|
CRY FREEDOM.net
formerly known as
Women's Liberation Front
MORE INSIGHT MORE LIFE
Welcome to cryfreedom.net,
formerly known as Womens
Liberation Front.
A website
that hopes to draw and keeps your attention for both the global 21th. century 3rd. feminist revolution as well
as especially for the Zan, Zendegi, Azadi uprising in Iran and the
struggles of our sisters in other parts of the Middle East. This online magazine
that started December 2019 will
be published every week. Thank you for your time and interest.
Gino d'Artali
indept investigative
journalist
radical feminist and women's rights activist
'WOMEN, LIFE, FREEDOM'
You are now at the section on what is happening in the rest of the Middle
east
(Updates
Nov. 2, 2024)
For the
Iran 'Woman, Life, Freedom' Iran actual news
Updated Oct 31, 2024
For the 'Women's Arab Spring 1.2' Revolt
news
Updated Oct. 31, 2024
CLICK HERE ON HOW TO READ
ALL ON THIS PAGE
|
SPECIAL
REPORTS
Nov. wk1
--
Oct wk5 P2 --
Oct wk5 --
Oct wk4 P3 --
Oct wk4 P2 --
Oct wk4 --
Oct wk3 P3 --
Oct wk3 P2 --
Oct wk3 --
Oct wk2 P3 --
Oct wk2 P2
--
Click here for an overview by week in 2024
|
November 2 - 1,
2024
Imagine: a 5-year old Gazaian girl
is begging for buscuits at a UNRWA-post.
The answer of the IDF is she and it gets bombed to as
they call her/it
'just garbage to be cleaned out'
and more actual and revealing news
October 31 - 29, 2024
"No child gets shot twice
by mistake"...
US surgeon Mark Perlmutter in Gaza
and more actual and revealing news |
October 29 - 22, 2024
"The plight of Palestinian
civilians trapped in north Gaza is unbearable,"
Guterres's spokesman said...
and more actual and revealing news |
October 25 - 23, 2024
"Gaza parents' heartbreak
as children’s clothes, shoes fall to pieces..."
and "While arrest warrants
in themselves won't stop crimes, they could have a real
effect on the ground and potentially save many lives,"
said international law professor Adil Haque,
a seasoned ICC observer...
and more actual and revealing news
|
When one hurts or kills a women
one hurts or kills hummanity and is an antrocitie.
Gino d'Artali
and: My mother (1931-1997) always said to me <Mi
figlio, non esistono notizie <vecchie> perche puoi imparare qualcosa da
qualsiasi notizia.> Translated: <My son, there is no such thing as so
called 'old' news because you can learn something from any news.>
Gianna d'Artali.
Al Jazeera - Oct 27, 2024 - Opinion by Gregory
Shupak Academic and writer
<<How American media incited genocide
Commentaries published by US media outlets have openly demonised
Palestinians and justified the mass killings in Gaza.
Despite the US government's incessant claims that it is working to
secure a ceasefire, the genocide that has unfolded in Gaza over the past
year has been a joint US-Israeli endeavour. Israel would not be able to
inflict anything approaching the degree of violence it has on the
Palestinian people without American weapons, intelligence, and political
cover. To pursue these policies, the US government needed a critical
mass of the American population to support or go along with its policy
of working with Israel to exterminate the Palestinians. To sustain it,
President Joe Biden's administration has adopted a staunchly pro-Israeli
narrative and sought to justify Israeli actions and its own by citing
Israel's <right to self-defence>. Influential voices in American media
have also contributed to creating the necessary ideological conditions
for public acceptance of US-enabled Israeli atrocities. They, along with
the Biden administration, are partially responsible for the genocide in
Gaza. In 2003, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
issued the first-ever convictions for incitement to genocide, concluding
that "the genocidal harm that was caused by [Radio Télevision Libre des
Milles Collines] programming" during the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Incitement to genocide is "inchoate", that is, a crime that promotes the
commission of one crime while also being an offence itself. For the
ICTR, demonstrating that someone has committed incitement to genocide
does not necessarily require showing that their speech directly led a
person to carry out genocidal acts. In one scholar's view, for a
genocide to occur, a climate must be created to enable such crimes to be
committed. Commentary that has appeared in The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal can be thought of in these
terms. Pundits in these papers have engaged in a form of incitement to
genocide, albeit a distinct one because Americans do not need to go to
Palestine and kill people to contribute to the genocide; they just have
to acquiesce to their government's participation. Gregory S Gordon's
Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition offers
thought-provoking approaches to incitement to genocide and other forms
of hate speech. Applying his arguments to US media coverage of
Palestine-Israel after October 7, 2023 suggests that much of it amounts
to genocide incitement. Gordon, an international legal scholar and
former prosecutor at the ICTR, contends that demonisation is a form of
incitement. This practice, he writes, centres on "devils, malefactors,
and other nefarious personages". A piece published in The New York Times
last October engaged in precisely that. "If Gaza is the open-air prison
that so many of Israel's critics allege, it’s not because Israelis are
capriciously cruel but because too many of its residents pose a mortal
risk," the article contended. Here broad numbers of Palestinians in Gaza
are cast as deadly criminals deserving collective punishment. In the
same vein, an October 7 Wall Street Journal editorial told us that
Israel is in a "rough neighbourhood". A Washington Post op-ed published
a few days later claimed Israel is part of a <battle against barbarism>.
