaPlMNY

— Freedom of the Press (@FreedomofPress) May 19, 2021

The letter points to revelations by the Washington Post earlier this month that former President Donald Trump's Justice department, in early 2017, secretly seized phone records and tried to get email records of three Post reporters covering Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Biden's Justice Department defended the seizure and attempted seizure, the Post reported, with department spokesperson Marc Raimondi asserting the targets of the investigations were not the journalists "but rather those with access to the national defense information who provided it to the media and thus failed to protect it as lawfully required."

Wyden and Raskin noted that "in years past, the government would often attempt to force journalists to reveal their sources by dragging them into court."

"Now that most Americans carry always-on, always-recording smartphones, the government prefers to go to telecommunications companies, hoping that records of calls and texts might reveal the source," they wrote.

"While certainly more convenient for the government," they continued, "using subpoenas and surveillance orders to pry into a journalist's communications history is no less invasive and destructive than forcing a journalist to reveal their source."

"Simply put, the government should not collect journalists communications records unless it's investigating them for a crime or as part of an investigation into foreign espionage in which case it should get a warrant," wrote Wyden and Raskin.

The Democrats also wrote that they plan on introducing legislation in the coming months to shield journalists from being forced to reveal their sources.

A press statement from the lawmakers acknowledged that previous administrations have also sought to spy on reporters to identify sources and said, "It is past time that the United States end this invasive practice that threatens freedom of the press.

To 'End the Absurdity' of Wasteful Military Spending, Sanders Introduces Bill to Audit the Pentagon

"If the Department of Defense cannot pass a clean audit, as required by law, there ought to be tough financial consequences,"

"The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "That is absolutely unacceptable."

by

Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 

Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 

by

Common Dreams

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) arrives before President Joe Biden addresses a joint session of Congress in the House chamber of the U.S. Capitol April 28, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Melina Mara-Pool via Getty Images)

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2021, which would require the Department of Defense to do starting in 2022 something unprecedented in its history: pass a full independent audit.

"Taxpayers can't afford to keep writing blank check after blank check for the Pentagon to cash."
—Sen. Ron Wyden

"The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," the Vermont Independent said Wednesday in a statement.

"If we are serious about spending taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively, we have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only agency in the federal government that has not passed an independent audit," he added. "The time is long overdue for Congress to hold the Defense Department to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. That is the very least we can do."

Federal agencies have been mandated by Congress to comply with annual audits by the Government Accountability Office since 1990.

Under the bill (pdf)—which is co-sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and comes one week after Sanders led a hearing on waste and fraud at the Pentagon—each branch of the military and office of the DOD that fails an independent audit would return 1% of its annual budget to the Treasury. 

That could amount to a substantial sum of money, given that the Pentagon receives hundreds of billions of dollars in funding each year despite ample evidence of its widespread accounting abuses. Last month, President Joe Biden proposed a $715 billion budget for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2021—an increase from the current $704 billion level approved by Congress under former President Donald Trump.

Since then, Biden has faced backlash from progressives who have called for reallocating a portion of those funds in order to better meet social needs rather than further pad defense contractors' bottom lines.

We pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the Pentagon EVERY SINGLE YEAR — but the military has never detailed their spending.

It’s long overdue that we CUT the Pentagon’s $740 billion budget and invest that savings into our communities. https://t.co/VagYCe5XzR

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) May 19, 2021

As Sanders' office noted, the Defense Department remains the only federal agency in the U.S. that has been unable to pass an independent audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon gobbles up more than half of the nation's discretionary budget and controls assets in excess of $3.1 trillion, or roughly 78% of the entire federal government.

The Costs of War Project recently estimated that the U.S. has spent $2.26 trillion on military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 2001 U.S. invasion, which marked the beginning of a two-decade-long war that has killed at least 241,000 people.

Meanwhile, according to Sanders' office:

In 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that $31-60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. In 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. In 2018, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that the Pentagon could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects

[...]

Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon does not know what to do with it. According to the GAO, between 2013 and 2018 the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury. And, over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the U.S. has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud—all while making huge profits on those government contracts.  

 

The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 12 countries combined, and, according to Sanders' office, "about half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors."

Sanders' office stressed that the nation's massive military spending occurs in a context in which "half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, over 40 million Americans are living in poverty, and over 500,000 Americans are homeless including roughly 40,000 veterans."

