Dear cj, The first article below, "Media Ignores Broad Mideast Consensus" (from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), illustrates how matrix reality is constructed, through a combination of omission, spin, and repitition. The second article, from MER, introduces a CIA angle, and quotes a Reuters dispatch, "U.N. INVESTIGATOR SAYS ISRAELI KILLINGS 'UNPRECEDENTED'" which is also not likely to show up in the US media matrix. The third article is from a 'Sam Kiley in Ramallah', and is entitled "No bangs, no smoking guns: victims just fell and bled", and talks about Israeli snipers using silenced, high-powered rifles to pick off individual protestors. Meanwhile, in the matrix, we have: Israel's ambassador Yaakov Levy took the floor to defend the record of Israeli security forces in the occupied territories, who he said had ``returned fire only when absolutely necessary.'' I want to get on to other things, but it's difficult to ignore the Middle East at this time. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:09:03 -0500 To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• From: Mark Douglas Whitaker <•••@••.•••> Subject: [FAIR-L] Media Advisory: Muffled Coverage of UN Vote Mime-Version: 1.0 ---<fwd>--- FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Media analysis, critiques and news reports MEDIA ADVISORY: Muffled Coverage of U.N. Vote: Media Ignores Broad Mideast Consensus October 16, 2000 U.S. media have been ignoring or downplaying an important dimension of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. On October 7, the United Nations Security Council voted 14 to 0 for a resolution condemning Israel's "excessive use of force against Palestinians" and deploring the "provocation" of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's September 28 visit to the Temple Mount. The United States was the only Security Council member to abstain from the vote, which it did after trying to soften the language of the resolution. The outcome was generally interpreted as assigning most of the responsibility for the violence to Israel. The conservative Times of London editorial page called it a "stinging rebuff" (10/9/00). The Security Council members who voted in favor of the unanimous measure included the United States' closest allies in NATO-- Britain, Canada and the Netherlands. Britain, America's closest ally, "in part brokered" the resolution, according to foreign secretary Robin Cook, "and we certainly stand by it" (Agence France Presse, 10/8/00). NATO ally France also voted in favor, as did Argentina, which generally votes with Washington. Permanent members Russia and China voted in favor, as did several countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The Associated Press (10/7/00) described the measure as "bitterly fought-over," but Argentina's U.N. delegate told Agence France Presse (10/7/00): "Most members of the council have no problem with the resolution. It is a problem for the American delegation." Despite the broad global consensus-- minus the United States and Israel-- highlighted by the resolution's passage, coverage in the U.S. media was scant and indifferent. When the media did report the vote, it was almost always treated as a dilemma for U.S. policymakers rather than a statement of world opinion. Virtually no news outlet reported which countries voted for the measure. In a news cycle that has focused overwhelmingly on the question of who is to blame for the current violence, the media's indifference to an international vote on the issue is striking. As Britain's U.N. delegate noted during the debate over the vote, the Security Council "does not have an army, but is a judge of international affairs and is expected to pronounce on such matters" (AFP, 10/7/00). Information about world opinion is especially needed in the U.S., whose government has long been internationally isolated in its staunch support for Israeli military actions. But important newspapers with substantial international coverage relegated the U.N. vote to a few passing sentences within other stories-- e.g., the Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune (all 10/8/00) and USA Today (10/9/00). Only three of the top 36 U.S. papers in the Nexis database-- the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Long Island Newsday-- devoted articles to the vote (all 10/8/00). None of these papers' headlines mentioned Israel by name; for example, Newsday's misleadingly vague "U.N. Measure Condemns Violence." Although all three of these papers have full-time U.N. correspondents, all used wire stories. None of the 36 newspapers reported which Security Council members voted for the resolution. A week later (10/14/00), the New York Times' U.N. correspondent, Barbara Crossette, mischaracterized what the resolution said. She reported American U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's vow to veto any further Security Council resolutions after the U.S. "abstained on a resolution