Beyond the Genocide

The destruction has just begun

by Dan Lieberman / January 20th, 2024

Each genocide has its characteristics; the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people has unique characteristics that make it more dangerous than atrocities that damaged previous populations. Starting from the day that a Zionist stepped on Palestinian land, the machinery for the eventual genocide was being prepared. Failure of international organizations to take necessary precautions, even after Zionist intentions became clarified, led to the present daily toll of loss of life and loss of will to live. No mechanism is apparent to prevent the eventual denouement. A careless world has been unable to react to a major destruction of innocent people and does not recognize that this genocide is a prelude to the massacres of much larger populations of the world’s peoples. The destruction has just begun.

Recognized Contemporary Genocides

In Rwanda, the larger Hutu population (85%) felt dominated by the smaller (15%) and wealthier Tutsi ethnicity. Independence led to Hutu control, followed by massacres of Tutsis, and forced displacement of 400,000 by the ruling government that portrayed Tutsis as threats to Rwanda.

The April 6, 1994 downing of a plane carrying Rwanda’s President Habyarimana and Burundi’s President Cyprien Ntaryamira prompted extremist Hutus to blame Tutsi rebels from the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) for the attack and deaths of the two Hutu presidents. Rwanda’s Hutu militia organized attacks against all Tutsis. Assisted by forces in neighboring Uganda and Tanzania, the RPF successfully engaged the Hutu militia, captured the country, and gained control of the government. The victory did not stop a three-month Hutu rampage that randomly murdered an estimated 500,000 – 900,000 Tutsis.

In Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation, Rohingya people are an ethnic and religious minority of Muslim and Indo-Aryan origin. Despite tracing their presence in Myanmar to before the 18th century, the government considers them “Bengali, with no cultural, religious, or social ties to Myanmar,” and denies them citizenship and services. A conflict between the Rakhine people and the Myanmar authorities spilled over into the ongoing conflicts between Rohingya and their Rakhine neighbors and the Myanmar military. In 2017, the violence caused an excess of 10,000 Rohingya killed and more than 300 villages destroyed. About 700,000 of an estimated 1.4 million Rohingya people fled to nearby countries, mostly to Bangladesh.

Cambodia found itself drawn into the Vietnam War when U.S. forces expanded their military operations into Cambodia to combat Vietnamese communist forces seeking sanctuary. Prince Sihanouk severed relations and the U.S. initiated a U.S.-backed coup that dethroned Sihanouk and brought General Lon Nol to power as President of the Khmer Republic. An exiled Sihanouk joined forces with the North Vietnamese and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge communists, defeated the Lon Nol army, and captured Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975. Guided by leadership from Pol Pot, the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) instituted a series of purges that evacuated cities, killed previous Lon Nol officials, brutally persecuted Buddhist monks and ethnic minorities, and attempted to eliminate dissidents to the regime. In 1979, Pol Pot’s previous ally, victorious North Vietnam, now a unified Vietnam, invaded Cambodia, overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime, and created the People’s Republic of Kampuchea.

The Cambodian genocide was not conventional; more of a super killing field, reminiscent of Robespierre’s terror campaign during the French Revolution.

The World War II genocide started with severe persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany during the pre-war years and emerged in Poland during the early war years. A complete genocide, known as the Holocaust, reached maximum intensity with the slaughter of Jews after their forced transfer from all of Europe to labor camps. The most severe statistic has only 3.5 million of the 9.5 million Jews who lived in Europe before the war listed as survivors. An agreement between the Zionists in Palestine and the Nazi regime enabled some 53,000 Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine. About 170,000 displaced persons migrated to Israel after the war. Jews are now accused of genocide of the Palestinian people.

Armenians have suffered genocidal violence throughout their history. According to Britannica:

Anti-Armenian feelings erupted into mass violence several times in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When, in 1894, the Armenians in the Sasun region refused to pay an oppressive tax, Ottoman troops and Kurdish tribesmen killed thousands of Armenians in the region. Another series of mass killings began in the fall of 1895, when Ottoman authorities’ suppression of an Armenian demonstration in Istanbul became a massacre. In all, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed in massacres between 1894 and 1896, which later came to be known as the Hamidian massacres. Some 20,000 more Armenians were killed in urban riots and pogroms in Adana and Hadjin in 1909.

These atrocities were a prelude to the 1915 genocide that some estimate caused 1-1.5 million Armenian deaths by Turkish Ottoman authorities who claimed that questionable loyalty of the Armenian population necessitated their transfer away from the neighboring Russian enemy. Turkish officials asserted that the massacres occurred from enraged populations and not from a design by the Turkish Ottoman government.

Uniqueness of the Palestinian Genocide

Most of the previously recognized genocides occurred spontaneously, involved local people, were relatively short, and ended abruptly. In their essential feature, the government accused a minority of not having social and cultural ties with the majority and being intruders in the land. No foreign governments or foreign people assisted in the genocide and assisted the oppressed people. The genocide of the Palestinian people does not share these characteristics.

Zionists were not part of the local population; they intruded into the area and were a small minority at the time they started the Palestinian genocide. An established Israeli government slowly increased the genocide process, has continued it for a lengthy time, and is now providing a planned path to conclusion. Whereas, other genocides occurred quickly — Rwanda Tutsi, Armenian, Rohingya — or were not readily apparent — World War II Holocaust — the Palestinian genocide is occurring for a long period and in full view of the world. Several foreign governments, mainly the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, and Jewish and Evangelical people and institutions actively aid the genocide. On the other hand, several Middle Eastern governments and people throughout the world recognize the desperate plight of the Palestinians and valiantly fight to protect them from destruction. The unique characteristics, no visible end to the catastrophe, involvement of external actors in perpetrating the genocide, and increasingly violent reactions indicate that this genocide will provoke unavoidable clashes. More destruction will be visited upon other innocents.