In a statement, Wyden said that "taxpayers can't afford to keep writing blank check after blank check for the Pentagon to cash."

"If the Department of Defense cannot pass a clean audit, as required by law, there ought to be tough financial consequences," he added.

 

SEE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Resolution to Block Biden's $735 Million Weapons Sale to Israel

"We should not be sending 'direct attack' weaponry to Prime Minister Netanyahu to prolong this violence."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer 

 

Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 

by

Common Dreams

People attend a protest against Israel's assault on Gaza in Los Angeles, California on Saturday, May 15, 2021. (Photo: Justin L. Stewart/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

With time running out to act, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday introduced a resolution aimed at blocking the Biden administration's proposed sale of $735 million in advanced weaponry to the Israeli government as it continues its deadly assault on the occupied Gaza Strip.

"Congress has never attempted to block an arms sale to Israel before, and it sends a clear message to the Israeli government that its days of impunity are coming to an end."
—Raed Jarrar, Democracy for the Arab World

The new resolution (pdf)—which Ocasio-Cortez introduced alongside Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)—came just ahead of the May 20 deadline for congressional action on a weapons deal that would send Boeing-made Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bombs to the government of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"For decades, the U.S. has sold billions of dollars in weaponry to Israel without ever requiring them to respect basic Palestinian rights," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. "In so doing, we have directly contributed to the death, displacement, and disenfranchisement of millions."

"At a time when so many, including President [Joe] Biden, support a cease-fire, we should not be sending 'direct attack' weaponry to Prime Minister Netanyahu to prolong this violence," the New York Democrat added.

The United States should not be rubber-stamping weapons sales to the Israeli government as they deploy our resources to target international media outlets, schools, hospitals, humanitarian missions and civilian sites for bombing.

We have a responsibility to protect human rights. https://t.co/OctBNYFpwp

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 19, 2021

The Biden administration first notified Congress of the proposed weapons sale on May 5, just days before Israel began its latest deadly bombardment of Gaza. Under current law, the House has just 15 days to object to the weapons sale with a resolution of disapproval.

But in a press release on Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez's office noted that "after that time period has lapsed, Congress can still block or modify any sale up to the point of delivery."

Additionally, as Jewish Currents contributing writer Alex Kane pointed out, "if a senator introduced a resolution [of disapproval] before the end of May 20th, the bill would be required to get a vote in the Senate."

Joining Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pocan, six House lawmakers backed the resolution as original co-sponsors, including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.).

"Our government is directly complicit in the human rights atrocities being inflicted by the Israeli military on Palestinians, and it is our job as members of Congress to make sure that we stop funding these abuses," Bush said in a statement. "In the midst of a deadly pandemic, the Israeli military, which is one of the most advanced militaries in the world, is attacking a largely defenseless, captive civilian Palestinian population."

"In Gaza, we are witnessing bombing near hospitals and schools, deliberately targeting residential buildings where families live," Bush continued. "These atrocities are being funded by billions of our own American tax dollars while communities like mine in St. Louis are hurting and are in need of life-affirming investment here at home."

More than 70 progressive advocacy organizations—including IfNotNow, Just Foreign Policy, and Jewish Voice for Peace Action—have also thrown their support behind the new resolution.

Every. Single. Member. Of. Congress. Should. Be. On. This. Resolution.

Anyone who is watching what is happening in Palestine knows: under no circumstances can the Biden administration try to send more weapons to Israel right now. Absolutely not. Thank you @AOC. https://t.co/kFcS4F6h9P

— Jewish Voice for Peace Action #SaveSheikhJarrah (@JvpAction) May 19, 2021

Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World, said in an interview with Jewish Currents on Wednesday that "although this [joint resolution of disapproval] has a short shelf-life, it's a game-changer."

"This is the worst possible timing for us to be sending munitions that are being dropped on schools, refugee camps, media offices, and Covid clinics in Gaza."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar

"This is a historic day," said Jarrar. "Congress has never attempted to block an arms sale to Israel before, and it sends a clear message to the Israeli government that its days of impunity are coming to an end."

While the president expressed support for speedy deescalation and a cease-fire in calls with Netanyahu this week, Biden administration officials have pushed back against congressional efforts to pause the $735 million weapons deal with Israel, which is facing war crimes accusations from global humanitarian organizations.

