zondag 10 juni 2018

Israel Attempts to Smear Razan al-Najjar, Palestinian Medic It Killed, Calling Her “No Angel”



Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the intercept




Palestinian protesters evacuate a female medic of Razan Najjar, 21, youth near the Gaza Strip's border with Israel, during a protest east of Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, Friday, June 1, 2018. Najjar, was shot in the chest and died later at hospital, the Health Ministry said. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)



Israel Attempts to Smear Razan al-Najjar, Palestinian Medic It Killed, Calling Her “No Angel”

June 8 2018, 4:57 p.m.



ISRAEL’S ARMY RELEASED a deceptively edited video on Thursday, hoping to tarnish the image of Razan al-Najjar, a Palestinian paramedic killed by Israeli fire in Gaza last week.
According to witness testimony, al-Najjar, who was 21, was gunned down last Friday after she and other medics, walking with their hands up and wearing white vests, approached the perimeter that confines Palestinians to Gaza in order to treat a wounded protester.

TOPSHOT - Palestinian paramedics approach the barbed wire fence with Israel to tend to injured protesters during clashes along the border east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza strip on June 1, 2018. (Photo by Said KHATIB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAID KHATIB/AFP/Getty Images)
Palestinian paramedics approached Israel’s perimeter fence around Gaza to tend to injured protesters, east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on June 1, 2018.

Photo: Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images
Video released by the health ministry in Gaza, said to show al-Najjar and the others just before the Israelis opened fire, seemed to confirm that their hands were in the air as they advanced.

The fatal shooting of the young woman, who had spoken eloquently about her lifesaving role to a New York Times video journalist and on Lebanese television, has been a public relations disaster for Israel.

Killing al-Najjar, who clearly posed no threat to its soldiers, made it difficult for Israel’s army to argue that its snipers targeted only “rioters” in Gaza and did not fire indiscriminately at peaceful protesters, journalists, and medics.
In response to an international outcry over her death, the Israel Defense Forces said earlier this week that al-Najjar had been killed accidentally by a soldier aiming at someone else. Then, on Thursday, the army’s social media unit began a coordinated smear campaign against her, by falsely suggesting in a video that she had been engaged in rioting and had attended the protests to shield militants disguised as protesters.
As evidence of “rioting,” the military offered just 10 seconds of video, underpinned by music suitable for a horror movie, which showed a woman who was dressed like al-Najjar tossing away a tear gas canister fired at protesters by Israeli forces. If the woman was al-Najjar, the video only showed her participating in a ritual familiar to protesters around the world — tossing tear gas fired at them as far away as possible. The video also shows that she hurled the canister only a short distance, and it landed nowhere near any Israeli soldiers.
The second part of the video that supposedly excuses the killing of al-Najjar is half a sentence clipped from an interview she gave to the Lebanese broadcaster Al Mayadeen News, in which she had called her role as a protest medic being “a human shield to protect and save the injured on the front lines.” An Israeli military editor cut that sentence in half to make it seems as if al-Najjar had been caught admitting that she was only present to provide cover to militants.
Despite these obvious shortcomings, a version of the video was shared by Ofir Gendelman, a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as an Arabic speaker, must have been aware that the medic’s comments had been taken out of context.
Joe Dyke of Agence France-Presse reported that Gendelman “denied that the editing of the video to remove the full context about serving injured people could be seen as political manipulation.” If al-Najjar acted as a human shield, Gendelman told AFP, that meant that she was “not a medic.”
The video was also shared by Netanyahu’s former spokesperson, Mark Regev, who is now Israel’s ambassador to Britain; Israel’s foreign ministry; and Maj. Avichay Adraee, an Arabic language spokesperson for the Israeli military, who claimed on Twitter that the video somehow proved that al-Najjar was “no angel.”
The smear campaign outraged Palestinian and Israeli observers who oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and lying.
Michael Omer-Man, the editor-in-chief of Israel’s +972 Magazine, noted that Israel’s military has a track record when it comes to releasing heavily edited videos of questionable ethics.
In 2010, the Israeli army also released what appeared to be fake audio, intended to discredit the Turkish-led Gaza flotilla, of an activist supposedly saying to an Israeli officer over the radio, “Shut up, go back to Auschwitz,” and, “We’re helping Arabs go against the U.S. Don’t forget 9/11, guys.”
While such videos have failed to convince critics of Israel’s military, an Israeli public which overwhelmingly supports the use of force in Gaza might be more easily swayed. (A recent poll found that 62 percent of Jewish Israelis think their military has used the right amount of force in response to the protests in Gaza, where more than 3,500 Palestinian protesters have been shot and at least 120 have been killed. Another 28 percent of the Jewish Israeli public says the army has used too little force.)
“The IDF spokesperson published an edited video, comprised of clips that have no connection to each other nor to the day al-Najjar was killed, to justify the killing of the young paramedic, to prove that she was not simply an innocent nurse, and to present her as a terrorist or a potential terrorist,” Yael Marom observed in +972 Magazine.
“The video says: It was okay to kill her, she was an Arab,” he added. “And Israel’s mainstream outlets, to prove their patriotism and to boost their ratings, completely bought the IDF’s spin. They published the clip without questions or clarifications or warnings that it was not in any verified, and that it in no way justifies her killing. A broadcaster on one of Israel’s most-watched channels even said, without any proof of this in the video, that al-Najjar threw the tear gas canister ‘during a violent protest.'”
Gepost door op Geen opmerkingen:

The Philip Cross Affair


Craig Murray



The Philip Cross Affair 770

18 May, 2018  in Uncategorized by 
UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.
133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:
The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.
There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.
Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?
Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.
This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.
The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.
Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.
“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So are Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.
There is no doubt that Kamm, leader wirter of Murdoch’s Times, is close the the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple persona. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.
Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.
What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views, and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is in fact an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.
What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.
The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.
In response many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.
Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?
I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.
“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.
I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That excjange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”
has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:
George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.
My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right wing fanatic.
Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.
In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:
I am slightly concerned lest I am myself getting obsessed. Do you find this as fascinating as I do?

Gepost door op Geen opmerkingen:
Abonneren op: Posts (Atom)