Beyond the Genocide

The South African delegation gave a convincing presentation to the International Court of Justice at The Hague’s case of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.

More than 23,000 people in Gaza have been killed during Israel’s military campaign, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory. That toll does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Nearly 85% of Gaza’s people have been driven their homes, a quarter of the enclave’s residents face starvation, and much of northern Gaza has been reduced to rubble.

The response from U.S. and Israeli authorities certified the genocide.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the accusation of genocide “meritless.” National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby said, “That’s not a word that ought to be thrown around lightly, and we certainly don’t believe that it applies here.”

John Kirby is correct. “Genocide is not a word that ought to be thrown around lightly.” Normal, serious, and compassionate people don’t lightly reject the accusation, don’t immediately call it meritless, and listen carefully to the pleadings. Simple adjectives and adverbs are not a reply and point-by-point refutation to exacting statements is the only acceptable answer. By judging before listening, American officials indicated they could not reply and the charge of genocide is accurate. Surprisingly, the Israeli government’s reply was more damaging to its defense. Its defense lawyer uttered, “Genocide is one of the most heinous acts any entity or individual can commit, and such allegations should only be made with the greatest of care. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas’s terrorist acts — acts that Hamas has vowed to repeat again and again until Israel is completely destroyed.” Israel insisted that its war in Gaza was a legitimate defense of its people and Hamas militants were guilty of genocide who want to wipe out all Jews.

This war is an offensive war and not a defensive war. Israel is not defending itself, it is offending all of Gaza and its population. Can any knowledgeable and competent individual believe that Hamas, with its peashooters and 15,000 fighters, can repeat and repeat its October 7 action, destroy nuclear-armed Israel, commit genocide on the Israeli people, and wipe out all Jews? Only a twisted mind can offer those reasons as an excuse for the daily murder of the Gazans and the destruction of their housing, institutions, hospitals, and will to live.

Realizing the oppression cannot force the Palestinians to submit or leave and has no foreseeable end, the Israeli government took advantage of the October 7 single event (it will become a remembrance date throughout the Western world) to convince the world that the Palestinians are mass murderers and therefore mass murder of millions of them is acceptable. How will this eventually play out? Noting the enormity of the last 75 years of destruction throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Western nations battle against international terrorism, and Israel’s intensification of its assaults in Gaza and the West Bank, anticipated future destruction throughout the world, which includes strikes against Israel’s principal opponents, will be vast.

Start with Gaza

Israeli leaders have twittered and tittered with vague propositions that Gazans have a choice of either leaving the area or remaining surrounded and confined. President Biden recommends the Palestinian Authority (PA) govern Gaza; the PA that cannot support itself, is not popular with the Palestinian people, cannot stop the daily aggression against its citizens in the West Bank, and subsidized 1/3 of the budget of Hamas ruled Gaza, is the PA that is going to tend to two million Palestinians in a barren Gaza.

Another suggestion is for the United Nations (UN), which has supplied succulence to the Gazans for 75 years, to govern (by a Trusteeship Council???) and increase succulence by several magnitudes. This is the UN that passed a myriad of resolutions for administrating the chaos and has not been able to implement any of them. The UN Trusteeship Council consists of the five permanent members of the Security Council — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States — few of whom trust one another. UN peacekeepers have rarely been able to keep the peace in any areas of their presence.

In a previous article, The Fate of the Palestinians, the writer described a depressing scenario for Gaza’s future.

In this gigantic plantation, where a huge population cramps into an area that cannot contain it, labor will be plentiful and jobs will be scarce. Gazans will work for low wages and receive a marginal life. With every aspect of their lives controlled by an outside force, they will be unable to control their destiny; population increase will be regulated and population decrease will be ruthlessly managed…until extinction.

I have not seen another serious scenario that capably contradicts this drastic scenario. One feature of those contending the Palestinian genocide is that they are mostly retroactive and not proactive; few actions prevent events and many actions only recite events. What are the possible scenarios? What is expected to happen? Preparing for certainty is preferred to waiting for Godot.

West Bank

Israel has addressed the Palestinians in the West Bank territory in a different manner than addressed in Gaza. Arranging the West Bank Palestinians for their demise requires another approach. The Gazans live in one contiguous area; West Bank Palestinians live in separate enclaves. No settlements or settlers in Gaza; many of both are in the West Bank. No soldiers, checkpoints, or roadblocks in Gaza; daily occurrence in the West Bank. No recognized authority that Israel will deal with in Gaza; PA in the West Bank.

Expanding settlements, periodic stealing of Palestinian lands, and daily encroachment on Palestinian lives indicate that Israel is not amenable to having Palestinians between the river and the sea. Recent events show Israel is attempting to quell all resistance, no matter how minor. From October 7, 2023, to January 11, 2024, more than 2,650 Palestinians in the West Bank have been arrested. According to the Palestinian Authority health ministry, “some 300 West Bank Palestinians have been killed. Based on military estimates, the vast majority of those killed since October 7 were shot during clashes amid arrest raids.” Two problems exist that prevent Israel from completing its plans.

(1)    Palestinians have not budged and their population has not reduced.

(2)    Military opposition grows stronger each day. Iran advances in all warfare technology — drones, long-range missiles, and nuclear weapons.