In late-night talks on Monday, senior Biden administration officials convinced Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)—chair of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee—to abruptly back off his demand that the White House postpone final approval of the sale.

"Let's be clear: these are the exact bombs being used to kill children in Gaza right now," Omar, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. "This is the worst possible timing for us to be sending munitions that are being dropped on schools, refugee camps, media offices, and Covid clinics in Gaza."

"But let's make no mistake—even if the current escalation wasn't raging, Congress should be questioning the sales of these types of weapons to Israel—and any country in the world that has committed human rights abuses," Omar added. "The United States should be doing everything in our power to bring about an immediate end to this conflict and the carnage it has caused, not continuing to sell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the very bombs used to kill Palestinian children."

SEE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

100,000 march in London to support Palestinian resistance

“Israel uses all forms of brutal force against the Palestinians—fighting back is a right.”

The protest follows Israeli settlers attempted eviction of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, east Jerusalem, cops’ attacks on Al Aqsa mosque and airstrikes on Gaza.

By Sam Ord and Nick Clark
-May 17, 2021
SOURCE Socialist Worker




Chants of “Israel is a terror state” filled central London on Saturday as 100,000 angry protesters marched in solidarity with Palestinians fighting Israel’s military might.

The protest follows Israeli settlers attempted eviction of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, east Jerusalem, cops’ attacks on Al Aqsa mosque and airstrikes on Gaza. Israeli bombs have murdered at least 137 Palestinians, including 36 children.

Palestinian protests were met with police brutality, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Aysha, who traveled from Cambridge to the London protest, told Socialist Worker, “We need to amplify the voice of the Palestinians. Seeing the terror on social media over the last few days has turned me into an activist—this is my first protest.

“Children have been killed during Ramadan yet the news ignores it.”

Protesters vowed to keep up the pressure on the British government—and its arms sales to Israel. Huda, who traveled from Sunderland, told Socialist Worker, “My heart is broken, I see my brothers and sisters oppressed by Israel’s crimes.

“I stand in solidarity and demand that the occupation of Palestine ends.”

“Britain is complicit. Boris Johnson must see the protests and feel pressured to end arms sales to Israel.

“But we need to make more noise and keep protesting.”

The protest was called on the anniversary of the Nakba, or catastrophe. It saw Zionist paramilitaries, which would go on to form the Israeli army, ethnically cleanse around 800,000 Palestinians as part of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948.

College student Jihan told Socialist Worker, “The racism Palestinians face every day in Israel must be opposed.

“Children are being killed and families are separated.”

Portrays

Western media portrays Israeli apartheid and occupation as the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

But protestor Wali said this is a “false narrative”—and hit out at supporters of Israel who try to smear the Palestine solidarity movement. “When people resist colonialism in Palestine they are labelled antisemitic,” he told Socialist Worker.

“It’s ridiculous as we’re against Israel, not Judaism.”

Outside the Israeli embassy in west London, Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) general secretary, addressed the crowd. “There is endless talk in the media of Israel’s right to defend itself,” she said. “When do they ever talk about the right of Palestinian self defense?

“Israel uses all forms of brutal force against the Palestinians—fighting back is a right.”

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) called the demonstration alongside other organizations. It said, “The British government must take immediate action and stop allowing Israel to act with impunity.

“It must demand an end to current proceedings to evict these families, and start holding Israel accountable for all its actions which contribute to the crime of apartheid.

“In the face of Israel’s brutal crimes, we can’t remain silent.”

The magnificent demonstration in London was young and militant, with many Muslim protesters, especially young women.

After five years of Israel’s supporters smearing the Palestinian movement as antisemitic—and constant retreats by the Labor Party—the movement was back on the streets with renewed confidence.

It’s on the streets that the movement has its strength.

Protesters were determined to stand against Israel’s crimes and its Western backers—and are taking hope from the Palestinian resistance that’s burst forth.

The PSC, and other organizations, have called a national demonstration in London next Saturday 22 May. It will be another day of rage at Israeli colonialism and apartheid.
Protests against Israeli terror across Britain

Protesters out on the streets of Cambridge (Pic: Mark Dunk )

There were large protests in almost every part of Britain—many loud, dynamic and with a life of their own.

One activist in Birmingham, Hope, estimated there were at least 2,500 people in Birmingham where “There were about five or six different soundsystems.”

