(Un)veiling Evil?

When Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Yvette Cooper, stood up in the House of Commons, to renounce the israeli National Security Minister, itamar ben-gvir, for his treatment of the brave souls aboard the most recent Gaza Flotilla, she left an awful lot for the more discerning viewer/listener to disassemble. So very much did she leave!

When I became aware that Cooper had made the aforementioned statement, upon an israeli minister already being sanctioned for inciting colonial-settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, it came to me, first I think, via Clive Myrie's BBC. So, referencing the BBC's own report, we are able to learn that, in making such a statement, Cooper went so far as to align herself with both the US Ambassador to israel, Mike Huckabee- who described the actions as 'despicable'- and israel's President, benjamin netanyahu, both of whom also went 'so far' as to 'condemn' ben-gvir's actions.  Cooper ventured thus far but, effectively, no further did she dare to tread. So, Huckerbee and Netanyahu? Cooper, aiming high?

Even israel's own Foreign Minister, gideon saar, slithered 'so far' as to say, "You knowingly caused harm to our state in this disgraceful display - and not for the first time." Which is quite something, coming from any minister batting at the behest of any State, or 'other,' in an ongoing Genocide. For his ignoble part, ben-gvir's actions have done many things- amongst which we should also include 'with the provision of accumulating evidence which must, now, be used in the prosecution of a Genocide.' But- and we must be clear on this issue- ben-gvir's actions absolutely could not have piled on any further shame to the reputation of israel. For those who have been paying attention, israel has long since maxed out in this regard! Long, long since. And some!

Though she seeks to separate herself from the greater monster that is ben-gvir, Minister Cooper is also deeply complicit in the israeli Genocide. The BBC, for the manner in which it has covered the israeli bloody spectacle, should also be considered to be in the cross-hairs. Anyone who has ever written to complain about the BBC will know that this, that of responding to being held in the 'cross-hairs' of accountability, is not one of the Corporation's greater strengths. Nor should it be considered to be amongst any of its better selling points, despite what Mr Myrie and his battle for truth may have you believe. 

Sticking with the same BBC report, we can see that David Gritten gives greater weight to the israeli lies that Gaza is "flooded with aid", relaying that 'more than 1.5 million tonnes of aid and thousands of tonnes of medical supplies had entered the territory over the past seven months,' ahead of anything the UN has had to say about the humanitarian crisis. For the duration of the still-accumulating thousands of israeli War Crimes, the BBC has consistently sought to favour air time for israeli spokespeople, over all and any claims to the contrary. 

Lest one should have forgotten, or not read the damned thing, the article concluded right back in the echo-chamber of '7th October 2023.' Right back at 'Day One,' the day upon which the stolen and militarily occupied territories of Palestine broke with that 'heaven upon Earth' that had, right up until that point, been afforded them by their colonial 'landlords, israel.' Or not- do some reading, why not?   

So long has the Corporation been mired in deceit that we might have been forgiven for sailing right on past the report's opening slight of hand- 'after far-right National Security Minister, ben-gvir,' cropping up as early as paragraph two. In Gritten's choice of wording, sentiment so aptly framed, also, by Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, we are led to conclude two things: one, that ben-gvir leans heavily to the right but, also, and more pertinently, that israel does not condone his actions, that they are atypical of that 'state.' The sentence seeks to set him apart from his zionist compatriots. The former is true the latter is not! The latter is mere theatre- a theatre of truth, if you will.   

Wishing to cover her arse and no further, Cooper does not elaborate upon the fact that the entire flotilla, packed with supplies that might highlight to the world the inhuman treatment of Palestinians, was intercepted deep into international waters- effectively 'kidnapped'- nor that it was fired upon in international waters, nor the fact that there are multiple instances of documented rape and other torture upon the detainees. Nor does she elaborate upon israel's Genocide upon, specifically, Gaza, nor the state of that nation, not the infrastructure, nor the severely depleted Gazan population. No, our Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs was also performing her very own piece of theatre for the cameras.  

Cooper summoned the israeli Charge d'Affaires, not israel's Ambassador to the UK, who she did not expel, nor did she appear to wish to escalate the incident in any manner that might question Britain's role, nor challenge israel's status as 'close ally to the UK.' The camera angle did not show Cooper's feet so the viewer was not able to determine whether any blood stains had been trodden into the carpet. 

As Cooper elected not to elaborate upon israel's (as a self declared state) wider treatment of those it had kidnapped in international waters the narrative did not lend itself onward and towards questions such as, 'if ben-gvir is prepared to treat, with such distain, kidnapped citizen's from (seemingly) any other country, how are we to suppose he, and others of similar persuasion, treat Palestinians?' I don't believe that Minister Cooper even went so far as to question israel's ongoing acts of piracy in international waters. 

Nor did this 'narrative' appear to have further questioned the validity of continuing to supply arms to such a place as israel. Nor did it question the morality of continuing to permit the manufacture of weapons to be used in an ongoing Genocide, in factories operating in the UK.  Nor whether those who would act to interrupt such supplies- thus, the means by which infants, children, mothers and non-combatant males might continue to be slaughtered- should continue to be labelled and imprisoned as 'terrorists?' Nor has it questioned whether UK judges should continue to rig trials so that 'criminal damage' might secretly be escalated to 'terrorism,' at the whim of said judge.

For those who ever find themselves hooked into yet another bout of 'doom-scrolling' I think this roll- '2 Years of UK Foreign Policy in 2 Minutes'- has summed it up just about perfectly. I doubt any of the UK's major political parties will soon be offering up anything half as informative in their electioneering broadcasts. 

The fight for truth is on...

... and we're losing it!