Israel has a dilemma — should Palestinians be removed before addressing the military problem or is it wise to silence enemies before they develop capability to defend themselves? Israel’s strategists realize their foes may be able to challenge the expulsion and once the foes are eliminated the expulsion becomes easier. Look at history and find Iran and Hezbollah as the last-standing antagonists who can prevent the Zionists from accomplishing their objectives. Other antagonists have been sidetracked.

The Sudan, a perceived Israel antagonist, which had potential of becoming a major nation, has been carved into two hapless nations, much due to U.S. actions. The U.S. invasion, urged by Israel’s fifth column, the Neocons, overthrew Saddam Hussein and prevented Iraq from becoming a major power in the Middle East and a threat to Israel. Libya, another Israel antagonist, has been destroyed and driven to anarchy by NATO’s incomprehensible and falsely driven military actions. Egypt and Jordan have been pacified.

Israel expected Syria’s Assad would be defeated and a new government would eschew relations with Iran and Hezbollah. Overthrow of the Assad regime and replacement by a new government would have deprived Hezbollah of a compatible border and access to its Iran ally. In Iraq or Syria, a Kurdish success in establishing an independent state would have given Israel a friend on the borders with Iraq and Iran. Because none of these expectations have been realized, a new approach to debilitating Iran and Hezbollah and assuring they do not have weapons to cause great danger to Israel is being processed.

Iran is the last man standing. Hezbollah and the Houthis are irritants that will become ineffective once Iran has been destroyed. Provoking Iran into serious military action has not occurred and the Islamic Republic is not falling for the bait, which means the provocations will become stronger and stronger until Iran has no choice. The Islamic Republic also has internal enemies and restless ethnicities who seek independence. Arranging the dominos and churning the pot are everyday tasks for Israel’s Mossad; assuredly, they have been hard at work on the problem. Once the massive strikes from sea and air hit Tehran and other cities, other internal land strikes will scorch the countryside. Iran will become an inferno of external war, religious war, civil war, and tribal rebellions.

With Iran subdued, Israel will turn its intention to the recalcitrant Palestinians, whom the government will accuse of siding with Iran and cannot be trusted. Expulsion of three million indigenous people, who had tilled the soil for generations, and replacing them with foreign newcomers, who had walked city streets for generations, is difficult. Israel cannot evict the Palestinians. The separation of the Palestinian population in several and widely separated cities in the West Bank does not allow forcible eviction. Israel will find another means and the most logical is covertly administrating population decline.

The CIA publishes interesting statistics (they do some helpful things) and the population and economic statistics reveal the precarious life of the Palestinians on their home grounds.

WEST BANK POPULATION STATISTICS

The present statistics don’t favor Israel’s approach to getting rid of those pesky Palestinians. High birth rates and low death rates offset ultra-high maternal and infant mortality rates and a high migration rate. The Palestinian population continues to increase at 2.3%/yr. So, how can Israel engineer a severe population decline? This was previously discussed in an article, “Ever Again.” Changing the statistics to be more favorable to decreasing Palestinian presence in the West Bank is another way.

Make life more brutal, which Israel will do, and the migration rate, already high for young males, will greatly increase. This will lower the number of marriages and births. Families will also leave. The Palestinian economy is not well developed, with no major industries, mainly services (77.6%, 2017 est.), agriculture, and small industry. Unemployment is at 25 percent. Imports absorb one-half of the GDP. In 2022, Palestinian imports of goods and services were $8.20 billion and exports were $1.58 billion and much of the trade was with Israel. Imports from Israel were $4.64 billion and exports were $1.40 billion.

Israel has a stranglehold on Palestinian lives and economy — appropriating land reduces agriculture and animal husbandry output and increases demand for food imports; lowering Palestinian labor in the Israel economy augments Palestinian unemployment; crime and violence follow unemployment and urge people to leave, harassment and physical attacks create anxiety, leading to escalating illness, deaths, and miscarriages.

Continually encroached on and reduced to diminishing living space, agriculture, water, and resources, life for Palestinians will become unbearable. Will the Palestinians continue to live at lower and lower subsistence levels? Migration will escalate.

If the population decreases by 5 percent annually, in 14 years, the population is halved, and, in 50 years, the population decreases to 10 percent of its initial amount. By these methods, the West Bank Palestinian population can be reduced from 3 million to 300,000. The remaining Palestinians will be faceless and wandering people among the many millions of Israelis.

Physical destruction is noticeable. Psychological, cultural, political, social, cultural, and economic havoc (oil embargos) go unnoticed.

Hesitatingly murmured is that descendants of those who suffered the World War II genocide are committing the present genocide. The Israeli Jewish population has a strong voice in a democratic nation and has not expressed indignation; they, and a great number of Jews throughout the world are supporting the genocide. Are those who suffered and died during the Holocaust being used to shadow another genocide? Have the decades of abundant references to the Holocaust been an emotional preparation to have others accept the ongoing genocide? Have the lessons of World War II, which should have been used to prevent further community destruction, been subverted to enhance destruction? Have contemporary Jews betrayed their ancestors who lie buried in the extermination camps of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Mauthausen, Ravensbruck, Sobibor, and others?

Reactions to the gathering genocide have already occurred. The extent to which they grow and affect the Jewish people remains undetermined. Will they be short-lived and mildly punishing or will they grow in intensity, be gravely punishing, and last from here to eternity?

Warping of the cultural, social, and political activities in Western nations has enabled the genocide. Portraying Zionism as a mass movement of repressed people who rose from the ashes of the Holocaust and fought valiantly against overwhelming odds to create a democratic state where Jews could gather and live peacefully required partial destruction of the democratic process — social, cultural, and economic control of a major part of the media. The manipulative gathered the manipulated — Evangelicals, liberal antagonists, ultra-nationalists — to challenge the political system and gain their support in electing governments that pursued policies friendly to Israel. The nation is polarized and its democratic institutions. Already threatened by one election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the nation is again threatened by the same possibility in the near future.

A relatively small clique determines America’s future, who succeeds and who fails, who receives and who is denied, who gets pardoned, and who gets punished. American democracy in action.

In the Middle East, it has become “who lives and who dies.”

From Plymouth Rock to Western Wall granite, the American dream shapes the fate of people and skews world history.


Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com. He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

“Not Wanting” A Wider Middle East War, the U.S. Has Started One

by Edward Curtin / January 19th, 2024

You have to hand it to the U.S. and its henchmen for brazenness.  In order to protect their client state Israel and its genocide in Gaza, the U.S., together with the UK, have in one week launched air and sea attacks on the Houthis in Yemen five times, referring to it as “self-defense” in their Orwellian lingo.  The ostensible reason being Yemen’s refusal to allow ships bound for Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza, to enter the Red Sea, while permitting other ships to pass freely.

To any impartial observer, the Houthis should be lauded.  Yet, while the International Court of Justice considers the South African charge of genocide against Israel that is supported by overwhelming evidence, the U.S. and its allies have instigated a wider war throughout the Middle East while claiming they do not want such a war.  These settler colonial states want genocide and a much wider war because they have been set back on their heels by those they have mocked, provoked, and attacked – notably the Palestinians, Syrians, and Russians, among others.

While the criminalization of international law does not bode well for the ICJ’s upcoming ruling or its ability to stop Israeli’s genocide in Gaza, Michel Chossudovsky, of Global Research, as is his wont, has offered a superb analysis and suggestion for those who oppose such crimes: that Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter – “The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S. soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” – should be used to supplement the South African charges and appeal directly to the moral consciences of those asked to carry out acts of genocide. He writes:

Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza.  

South Africa’s legal procedure at the ICJ should be endorsed Worldwide. While it cannot be relied upon to put a rapid end to the genocide, it provides support and legitimacy to the “Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield”  campaign under Nuremberg Charter Principle IV.

While such an approach will not stop the continuing slaughter, it would remind the world that each person who participates in and supports it bears a heavy burden of guilt for their actions; that they are morally and legally culpable.  This appeal to the human heart and conscience, no matter what its practical effect, will at least add to the condemnation of a genocide happening in real time and full view of the world, even though no one will ever be prosecuted for such crimes since any real just use of international law has long disappeared.  Yet there is a edifying history of such conscientious objection to immoral war making, and though each person makes the decision in solitary witness, individual choices can inspire others and the solitary become solidary, as Albert Camus reminded us at the end of his short story, “The Artist at Work.”

With each passing day, it becomes more and more evident that Israel/U.S.A. and their allies do want a wider war.  Iran is their special focus, with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen targets on the way.  Anyone who supports the genocide in Gaza, explicitly or through silence, bears responsibility for the conflagration to come.  There are no excuses.

And the facts show that it is axiomatic that waging war has been the modus operandi of the U.S./Israeli alliance for a long time.  Just as in early 2003 when the Bush administration said they were looking for a peaceful solution to their fake charges against Sadam Hussein with his alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” the Biden administration is lying, as the Bush administration lied about September 11, 2001 to launch its ongoing war on terror, starting in Afghanistan.  Without an expanded war, President Biden – aka the Democrats, since he will most probably not be the candidate – and his psychopathic partner Benjamin Netanyahu, will not survive.  It is bi-partisan war-mongering, of course, internationally and intramurally, since both U.S. political parties are controlled by the Israel Lobby and billionaire class that owns Congress and the “defense” industry that thrives on never-ending war to such an extent that even the notable independent candidate for the presidency, Robert Kennedy, Jr., who is running as an anti-war candidate, fully supports Israel which is tantamount to supporting Biden’s expanding war policy.

Biden and Netanyahu, who are always claiming after the fact that they were surprised by events or were fed bad advice by their underlings, are dumb scorpions. They are stupid but deadly.  And many people in the West, while perhaps decent people in their personal lives, are living in a fantasy world of “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,” in MLK, Jr.’s words, as the growing threat of a world war increases and insouciance reigns.

Neither the Israeli nor American government can allow themselves to be humiliated, U.S./NATO by the Russians in Ukraine and the Israelis by the Palestinians.  Like cornered criminals with lethal weapons, they will kill as many as they can on their way down, taking their revenge on the weakest first.

Their “mistakes” are always well intentioned.  They stumble into wars through faulty intelligence.  They drop the ball because of bureaucratic mix-ups. They miscalculate the perfidy of the moneyed elites whom allegedly they oppose while pocketing their cash and ushering them into the national coffers out of necessity since they are too big to fail.  They never see the storm coming, even as they create it.  Their incompetence or the perfidy of their enemies is the retort to all those “nut cases” who conjure up conspiracy theories or plain facts to explain their actions or lack thereof.  They are innocent.  Always innocent.  And they can’t understand why those they have long abused reach a point when they will no longer impetrate for mercy but will fight fiercely for their freedom.

All signs point to a major war on the horizon.  Both the U.S.A. and Israel have been shown to be rogue states with no desire to negotiate a peaceful world.  Believing in high-tech weapons and massive firepower, neither has learned the hard lesson that anti-colonial wars have historically been won by those with far less weapons but with a passionate desire to throw off the chains of their oppressors.  Vietnam is the text-book case, and there are many others.  Failure to learn is the name of their game.

The Zionist project for a Greater Israel is doomed to fail, but as it does, desperate men like Biden and Netanyahu are intent on launching desperate acts of war.  Exactly when and how this expanded war will blaze across the headlines is the question.  It has started, but I think it prudent to expect a black swan event sometime this year when all hell will break loose.  The genocide in Gaza is the first step, and the U.S./Israel, “not wanting” a wider war, have already started one.

(For an excellent history lesson on the Zionist oppression of Palestinians and the current genocide, listen to Max Blumenthal’s and Miko Peled’s impassioned talk – “Where is the War in Gaza Going? – delivered from the heart of darkness, Washington D.C.  Two Jewish men who know the difference between Zionism and Judaism and whose consciences are aflame with justice for the oppressed Palestinians.)

Edward Curtin writes and his work appears widely. He is the author of Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies. Read other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website.

 

Gaza: A Brutal Demonstration Of “Western Values”

by Media Lens / January 18th, 2024

I find Westerners in general, and Europeans in particular, extremely indoctrinated and obsessed with perceptions of their own uniqueness. Many see themselves as chosen people, after going through a one-sided education and after relying on their media outlets, without studying alternative sources.

— André Vltchek, Soviet-born US political writer, 1963-2020.

On 20 March 2006, on the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall declared on the Six O’Clock News:

‘There’s still bitter disagreement over invading Iraq. Was it justified or a disastrous miscalculation?’

The supposed ‘justification’ claimed by Prime Minister Tony Blair was the ‘serious and current threat’ posed by Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The BBC’s false notion of ‘balance’ was to present ‘disastrous miscalculation’ as the counterargument. In fact, as we detailed at the time in media alerts and in our books, the invasion was considered by many legal experts to be a ‘war of aggression’, the ‘supreme international crime’ as judged by the standards of the post-WW2 Nuremberg trials.

But such a view is deemed too extreme for respectable BBC discourse. Even today, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg glibly notes:

Labour nerves still jangle over what went so terribly wrong in Iraq, even after all these years.

The implication, endlessly channelled by the BBC, is that a ‘disastrous miscalculation’ occurred, rather than an international war crime leading to the deaths of over one million Iraqis; a crime for which no western leader, or their media cheerleaders, has ever been tried in court. That outcome, in any serious responsible society, would have been more fitting than mere ‘jangling nerves’ among politicians.

But such narrative control is an endemic feature of state-corporate media, wrongly labelled ‘mainstream’. It is a fundamental requirement of political journalists and editors that they magically transform the crimes of ‘our’ governments into ‘miscalculations’, ‘mistakes’ or ‘misguided’ attempts to do good. This transformation is a power-serving alchemy turning the base metal of brutal realpolitik into the gold of benign intention, all for public consumption.

Noam Chomsky succinctly explained the ideological underpinning of ‘mainstream’ news coverage:

In discussion of international relations, the fundamental principle is that “we are good” – “we” being the government, on the totalitarian principle that state and people are one. “We” are benevolent, seeking peace and justice, though there may be errors in practice. “We” are foiled by villains who can’t rise to our exalted level.

— Chomsky, Interventions, Penguin Books, London, 2007, p. 101.

It does not matter how frequently, or how horrifically, this benevolent claim is violated by Western countries, journalists can be relied upon to perform the necessary whitewashing: the Gulf War in 1990-91, Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Iraq sanctions from 1990-2003, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, the destruction of Libya in 2011, the US-sponsored toppling of the Ukrainian government in 2014, US-Nato air strikes against Syria, participation in the Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, and now the attacks on ‘Iran-backed’ Houthi rebels. (Of course, convention decrees that the Houthi are always described as ‘Iran-backed’, whereas Israeli forces are not routinely labelled ‘US-backed’.)

The list goes on and on. You might well ask: at what point do supposedly astute, well-informed, senior editors and political correspondents simply stop regurgitating government propaganda; even start challenging it? How much blood has to be spilled, how many lives lost, how much vital infrastructure – homes, hospitals, power plants – destroyed by ‘our’ weaponry, with ‘our’ diplomatic, political and economic support?

But, of course, serious media challenge of elite power is highly unlikely. ‘Successful’ media professionals are fed through an industrial filter system that rewards steady adherence to state-approved narratives. As Chomsky once so memorably told a discombobulated Andrew Marr:

I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’

Misleading The Public Is State Policy

In several powerful books, based on careful research of formerly secret UK government documents, historian Mark Curtis, co-founder of Declassified UK, has laid bare the motivations and reality of British foreign policy. Ethical concerns and morality are notable in these internal state records by their absence. Curtis observed:

a basic principle is that humanitarian concerns do not figure at all in the rationale behind British foreign policy. In the thousands of government files I have looked through for this and other books, I have barely seen any reference to human rights at all. Where such concerns are evoked, they are only for public-relations purposes.

— Curtis, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, Vintage, London, 2004, p. 3.

He added:

in every case I have ever researched on past British foreign policy, the files show that ministers and officials have systematically misled the public. The culture of lying to and misleading the electorate is deeply embedded in British policy-making.

— Ibid., p. 3.

This is especially true when it comes to Western terrorism. But what exactly is terrorism? The definition from a US army manual is:

The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

— Chomsky, ‘The new war against terror’, talk given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 18 October 2001.