In another piece, a columnist wondered whether "it might be pointless to
apply political logic to the horrors perpetrated by the millenarian
religious fanatics of ISIL or Hamas. They are driven by a religious
imperative to slaughter 'infidels' and 'apostates', regardless of the
consequences." A piece published in The New York Times in November
offered a similar formulation, describing Hamas as a <terrorist death
cult>. Characterising Hamas in this misleading, overly simplistic manner
- never mind vilifying Palestinians tout court - as atavistic savages
conveys the message that they are irrational barbarians and must be
crushed, no matter the cost. According to Gordon, attempting to persuade
an audience that ongoing atrocities are morally justified is another
form of incitement, one that has been widespread in the Gaza coverage.
The direction Israeli policy was heading was easy to identify as early
as October 13 of last year when Raz Segal, a professor of Holocaust and
genocide studies, wrote that Israel had undertaken a "genocidal assault
on Gaza [that] is quite explicit, open, and unashamed". Nevertheless,
three weeks into the Israeli offensive, a piece published in The
Washington Post rejected ceasefire calls and even the idea that Israel
should "limit its response to precision air strikes and commando raids
to take out high-level Hamas operatives and to free hostages". It argued
that if Israel agreed to a ceasefire at that point, it would "be
tantamount to rewarding aggression and inviting more of it in the
future".
The subtext is that Israel's actions are ethically defensible, no matter
that the US and Israel had killed nearly 3,800 Palestinians in the first
13 days of the assault on Gaza, wiping out entire families. At that
time, Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard described
Israel's actions as "pulveriz[ing] street after street of residential
buildings[,] killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential
infrastructure" while further limiting what could enter Gaza so that the
Strip was "fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity".
The November New York Times op-ed mentioned above put forth the rather
novel view that Palestinians would ultimately benefit from being
slaughtered. It magnanimously conceded that "in the short term, of
course: Palestinian lives would be saved if Israel held its fire." But
the article asserted that, if the US-Israeli assault ended with Hamas
still governing Gaza, this outcome would mean “a virtual guarantee for
future mass-casualty attacks against Israel, for ever-larger Israeli
retaliation, and for deeper misery for the people of Gaza." According to
this logic, it is virtuous for the US and Israel to help Palestinians by
going on with policies that had turned Gaza into "a graveyard for
thousands of children" and "a living hell for everyone else". Attempts
to legitimise the mass deaths inflicted by the US and Israel did not
disappear after the initial weeks of the slaughter in Gaza. In January,
an op-ed in The Washington Post argued that the death and destruction in
Gaza are a tragedy for its people but "primary blame must lie with
Hamas, because it launched an unprovoked attack on Israel". Suggesting
that the US-Israeli campaign is responding to an "unprovoked"
Palestinian attack implies that the campaign is justifiable. This
position does not withstand minimal scrutiny: in the days, weeks, and
months leading up to October 7, Israel repeatedly bombed Gaza and shot
Palestinians at the fence surrounding the territory while subjecting
them to a brutal, illegal siege, to say nothing of the more than 75
years of dispossession leading up to that day. Because Israel was
carrying out acts of war against Palestinians in Gaza prior to October
7, Israel’s actions since then cannot be understood as a form of
self-defence. Yet US-Israeli apologists in the American media have said
"Israel has the right and duty to defend itself", presenting the
US-Israeli crusade as righteous and thus worthy of support. No matter
that Israel "defending itself" has entailed an "unrelenting war" on
Gaza's health system and featured air strikes on hospitals and health
workers as well as killing Palestinians at the deadliest rate of any
conflict this century. At the end of February, a Wall Street Journal
editorial criticised Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib
and others on the grounds that "the ceasefire they want would have the
effect of leaving [Hamas] fighters alive and free to rebuild their
terror state. The suffering in Gaza is terrible, but the main cause is
Hamas's use of civilians as human shields." At that point, Israel had
killed at least 7,729 children. For the Journal, it appeared this horror
was justified if Hamas was defeated; the tens of thousands of dead
Palestinian civilians could be explained away by dubiously and
selectively employing the concept of human shields. In March, another
column in The New York Times rehashed the same well-worn canards to try
and persuade readers that US-Israeli conduct in Gaza was just,
contending that "Hamas started the war" and that "Israel is fighting a
tough war against an evil enemy that puts its own civilians in harm’s
way." The Biden administration, the piece advised, should “help Israel
win the war decisively so that Israelis and Palestinians can someday win
the peace". Two weeks earlier, UN special rapporteur on the right to
food Michael Fakhri had denounced Israel's forced starvation of
Palestinians in Gaza and said "this is now a situation of genocide." For
some American opinion-makers, it is morally right for the US to continue
being party to that. The media outlets that published these articles
could have given more space to sober reflections on how to generate
peace, justice, and liberation across historical Palestine. Instead,
they have given platforms to those who have helped incite the carnage
America and Israel have wrought. When the history of this grisly period
is written, there needs to be a chapter on the media outlets that helped
ignite a genocide and helped keep it going.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.>>
Source:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/27/how-american-media-incited
Women's
Liberation Front 2019/cryfreedom.net 2024