in the Security Council last weekend broadly criticizing the renewal of fighting." (The resolution actually singled out Israel.) On television, coverage was even thinner. The only chance CBS Evening News viewers had to learn about the resolution was from a story on the Hillary Clinton/Rick Lazio Senate debate (10/8/00). Lazio said he was "gravely disappointed" that the Clinton administration didn't veto the resolution. "Mrs. Clinton agreed," added reporter Diana Olick. NBC's Middle East coverage included some passing remarks by White House correspondent Joe Johns (NBC Nightly News, 10/8/00) reporting that "the disagreement over which side should bear the greatest blame spilled over to the United Nations." Johns explained that the measure criticized Israel and that the U.S. abstained-- but viewers were not told whether the resolution passed, or what the vote was. On ABC's World News Tonight (10/8/00), the vote didn't even make it into State Department correspondent Martha Raddatz's story, but had to be inserted by anchor Carol Simpson in a three-sentence lead-in. The U.N. resolution got the most coverage on the Sunday morning talk shows, where the pundits could barely contain their dismay at the administration's failure to veto the measure. On NBC's Meet the Press (10/8/00), Tim Russert grilled Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the abstention. When Albright said she "felt that it was important that we abstain on this resolution because of the kind of language that was in it," Russert prodded: "Well, why not veto it?" After she responded, Russert persisted: "But by abstaining and not vetoing, it did go into force, a resolution which condemns in effect Israel for excessive use of force." Interviewing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger on ABC's This Week (10/8/00), Sam Donaldson called the decision to abstain "remarkable," adding that "perhaps not since the Falklands War" had the U.S. failed to veto a resolution condemning one of its allies. For the pundits, the United States' isolation in abstaining from a unanimous U.N. resolution never came up as an issue. As New York Times reporter Barbara Crossette noted a week after the vote (10/14/00), "the Clinton Administration came under criticism from across the political spectrum for abstaining, and not vetoing, the resolution last week." Perhaps the media were hesitant to cover the unanimous U.N. vote because it showed how isolated this domestic consensus is from world opinion. The American public should hear from all sides in the volatile debate over the Mideast conflict. ---------- Feel free to respond to FAIR ( •••@••.••• ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us at: •••@••.••• . FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm and Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings. FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 120 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html . Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993. FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, please e-mail Peter Hart (•••@••.•••) You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to •••@••.••• . Our subscriber list is kept confidential. You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF FAIR-L" in the body to: •••@••.••• . FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ E-mail: •••@••.••• list administrators: •••@••.••• ============================================================================ X-Sent: 18 Oct 2000 00:38:00 GMT X-Sender: •••@••.••• From: MER <•••@••.•••> To: "MER" <•••@••.•••> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:37:05 +0000 Subject: Killings of Palestinans "Unprecedented" Says U.N. Envoy Reply-To: •••@••.••• Organization: MiD-EasT RealitieS MIME-Version: 1.0 _______ ____ ______ / |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S / /|_/ / /_/_ / /\ Making Sense of the Middle East /_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \ http://www.MiddleEast.Org News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups, and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know! * * * * * * * IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT! To receive MER regularly email to •••@••.