By this definition, the major source of international terrorism is the West, notably the United States, supported by its ‘special relationship’ ally, the UK. Curtis wrote:

The idea that Britain is a supporter of terrorism is an oxymoron in the mainstream political culture, as ridiculous as suggesting that Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes. Yet state-sponsored terrorism is by far the most serious category of terrorism in the world today, responsible for far more deaths in many more countries than the “private” terrorism of groups like Al Qaida. Many of the worst offenders are key British allies. Indeed, by any rational consideration, Britain is one of the leading supporters of terrorism in the world today. But this simple fact is never mentioned in the mainstream political culture.

— Curtis, Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World, Vintage, London, 2003, p. 94.

The US-UK-supported genocidal attacks by Israel on the people of Gaza, now extending to over 100 days, have made it ever more difficult for politicians and managers of public perception to maintain the myth of western benevolence and a ‘global rules-based order’.

The Financial Times reported last October:

Western support for Israel’s assault on Gaza has poisoned efforts to build consensus with significant developing countries on condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine, officials and diplomats have warned.

The FT article continued:

“We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South,” said one senior G7 diplomat. “All the work we have done with the Global South [over Ukraine] has been lost…Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again.”

The senior G7 diplomat added:

What we said about Ukraine has to apply to Gaza. Otherwise we lose all our credibility. The Brazilians, the South Africans, the Indonesians: why should they ever believe what we say about human rights?

Why indeed.

Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s foreign minister, observed recently that:

I think this notion of international rules is very comfortable for some people to use when it suits them but they don’t believe in international rules when it doesn’t suit them. Because they don’t apply international rules or law equally in all circumstances.

She added:

You can’t say because Ukraine has been invaded, suddenly sovereignty is important, but it was never important for Palestine.

To put it bluntly, the notion of the West upholding a rules-based international system is a blood-drenched myth.

Gaza – A War ‘To Save Western Civilisation’

Last week, South Africa presented a detailed 84-page submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – essentially the UN’s global law court – arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The case was brought under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The South African legal team showed ample evidence of Israeli genocidal acts in Gaza, as well as the stated intention to commit genocide, indicated in public statements by numerous senior Israeli political and military leaders. On 28 October last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech in which he compared the Palestinians to the Biblical people of Amalek. In the first Book of Samuel, God commanded King Saul to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel:

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

We could find no reference to Netanyahu’s genocidal comparison of the Palestinians to the Amalekites on the BBC News website.

Around 24,000 people have been killed in Gaza since 7 October last year, including over 10,300 children and 7,100 women. There may be another 7,000 buried under the rubble. In other words, over 70 per cent of those killed are women and children. Around four per cent of Gaza’s population has either been killed, wounded or is missing under rubble.

According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, by the end of 2023, 1.9 million people – nearly 85 per cent of the total population of Gaza – had been internally displaced under Israel’s attacks. These include many families who have been displaced multiple times, forcibly and repeatedly moved to try to flee Israel’s bombardment. But, as the UN has warned, there is no safe place in Gaza. Oxfam reported that Israel’s military is killing Palestinians at an average rate of 250 people a day, exceeding the daily death toll of any other major 21st century conflict. Many more lives are at risk from hunger, disease and cold, warned Oxfam.

As of 30 December, about 65,000 residential units in Gaza had been destroyed or made uninhabitable and over 290,000 housing units had been damaged, meaning that over half a million people will have no home to return to. Thirty out of Gaza’s thirty-six hospitals are not functioning, and the remaining six are only partially functioning.

Jonathan Cook noted that the West is now standing in the dock alongside Israel at the ICJ:

Israel expects support from western capitals because they have nearly as much to fear from a verdict against Israel as Israel itself. They have staunchly backed the killing spree, with the US and UK, in particular, sending weapons that are being used against the people of Gaza, making both potentially complicit.

Cook pointed out that it is significant that South Africa has brought the case of genocide against Israel. Both countries ‘bear the trauma of Europe’s long history of racial supremacism, but each has drawn precisely opposite lessons.’ As Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first post-apartheid president, said:

We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.

Israel’s most brutal assault in Gaza’s history is a continuation of its long war of oppression against the Palestinians. Israeli president Isaac Herzog described the genocidal attacks on Gaza as a war ‘to save Western civilization, to save the values of Western civilisation.’ As the political writer Caitlin Johnstone pointed out, Herzog was right; but not in the way he intended. She explained:

The demolition of Gaza is indeed being perpetrated in defense of western values, and is itself a perfect embodiment of western values. Not the western values they teach you about in school, but the hidden ones they don’t want you to look at.

Johnstone continued:

For centuries western civilization has depended heavily on war, genocide, theft, colonialism and imperialism, which it has justified using narratives premised on religion, racism and ethnic supremacy — all of which we are seeing play out in the incineration of Gaza today.

She added:

What we are seeing in Gaza is a much better representation of what western civilization is really about than all the gibberish about freedom and democracy we learned about in school.

A BBC News report on the ICJ proceedings was titled, with fake balance, ‘South Africa’s genocide case against Israel: Both sides play heavy on emotion in ICJ hearing’. This was a distortion of the truth: the South African case was presented with dignity, clarity and forensic detail. As the BBC conceded deep in its report, it was Israel who made a strong appeal to emotions, displaying the images of 132 missing Israelis – most of them still being held hostage in Gaza. But, as Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, noted of Israel’s legal case:

Its repeated invocation of Hamas’s horrible 7 October attack and alleged genocidal aspirations are irrelevant because atrocities by one side do not justify genocide by another. Its argument of self-defence is beside the point because a legitimate defence does not allow genocide.

BBC News marked one hundred days of the current phase of the Israel-Palestine crisis with a classic example of propaganda bias. The BBC website headlined a major 3,000-word piece on the October 7 attacks. Underneath, there was a tiny link to a one-minute video of footage from Gaza that clearly underplayed the level of destruction. This is called BBC ‘impartiality’.

True to form, Washington is doing its utmost to protect Israel. During a press briefing, US national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters:

South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel is “meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever”.

Interviewed by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and law professor, Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University responded to Kirby’s dismissive remark:

I just wish there were grown-ups in power. Grown-ups who are responsible, who are honest, who are decent, who would read an 84-page detailed complaint and give a serious answer, rather than a one-sentence smack-off like that.

He added:

I wish, at the same time, that the White House press corps would follow up more seriously. Actually, if I remember correctly, that question started with a few words, “Just a quick one”. And then the question was asked and Kirby responded in this utterly disgusting way when the most important issue on the planet is in front of him, and couldn’t do more than one dismissive, phony and false statement. But then there’s no follow-up [by the journalists at the press briefing]. Then they move on to the next topic. And the next topic.

Sachs continued:

Why don’t the journalists do their job, rather than feeding us the propaganda from the White House? They should be questioning the propaganda. That’s why I was grateful for today’s [ICJ] court proceedings because there were hours to put forward the evidence. There is a detailed legal complaint. There are dozens of countries that have supported this. But the US government is all spin, all propaganda, and all attempt at narrative control.

This is, of course, standard behaviour for the world’s major perpetrator of terrorism.

The Language Of Genocide

Media academics have analysed Israel-Palestine coverage and found that Palestinian perspectives are given ‘far less time and legitimacy’ than Israeli views in the British media. Last month, Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the highly-respected Glasgow Media Group examined four weeks (7 October – 4 November, 2023) of BBC One daytime coverage of Gaza to identify which terms were used by journalists themselves – i.e. not in direct or reported statements – to describe Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

They found that ‘murder’, ‘murderous’, ‘mass murder’, ‘brutal murder’ and ‘merciless murder’ were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. Philo and Berry noted that:

The same pattern could be seen in relation to “massacre”, “brutal massacre” and “horrific massacre” (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths); “atrocity”, “horrific atrocity” and “appalling atrocity” (22 times for Israeli deaths, once for Palestinian deaths); and “slaughter” (five times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths).

But more importantly:

The Palestinian perspective is effectively absent from the coverage, in how they understand the reasons for the conflict and the nature of the occupation under which they are living.

Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, once observed that what is routinely missing from BBC coverage is that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land:

demeans and degrades people: not just the killing and the destruction, but the humiliation, the attempt to crush the human spirit and remove the identity; not just the bullet in the brain and the tank through the door, but the faeces Israel’s soldiers rub on the plundered ministry walls, the trashed kindergarten; the barriers to a people’s work, prayers and hopes.

Emre Azizlerli, a former senior BBC producer, said recently via X (formerly Twitter):

I worked there for over 20 years. Internal boards determine who gets promoted by a panel of the applicant’s superiors. The political likes and dislikes of those at the very top easily trickle down in this chain mechanism all the way down to how producers behave, since everyone wants to please their boss to move ahead.

No wonder that a Morning Star tribute to the late John Pilger, who reported on Palestine over many years, noted that his death ‘leaves a void’, adding:

There are few investigative journalists of his courage or integrity. And designedly so. From the censorship of “hostile” voices across the internet to the outrageous incarceration of Julian Assange, every effort is being made to stamp out independent journalism.

Throughout his career, Pilger drew attention to the role of the media as ‘an appendage of established power’. Addressing a conference last March, organised by the Morning Star, he called for:

urgent debate and activism around the issue of the media… the media was rarely a friend of working people, but there were spaces for independent journalists in the mainstream.

He continued:

My own career is testament to that. Until a few years ago I worked in mainstream newspapers — in later years the Guardian mainly — but the Guardian like the others is now closed to independent thinking and honest journalism… we need to understand that the media is now fully integrated into an extremist state, and that working people must look elsewhere — to the Morning Star, yes, and to oases on the internet where good journalism flourishes.

Pilger often cast a sceptical eye on those whom we are supposed to regard as the best journalists working in the major news media. They are nevertheless performing a propaganda role by demarcating the permissible limits of reporting. For example:

BBC reporter, Jeremy Bowen, who talks about a war between Israel and Hamas. Bowen knows that’s wrong. It’s an attack on an occupied people by the occupier, Israel, backed by great powers.

State-corporate journalism – BBC News is a prime example – is far removed from the mythical notion of reporting the truth to the public. As the playwright John McGrath once wrote:

The gentlemen at the head of the powerful opinion-forming corporations do not wish to have their articulate mediation of reality disturbed by a group of people going around with a different story, seeing events from a different perspective, even selecting different information. Still less do they wish to have the population at large emerging from their mental retreat – the inner exile of the powerless and alienated – and demanding a share of power, of control, of freedom.’

— McGrath, A Good Night Out: Popular Theatre: Audience, Class and Form, Nick Hern Books, 1981, pp. 89-90.

We should all reject the output of ‘the powerful opinion-forming corporations’ and look elsewhere, to those internet oases of real journalism, in order to understand the world and to radically change it for the better.

Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. The most recent Media Lens book, Propaganda Blitz by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2018 by Pluto Press. Read other articles by Media Lens, or visit Media Lens's website.

 

Why is the Real Story of October 7 Off-limits to Western, but not Israeli, Media?

