Aceasefire does not mean that Israel has dropped its goal to annihilate Gaza.

(Article by Hamza Yusuf republished from MiddleEastEye.net)

The mission remains the same, and the war crimes endure, including killings – the method just shifts. Now, the textbook starvation of the enclave is the weapon of choice.

But the British public will not be privy to such details – not if they rely on the mainstream media to report them accurately.

In early March, as the first phase of the ceasefire was ending and the full withdrawal of Israel’s forces from Gaza was supposed to take place, Israel decided to block all aid from entering the territory.

The media reported it but, characteristically, thinned out the details.

Israel is “stopping all aid into Gaza”, reported Sky News. Israel “blocks entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza”, read the online BBC headline. LBC’s article stated, “Israel halts all aid and supplies coming into Gaza”.

Missing from every outlet was the crucial added context: as concluded by Human Rights Watch (HRW), this was a flagrant violation of international law. Legal experts confirmed it constituted a genocidal act.

But the tried-and-tested strategy of propaganda by omission reigned supreme. Why provide the intricate details and allow readers to connect the dots about Israel’s cruelty when key information can simply be suppressed?

Propaganda by omission

Within days, Israeli officials were threatening to cut off electricity and water completely, imposing a total siege on Gaza, while continuing to displace more Palestinians from northern Gaza.

The Telegraph reported this proposal as a “hell plan”. Yet it apparently did not occur to journalists, researchers, or editors at the outlet to mention that Israel was threatening another complete siege of Gaza and further Palestinian ethnic cleansing.

It apparently did not occur to journalists to mention that Israel was threatening another complete siege of Gaza and further Palestinian ethnic cleansing

The best the right-wing broadsheet could muster was to call Israel’s intended crime “provocative” – not because of the humanitarian catastrophe it would cause, but because it would take place during Ramadan.

Even at the supposedly progressive Independent and Guardian, the same skewed rules of engagement applied.

They could have noted that the International Criminal Court already has arrest warrants for starvation crimes against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Or they could have mentioned that deliberately starving Gaza would violate the International Court of Justice’s orders to prevent genocide. Even a simple acknowledgment that Israel was committing repeat war crimes would have sufficed.

Instead, both newspapers framed Israel’s latest violation of international law with a softened touch.

The Guardian’s subheading presented it as a negotiation tactic to pressure Hamas into releasing more captives, as though that somehow justified or legitimised the looming atrocity.

On 9 March, Israel cut off electricity to Gaza, as planned.

In a social media post, Israel’s energy minister confirmed he had signed an order to “cut off electricity to the Gaza Strip immediately”. “Enough with the talk, it’s time for action!” he declared.

“Israel cuts off electricity supply to Gaza”, wrote the BBC. LBC’s online article provided the most depth: “Israel cuts off electricity supply to Gaza, affecting drinking water, one week after blocking humanitarian aid”. Yet even this article stopped short of clarifying the crime it constituted.

In both broadcast and print media, some outlets opted for headlines that framed Israel’s cutting of power as a pressure tactic and amplified its justification.

“Israel cuts power to Gaza after Hamas refuses to extend first phase of ceasefire,” declared Sky News.

The article included UN criticism of Israel for collective punishment – immediately followed by Israel’s denial. Both were given equal weight, as if this were merely a matter of conflicting opinions rather than a documented crime.

It was to “force Hamas to return hostages”, claimed The Telegraph. The Guardian described Israel’s systematic starvation campaign as an “apparent effort to force the hand of Hamas”.

When The Independent and The Times cited concerns from the British government about Israel’s actions, the violation of international law was framed only as a possibility – as though there were still room for debate.

Obscuring war crimes

In its broadcast output, the BBC’s correspondent described in vivid detail the cruelty of Israel’s actions before stating that “it will add to the accusations that Israel is committing war crimes again”.

By framing it as a mere accusation or allegation, the BBC introduced an element of deniability – subtly deflecting from an incontestable reality.

There is nothing to speculate about or second-guess: Israel’s strategy has been clear and consistent throughout.

In December 2023, HRW concluded that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war and committing the crime against humanity of extermination.

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem declared that Israel was deliberately manufacturing famine, while the United Nations confirmed that Israel was knowingly imposing life-threatening conditions on Gaza’s population.

The illegality of these actions – collective punishment and starvation as a method of warfare – is not up for debate.

Yet the media continued to shroud them in vague, detached language.

When Israel imposes a crippling siege and starves an entire territory, the severity of the crime must be emphasised – not the perpetrator’s narrative

At first glance, this reporting may seem harmless – some might even call it neutral and impartial, the very essence of journalism.

But the meticulous, consistent whitewashing of Israel’s crimes is as deliberate as it is dangerous. The public is steered towards conclusions that reflect only fragments of reality, leaving them misinformed.

When Israel imposes a crippling siege and starves an entire territory, the severity of the crime must be emphasised – not the perpetrator’s narrative.

It must be made clear that Israel’s ability to impose such policies stems from its status as an illegal occupying force.

These details matter – when they are obscured and artificial balance is prioritised, Israel’s barbarity is subtly sanitised.

Media complicity

The linguistic tools employed by the mainstream media – amounting to propaganda by omission – shape whether the public sees Gaza as enduring genocide under Israel’s colonial conquest or as merely part of a “conflict” between two warring sides.

And therein lies the fundamental goal.

After all, this is the same media ecosystem in which the national broadcaster described the murder of six-year-old Hind Rajab – killed when Israeli tanks fired 335 bullets into her car as she waited for an ambulance – as her having been “found dead”.

It was Sky News that framed Israel’s illegal detention, torture, and abuse of Dr Husam Abu Safiya as merely “holding” him. It was The Guardian that referred to Israeli settlers preparing to seize land in Gaza for ethnic cleansing as merely “preparing to move” there.

Now, two million Palestinians in Gaza – already starving, endlessly displaced, and without adequate shelter – are being suffocated further, denied life-saving supplies and medication by Israel’s illegal blockade.

Israeli officials vowed to make Gaza “a place where no human can exist”, and state policy is working as intended – all in the knowledge that the mainstream media will ensure the public remains insulated.

The iconic British-Palestinian reconstructive surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sitta poignantly remarked: “When we have a museum for the genocide, we will have a special place for the journalists who were the enablers.”

Those words have never rung truer, highlighting the undeniable reality that the mainstream media is not just complicit but an active participant in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

Read more at: MiddleEastEye.net