••• ARAFAT - NO EXCUSES ON THIS ONE MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 10/17: On this one, Arafat really has no excuse. Why his primary focus has been on an International Commission of Inquiry for weeks now, rather than on a fully independent Palestinian State minus the Israeli Army, is itself a bit disconcerting. Maybe a diversion of attention? But since he has focused on it so much, then at least at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit he should have held his ground firmly on this one. The notion that instead the U.S. can head up a "fact-finding" committee, one whose members they couldn't even decide on at the summit, is rather ludicrous in view of the long U.S. record of standing with Israel against the entire world, including at the recent Security Council meeting. What was really decided at Sharm, we are told, were secret protocols involving the CIA, the Israelis, and the "Palestinian Authority" that will be used to "control" the Palestinians...to "pacify the Palestinian Street" to quote none other than Hosni Mubarak. This is a continuation of what was agreed at Wye River, when the role of the CIA was made much more public than ever before, though of course what actually goes on remains quite secret and covert. Why secret...precisely because Arafat's role as a kind of local enforcer, a partial collaborator, remains in effect no matter what the public posturing and pretense. That is why the Israelis agreed to bring Arafat and his troops on board after the Gulf War and at Oslo. And that is why Yasser Arafat has been the foreign guest most frequently welcomed at the White House during the Clinton years. The fact that Arafat caved even on this International Investigation he has been so insistent about is just more proof, if any more is needed, of this sad and tragic reality -- the "double occupation" we have spoken of for many years now. Arafat had all the ammunition he needed -- a unanimous Security Council resolution (but for the U.S. abstention), the presence of the U.N. Secretary-General. On this issue he simply could have said: "While we continue to rely on the U.S. to bring us together with the Israelis for negotiations, the international community has voted and the U.N. must be the body that establishes and legitimizes the International Commission. This is the minimum role for the U.N. to put this small amount of action behind its words." But of course he did not. In the end, he did as he was told he must..."or else". Meanwhile, a U.N. Commission on Human Rights envoy has in fact been investigated, the result of a previous semi-secret agreement. And just today the following has become known: U.N. INVESTIGATOR SAYS ISRAELI KILLINGS "UNPRECEDENTED" By Stephanie Nebehay GENEVA (Reuters - 17 October 2000) - A U.N. investigator to the Palestinian territories said Tuesday the scale of Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli forces during a wave of violence over the past 20 days was ``unprecedented.'' Giorgio Giacomelli, an independent rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to monitor the territories, also expressed concern about what he called Israeli settler ''paramilitaries'' who he said were responsible for at least five Palestinian deaths in the West Bank. The former Italian diplomat, who has also headed the U.N. refugee agency which cares for 3.7 million Palestine refugees scattered in the Middle East, backed setting up a ``mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the ongoing crisis.'' The report on his Oct 11-15 mission, which said Israeli killings of Palestinians exceeded the first four months of the 1987-88 intifada, was issued to the U.N. human rights commission Tuesday at a two-day special session in Geneva. The forum's 53 member states began the session in Geneva on the same day as a Middle East crisis summit in Egypt ended with an Israeli-Palestinian agreement to halt the wave violence that has claimed the lives of at least 105 people. An overwhelming majority of those killed were Palestinians or Israeli Arabs. ``In some sense the scale of this violation is unprecedented. It is worthy of note that the number of deaths caused by Israeli forces so far approximate the number killed in the first four months of the intifada, in 1987-88,'' Giacomelli said in his seven-page report issued in Geneva. Israel, which does not recognize his mandate, refused to cooperate with the U.N. investigator, according to his report. Israel's ambassador Yaakov Levy took the floor to defend the record of Israeli security forces in the occupied territories, who he said had ``returned fire only when absolutely necessary.'' ``Deadly Force Used Without Warning'' Giacomelli also supported establishing a permanent mechanism to ensure that as an occupying power, Israel issues and obeys orders which comply with international humanitarian norms. In case of violations, it would determine accountability, assign punishment and redress violations, his report said. Israeli forces ``appear to have indiscriminately used excessive force in cases where there was no imminent threat to their lives,'' according to Giacomelli, who met Palestinian Authority representatives, Palestinian and Israeli non-governmental organizations, international organizations, human rights monitors, medical professionals, and some wounded. ``Whether in cases of Israel Defense Forces or Israeli police actions, deadly force is used without warning, and without employing deterrence or gradual measures consistent with the minimum standards and methods of crowd control or management of civil unrest,'' Giacomelli's report said. The report also said that about 40 percent of an estimated 2,000 to 3,700 Palestinians wounded by Israeli