Israeli army ‘ethics’ chief says crimes committed by soldiers against Israel’s own civilians are ‘horrifying’. How is this not newsworthy for British journalists?

by Jonathan Cook / January 19th, 2024

The Israeli Haaretz newspaper interviewed this week the army’s “ethics” chief, Asa Kasher, of Tel Aviv university, about two major incidents on October 7:

1. An Israeli commander ordered a tank to fire into a home in Kibbutz Be’eri knowing that there were 14 Israeli civilians inside, incinerating them.

2. Israeli helicopters fired missiles at dozens of cars with Israeli hostages inside, killing the inhabitants, again often by incinerating them.

In both cases, the official Israeli narrative is that Hamas was responsible for these “barbaric” acts, supposedly justifying the genocide Israel is carrying out – “in response” – against the civilian Palestinian population of Gaza.

Haaretz and Kasher ascribe these “friendly fire” incidents to Israel’s classified “Hannibal directive”, which requires soldiers to stop Israelis being taken hostage at all costs. Kasher thinks – probably wrongly – that the directive was misunderstood and misapplied by commanders on the day.

Urging an immediate investigation, Kasher says of the first incident: “How is it possible that a high ranking army official would give a command that so immediately and definitely endangers the life of so many civilians? It’s just horrifying.”

And of the second incident, he says: “This sounds totally unacceptable from every aspect. Against orders. Against procedure. Against values. Against ethics. And possibly against the law.”

Efforts to re-examine the Israeli government’s October 7 narrative are all over the Israeli media. Many of the families of the Israelis killed on October 7 are demanding an investigation.

So how is it possible that the BBC and the rest of the western media keep revisiting the horrors of October 7 but never to raise these issues , even though they have been so prominent in the Israeli public space for many weeks?

The only possible answer is that western media outlets are consciously censoring this story because it directly conflicts with the West’s ideological and strategic agenda. It raises disturbing questions about western complicity in genocide.

Once again, the establishment media’s unwillingness to report the real story starkly gives the lie to their claim to be ‘free and fearless’.

In truth, they are there to uphold a narrative of western moral and civilisational superiority. They are there to justify the West’s wars – and the war industry and resource-grab portfolios that our economies, and the media corporations themselves, are so heavily invested in.

My own discussion of Israel’s killing of its citizens on October 7 can be read here:

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

Cancelling the Journalist: The ABC’s Coverage of the Israel-Gaza War

by Binoy Kampmark / January 17th, 2024

What a cowardly act it was.  A national broadcaster, dedicated to what should be fearless reporting, cowed by the intemperate bellyaching of a lobby concerned about coverage of the Israel-Gaza war.  The investigation by The Age newspaper was revealing in showing that the dismissal of broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against the corporation’s management.  This included its chair, Ita Buttrose, and managing director David Anderson.

The official reason for that dismissal was disturbingly ordinary.  Lattouf had not, for instance, decided to become a flag-swathed bomb thrower for the Palestinian cause.  She had engaged in no hostage taking campaign, nor intimidated any Israeli figure.  The sacking had purportedly been made over sharing a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel that mentioned “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.  It also noted the express intention by Israeli officials to pursue this strategy.   Actions are also documented: the deliberate blocking of the delivery of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid.”  The sharing by Lattouf took place following a direction not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Human Rights Watch might be accused of many things: the dolled up corporate face of human rights activism; the activist transformed into fundraising agent and boardroom gaming strategist.  But to share material from the organisation on alleged abuses is hardly a daredevil act of dangerous hair-raising radicalism.

Prior to the revelations in The Age, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter, a stint that was to last for five shows.  The Australian, true to form, had its own issue with Lattouf’s statements made on various online platforms.  In December, the paper found it strange that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance.”  She was also accused of denying the lurid interpretations put upon footage from protests outside Sydney Opera House, some of which called for gassing Jews.  And she dared accused the Israeli forces of committing rape.

It was also considered odd that she discuss such matters as food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”.  That “left ‘a lot of people really upset’.”  If war is hell, then Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it – at least when concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What also transpires is that the ABC managers were not merely targeting Lattouf on their own, sadistic initiative.  Pressure of some measure had been exercised from outside the organisation.  According to The Age, WhatsApp messages had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign by a group called Lawyers for Israel.

The day Lattouf was sacked, Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein buzzingly began proceedings by telling members of the group to contact the federal minister for communication asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show.”  Employing Lattouff apparently breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on impartiality.

Stein cockily went on to insist that, “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”  She goes on to read that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel.”

Did such windy threats have any basis?  No, according to Stein.  “I know there is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one – just investigating one.  I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”  Utterly charming, and sufficiently so to attract attention from the ABC chairperson herself, who asked for further venting of concerns.

Indeed, another member of the haranguing clique, Robert Goot, also deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, could boast of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her anti-Israeli stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.  Nour Haydar, an Australian journalist also of Lebanese descent, resigned expressing her concerns about the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict at the broadcaster.  There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC News director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve the coverage of the conflict.  “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens explained to staff.  “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the accepted line, however credible they might be.  What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes, and brings about conditions approximating to genocide.  Little wonder that coverage on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC news headlines.

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, on the other hand, can always be written about as brute savages, rapists and baby slayers.  Throw in fanaticism and Islam, and you have the complete package ready for transmission.  Coverage in the mainstays of most Western liberal democracies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out with pungency, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her signation Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald that, “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”  But Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war and any other divisive topic is shared.  The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth, which is distinctly narrowing at the national broadcaster.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission, and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.  “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at the treatment of Lattouf for sharing HRW material, suggesting the ABC had erred.  ABC’s senior management, through a statement from managing director David Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial, rejecting “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity.”  They would, wouldn’t they?