“People split off in all directions,” said Hope. “It went off on a bit of an impromptu march that went through the Bull Ring shopping center. It shut the shopping center down and the shops closed their doors.”

The march followed a protest of 400 people in Birmingham earlier in the week. But “This one seemed significantly bigger and angrier,” said Hope.

It was a similar atmosphere in Manchester, where at least 1,000 people joined a protest beginning in a park in Rusholme. One of them, Martin, described an air of “chaotic enthusiasm” with several splinter marches of hundreds breaking away to march towards the city centre.

He said lots of people were angry at how the press has covered Palestine, but that many also wanted to talk about its history. Some protesters set up tents to represent the refugee camps that Palestinians lived in after they were expelled when Israel was established in 1948.

Up to 1,000 people protested for hours in Cardiff. Young Muslim people took charge of the demo and tried to lead it on a march to the BBC headquarters, in protest at its coverage of Israel’s crime.

When police blocked the road to stop them getting there, they marched all through the city center instead. They chanted in anger at the British government for selling arms to Israel, at the BBC for its coverage, and at the rulers of Arab countries for betraying the Palestinians.

One protester, Helen, told Socialist Worker the protest began at around 11:30am—before its given start time, as people gathered early—and that people were still chanting at 3pm.

Some 1,200 people gathered for a rally outside Sheffield town hall—the second big demonstration in the city in a week.

A Palestinian speaker from Nazareth told the rally, “A message from all my friends and family—it is extremely worrying what is happening inside Israel right now. You don’t see it on the mainstream media.

“They are scared, settlers and right-wing fascists are armed, attacking Arabs in their villages and their cities at home, dragging them out of their cars, beating them.

“That is happening in Haifa right now where my friends are begging me to relay that message. It’s happening in Nazareth. It’s happening everywhere under the watchful eyes of the police and army who stand by and doing nothing about it.”
Rally

“Israeli politicians and public figures are publicly announcing on TV for the fascists to go and attack Arabs.”

There were also at least 1,000 in Nottingham and 1,500 in Derby. Richard, who joined the protest in Nottingham said it “evoked the feeling from 2014 after the invasion of Gaza.”

He added that the rally followed a Kill the Bill demo earlier in the day, against the police and crime bill, which seeks to criminalize protest. Protesters that turned up early for the Palestine rally got involved

.

Protests in Liverpool (Pic: John Carr)

“People saw the links between the two—how the bill could make it harder to protest for Palestine,” said Richard. “There were a lot of Kill the Bill placards on the Palestine demo.”

Around 1,000 also attended a protest in Liverpool. And well over 1,000 marched from Manzil Gardens on Cowley Road to Bonn square in Oxford city center.

Protesters took off on long marches in Edinburgh and Brighton. Speakers at both also linked the Palestinian struggle today to the Nakba—the expulsion of Palestinians when Israel was created.

There were loud and angry protests in Coventry, Newcastle, Bournemouth and Cambridge. Organizers reported 1,500 joined the protest in Newcastle.

In Coventry, a march of hundreds took off on three different impromptu marches, with people still chanting three hours after the protest began.

Protests were called by the local Muslim community in Huddersfield which was attended by around 500.

In Wigan up to 90 people attended a rally and march and in Barnstaple in north Devon there was a lively protest outside the Pannier Market.

AUSTRALIA
A Victorian logging company just won a controversial court appeal. Here’s what it means for forest wildlife

The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife.

By Brendan Wintle, Laura Schuijers and Sarah Bekessy
-May 17, 2021
SOURCE The Conversation


Australia’s forest-dwelling wildlife is in greater peril after last week’s court ruling that logging — even if it breaches state requirements — is exempt from the federal law that protects threatened species.

The Federal Court upheld an appeal by VicForests, Victoria’s state timber corporation, after a previous ruling in May 2020 found it razed critical habitat without taking the precautionary measures required by law.

The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife. At particular risk are the Leadbeater’s possum and greater glider — mammals highly vulnerable to extinction that call the forests home.

So let’s take a look at the dramatic implications for wildlife and the law in more detail.
Why is this ruling so significant?

The Federal Court agreed VicForest’s logging failed to meet its environmental legal requirements. In fact, the Federal Court dismissed every single ground of appeal but one. And it takes only one to win.

The ground that won the case was that the federal environmental law designed to protect threatened species — the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act — did not apply to the logging operations due to a forestry exemption.

To understand the significance of these issues, it’s important to know a bit about the context.



In fact, they said that it doesn't matter what the loggers actually do – their exemptions from the EPBC Act remain.— Michael Slezak (@MikeySlezak) May 10, 2021

In the 1980s and ‘90s, forestry was passed to the states to regulate. So-called regional forest agreements (RFAs) were struck between federal and state governments. The idea was that forestry would be conducted under these state-led RFAs, avoiding federal scrutiny.

This was meant to streamline procedures, and offer a compromise between sometimes conflicting objectives: conservation and commercially profitable forestry.

However, states weren’t necessarily meant to have absolute control, and a check-and-balance system was put in place. If a logging operation doesn’t follow the RFA requirements, then the federal law is called in.

That way, states have control, but there’s a backup safety net for threatened species (which the federal government has an obligation to protect under international law).

This backup safety net is what the original case was testing. Friends of the Leadbeater’s Possum sued VicForests, arguing the logging operations breached the Victorian RFA, and the organisation won the case.

Bridget McKenzie introduced a bill seeking to strengthen logging’s exemption from federal scrutiny. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

In response to the original decision against VicForests, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie introduced a private members bill, seeking to strengthen logging’s exemption from federal scrutiny.

If passed, the bill would make forestry activities within RFA areas exempt from scrutiny under the EPBC Act, regardless of whether they follow RFA rules.

Both the court decision and the bill respond to a need for industry certainty and seek to minimise opportunities for legal action against logging under the EPBC Act. But they remove any certainty for environmental protection.
What does this mean for wildlife?

RFAs were established with the best of intentions. But unfortunately, they haven’t been working to protect wildlife — a point made clear in the EPBC Act’s recent ten-year independent review.

As former competition watchdog chair Professor Graeme Samuel, who led the review, said in his final report:


there are fundamental shortcomings in the interactions between RFAs and the EPBC Act.

The RFAs haven’t been updated as they were meant to be, despite dramatic changes in the environment, such as from mega-fires, and the warming and drying climate. These factors totally change the game for forestry and forest-dependent wildlife, such Leadbeater’s possum and the greater glider, which are declining dramatically.

Leadbeater’s possums rely on old tree hollows. AAP Image/ Australian National University, Tim Bawden

We are currently experiencing a global mass extinction event, and Australia is a global extinction leader. Australia is responsible for 35% of all modern mammal extinctions globally and has seen an average decline of 50% in threatened bird populations since 1985.

Cutting down trees may seem insignificant to some, in the scheme of things. But small effects can accumulate into huge declines, like a death by a thousand cuts.

Both Leadbeater’s possum and the greater glider depend on large old trees with hollows (that take more than 100 years to develop) for shelter. Without many of these trees, they cannot survive.

Logging in Victoria has led to a decline in the number and extent of these particular trees, and reduces future large tree numbers. This makes the animals more vulnerable.

To avoid extinctions, we can’t afford to lose more ground by continuing practices that damage or remove habitat.
The writing is on the wall

But things could be changing soon. The Victorian government plans to ban native timber harvesting from 2030. This happens to be the same year a decades-old contract with a wood pulp and paper company expires, currently binding the state to provide pulp logs by a legislated supply agreement.

After 2030, paper, pulp, and timber products would be logged from plantations rather than native forests. The writing is already on the wall.

An anti-logging protest in Toolangi State Forest in response to VicForests winning their appeal in the federal court. Kira Whittaker

Whether it’s the federal or state governments in charge, forest management needs to be scientifically robust, with strong compliance, enforcement and governance. Otherwise, as we’ve seen, there’s a significant risk of slippage and loss of trust.

Even before the mega-fires of 2019-20, most Australians didn’t support native forest logging. After the fires, their worries increased, with a majority expressing concerns that Australia’s unique environment might never be the same.

And as a result of rising community expectations on how the environment is treated, some businesses have pivoted.

Many companies now see being associated with environmentally poor outcomes as risky. Bunnings, for example, has already banned VicForests’ native timber. The World Economic Forum places biodiversity loss in the top five risks to the global economy. And a global taskforce is being established that could eventually see environmental disclosures as a new norm.

It’s clear the status quo has led to an alarming rate of species decline. This decline will only be locked in further if legal exemptions make it impossible to hold law-breakers to account