occupation forces were under age 18 and that at least half of the injuries resulted from the use of live ammunition. Israeli settlers in the West Bank were ``responsible for at least five of these Palestinian deaths over the past 18 days,'' the report said. ``Presently, the Israeli settler population has emerged as an increasingly obvious source of paramilitary activity...Numerous reports indicate that Israeli occupation forces have not acted to deter such paramilitary activities,'' it said. ``Some Palestinians bearing arms'' had taken part in the protests,'' the report said. ``These new factors, within a context of escalating violence, form a particularly alarming development that calls for urgent action.'' -------------- MER Note: We made a little mistake in an earlier article today. President Clinton did actually mention U.N. Resolution 242 when he spoke today. We missed it at first in the haste of the initial reports. But even so, a rhetorical mention -- one of the few little bones thrown out to the Palestinians -- doesn't change the reality that U.S. policy ever since the passage of 242 in 1967 has been to make sure it never gets implimented. That said, we stand corrected...it was mentioned. ---------------- MiD-EasT RealitieS - www.MiddleEast.Org Phone: 202 362-5266 Fax: 815 366-0800 Email: •••@••.••• To subscriibe email to •••@••.••• with subject SUBSCRIBE To unsubscribe email to •••@••.••• with subject UNSUBSCRIBE ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:42:47 EDT Subject: No bangs,no smoke victims just fell and bled... Bcc: •••@••.••• MIME-Version: 1.0 TUESDAY OCTOBER 17 2000 No bangs, no smoking guns: victims just fell and bled SAM KILEY IN RAMALLAH The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,20442,00.html ISRAELI snipers using specialised rifles fitted with silencers yesterday picked off high-profile Palestinian rioters in Ramallah in an apparent bid to "take out" ringleaders of the 19-day uprising. Stone-throwing youths watched, stunned, as men and boys at the barricades collapsed with small bullet holes in their chests, testicles, arms and hips. Those wounded included the nephew of Marwan Barghouti, the leader of the West Bank intifada who has been using the uprising to position himself as a potential successor to Yassir Arafat. Coming soon after an Israeli armoured vehicle charge at rioters, no one knew quite what to do about the new approach to riot control. The Israelis hurled stun grenades, and fired the occasional rubber bullet. The Palestinians were used to that, ducking and diving and chucking stones back. But the use of rounds which apparently came from nowhere terrified the crowds. There were no bangs, no smoking guns. The victims just flopped down and bled, sometimes unnoticed. Tahir Afaneh, 18, was unmoved by the sight of two men who fell close to him and were whisked away by ambulance. He already had an arm and a knee bandaged from rubber bullet wounds sustained earlier in the "al-Aqsa intifada". Easily visible in a white T-shirt, Mr Afaneh stepped from behind a car to whirr his slingshot and take aim at Israeli soldiers 100 yards away. There was no sound of a shot, but he spun around, falling on his back. "I didn't hear a thing. I didn't feel much, I just fell over," he said in Ramallah's central hospital where he was treated for a wound to his pelvis, where the bullet lodged. Hosni Atari, the doctor who treated him, said he had never seen the results of the new Israeli weapon before. Hollow-nosed bullets opened like an umbrella on impact, spun about, chewing up internal organs, and seldom left an exit wound. The long-barrel 22mm rifle was deadly even at long range -- and had the advantage of never revealing the sniper's nest. "These are intended to cause the maximum amount of damage to a person," Dr Atari said. He treated seven such patients yesterday. As the Israeli and Palestinian leadership talked peace in Sharm el-Sheik, another patient was rushed in. This time, it was Tamir Barghouti, whose uncle had declared at the funeral of a Palestinian gunman yesterday: "Our intifada is greater than Sharm el Sheik". Tamir Barghouti, 23, had been shot through the abdomen and the bullet lodged in his hip. "He might make it," Dr Atari told Marwan Barghouti, who took the opportunity to announce to journalists outside the operating theatre: "The talks in Egypt will fail. We support Mr Arafat, but we wish he had not bothered to go. There is only one solution, and that is to put an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine." By sunset, the toll across the West Bank was two dead -- a boy of 13 and a policeman -- a 14-year old boy described as clinically dead, and 69 wounded. ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• CDR website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ featured article: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Whole_Earth_Review/Escaping_the_Matrix.shtml A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .