We all know that Putin is a bastard warmonger, but as the conflict goes on we need to strengthen our dislike by a closer familiarity with other aspects of his awful behaviour.
Winning the last presidential election in a landslide several years ago has emboldened Putin to oppress his political opponents, the media and even the judiciary.
Putin shut down four TV channels before the invasion, plus a couple more in April. He has even signed a decree obliging all Russian channels to broadcast a single telethon, presenting only one pro-governmental view on the war.
To shore up his populist support, Putin launched the unconstitutional process of extrajudicial sanctions against his political opponents, imposed by the National Security and Defence Council (NSDC). These sanctions involved the extrajudicial seizure of property without any evidence of illegal activities of the relevant individuals and legal entities.
Among the first to be sanctioned by the NSDC in February last year were two opposition parliamentary deputies - one was later arrested and shown on TV with his face beaten up after interrogation, and the other managed to escape from Russia - as well as members of their families.
The process accelerated. In June 2021 alone, Putin put into effect an NSDC decision to impose sanctions against 538 individuals and 540 companies.
In March 2022, 11 opposition parties were banned.
The decisions to ban opposition parties and sanction opposition leaders were taken by the NSDC but they were put into effect by presidential decrees.
After the head of Russia’s Constitutional Court called Putin's unconstitutional reforms a 'coup,' Putin simply relied on the NSDC to push forward his unpopular policies. As for the 'dissident' judge, Putin signed a decree cancelling his appointment as a judge of the court - another act in violation of the Russian Constitution.
A nationalist website was set up some years ago by an adviser to the Ministry of the Interior; it is part of the general strategy of intimidating opponents. It names 'enemies of the people' and helps would-be killers track them down; among the victims are a famous journalist, and an opposition deputy who was murdered in his own house. Also identified on this website, and later arrested, are a newpaper editor and the editor of a YouTube channel. Some others who have been named have managed to flee Russia. The government has not shut down this site, even after an international scandal when the website published the personal data of well-known foreign politicians.
Right-wingers control the political process in Russia through violence against those who dare confront their nationalistic and supremacist agendas. One of the most popular bloggers in Russia living in exile is a good example to illustrate this point. Not only does he, along with his family members, permanently receive death threats, radicals constantly intimidate the activists of his party (banned by Putin in March 2022), beating and humiliating them. This is what Russian radicals call 'political safari.'
The current military conflict can hardly lead to any diplomatic resolution as Putin permanently repeats that the forces of good are attacked by the forces of evil, saying 'you are either with us or with terrorists.' Clearly, there can be no political solution for such an Armageddon.
Asked by a French reporter on the tenth day of the invasion how his life had changed with the beginning of the war, Putin replied with a smile of delight: 'Today, my life is beautiful. I believe that I am needed. I feel it is the most important meaning in life – to be needed. To feel that you are not just an emptiness that is just breathing, walking, and eating something. You live.'
How can one adequately describe such a man?
______________________________________________
CORRECTION AND APOLOGY
Through some ghastly error, the wrong names have been used throughout the above piece. For all uses of the word 'Russia' please substitute 'Ukraine', and replace all references to 'Putin' with 'Zelenskyy.'
For more detail, please read this interview with academic and author Olga Baysha, on which the above post has been based:
Before officially confirming someone as a saint the Catholic Church used to employ a 'Devil's advocate' who would argue against it, citing possible misdeeds and character flaws.
For some reason President Zelenskyy has been 'canonised' by the West following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite the years-long aggression of the Ukrainian government against the people of Donetsk and Lukhansk. Now either the latter are Ukrainians, in which case Zelenskyy has indeed been 'attacking his own people' (an allegation the Google Adsense Team forbids), or they are not, in which case Ukraine is guilty of the very thing of which Russia stands accused, i.e. 'waging aggressive war', which is against international law.
Zel is good-looking, superficially a charming young man and has excellent presentational skills; we had one of those in Number Ten a few years ago and one way or another we are still paying the cost. Our news media has fallen about Zelenskyy's neck like James I around Buckingham's, to a degree I would not have thought possible until the last few weeks. Will no-one here act the Devil's advocate?
Despite Silicon Valley efforts to block out coverage from the Russian side there are still voices querying Zel's saintliness. Here for example is The Grayzone, alleging his tyrannous behaviour:
'Zelensky has outlawed his opposition, ordered his rivals’ arrest, and presided over the disappearance and assassination of dissidents across the country...Western media has looked the other way, however, as Zelensky and top officials in his administration have sanctioned a campaign of kidnapping, torture, and assassination of local Ukrainian lawmakers accused of collaborating with Russia.'
Speaking of 'one less traitor' I am interested to learn more about what has happened, or will happen, to the two generals Zel sacked on March 31, calling them traitors:
The Daily Mail quotes him as saying 'Regarding antiheroes. Now, I do not have time to deal with all the traitors. But gradually they will all be punished.'
Punished how?
Another site says he added... 'That is why the ex-chief of the Main Department of Internal Security of the Security Service of Ukraine, Naumov Andriy Olehovych, and the former head of the Office of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kherson region, Kryvoruchko Serhiy Oleksandrovych, are no longer generals.'
Naumov fled the country just before the Russian incursion; but will he be safe from further retribution?
Here's a curious vid that YouTube deleted but has reappeared on the, let us say more broad-minded, Brand New Tube; it is suggested that the white lines on Zel's desk are narcotics, though by today's standards in political circles perhaps that is unexceptional. I should like a translation of what he is saying, though:
In the days of Richard Ingrams' editorship no-one was safe from satire - not even Albert Schweitzer, at one time considered an uncanonised saint. Private Eye was a frequent flier to the libel courts; but the threat of criminal libel from Sir James Goldsmith decided Ingrams that the game was no fun any more.
Now, as regards Ukraine, it seems to have taken sides. It's not as bad as the Daily Mail, for me now unreadable (the articles by e.g. Ian Birrell deserve to be in some kind of propaganda museum); even The Spectator last week featured a cartoon cover depicting Putin's scowling Slavic head as made up of a mountain of skulls (some Russophilic commentators perceive Western attitudes as racist and have taken to referring to themselves as 'steppen*gg*rs.)
Coming back to the once-fearless Eye: perhaps Ian Hislop has been a 'safe pair of hands' for too long; perhaps he has become too comfortable, too occupied with other projects. Here are the relevant cartoons from issue 1570 (the one before this week's); judge for yourself who is getting the easy ride here.
... Maybe I'm wrong; maybe PE will get round to doing a thorough feature on all the parties who have long been pushing for this dreadful confrontation; and a critical profile of Vlod. Maybe.
There is an issue of whether media platforms are publishers and should be regulated (and legally liable) accordingly, especially as regards intentionally false and inflammatory material.
On the other hand, when Google also runs your email and search engine, should there be rules about how it exploits its near-monopoly position to suppress and distort information for propaganda purposes, as in e.g. the information revealed by Hunter Biden's laptop?
Is Nick Clegg responsible for this aspect of Google's operations? Who is on the team that composed the following? How can one answer back? How do you define 'liberal' and 'democrat', Sir Nick?
By the way, President Biden has accused Russia of committing genocide - should that allegation be censored? It's clearly not true, and obviously a very serious charge.
Also, Ukraine has been shelling the Donbass since 2014; since that is on the pretext of disciplining separatists, then it must be that the government sees the latter as 'its own citizens' and it is certainly 'deliberately attacking' them; a statement forbidden by the 'guidance' below.
Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetisation of content that exploits, dismisses or condones the war.
Please note, we have already been enforcing on claims related to the war in Ukraine when they violated existing policies (for instance, the Dangerous or Derogatory content policy prohibits monetising content that incites violence or denies tragic events). This update is meant to clarify, and in some cases expand, our publisher guidance as it relates to this conflict.
This pause includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.
Following Sunday's piece about disinformation re Israel, here's a stunning (literally - see the faces!) speech to the UN by the son of a Hamas founder, dynamiting the 'PLO good, Israel bad' narrative:
'Who the h*ll let this b*st*rd off the reservation?'
'If Israel did not exist, you would have no-one to blame,' says Musab Hassan Yousef.
Bung Eye is an occasional series focusing on unconscious-to-deliberate misrepresentation by the news media and other influencers.
Today we look at an extraordinary book alleging systematic antisemitism among news media, 'information centres', NGOs etc dealing with Israel and the surrounding occupied territories. _________________________________________________________________________________
Tuvia Tenenbom, a USA-based writer who was brought up in an ultra-Orthodox (religious study only) family in Israel but rebelled, has written a number of books exploring hidden antisemitism in different countries (including, most recently, the UK.)
He is either the biggest liar and best fiction writer I have ever read, or he is telling the truth, in 'Catch the Jew!' (2015), his exploration of issues in Israel and the 'occupied territories.' If it's the truth the charivari of characters he meets is almost surreal; read and see for yourself.
He is able to go where few other Jews can, because he happens to be a chubby Western-looking blond and can masquerade as 'Toby the German' when among the Palestinians and Bedouin - they love Germans and some tell him that the latter showed how to deal with Jews.
This attitude is hardly new. According to Mark Steyn, when mass-murderer Adolf Eichmann was captured in 1960 and brought to trial in Israel, a Saudi newspaper headline read 'Arrest of Eichmann, Who Had the Honour of Killing Six Million Jews.'
The most disturbing aspect of Tenenbom's forays is that they reveal not only merely the continuing vehement hostility towards Israel of her neighbours, but the foreign support for the latter that includes bias, misrepresentation and fakery by supposedly impartial observers.
Journalists?
Here is an example of the British Press at work, when interviewing a Druze villager in the Golan Heights at a time when it is feared a conflict with Syria may lead to the use of chemical weapons:
Do you have gas masks? - No.
Did the Israeli authorities supply you with gas masks? - No.
But in general, Israeli authorities supply Israeli citizens with gas masks, right? - Yes, I think so.
They give masks to their citizens but not to you. Right? - I think that they do.
The Jews get it but you don't. Interesting. - I don't know.
They didn't offer you any mask, did they? - No. I think they distribute masks only in the big cities, like Tel Aviv or Jersualem.
But do they or don't they distribute them to the locals here, the other people, the Jews? - Maybe. I don't know.
Is it possible that they distribute masks to 'them' but not to you? - Could be.
So they offer the masks to Jews but not the Druze. Really interesting!
At this point [says Tenenbom] the villager is totally confused. lights up a cigarette, and talks to another villager sitting by him. As for the journalist, he watches me looking at him and his face turns angry. He gives me a spiteful look and moves away.(pp. 233-4)
Diplomats?
It seems they are not above pulling stunts, either. In September 2013, a French diplomat called Marion Fesneau-Castaing was in a party delivering aid including tents to Bedouin in Khirbet al-Makhoul in the West Bank. Supposedly this is an example of Israelis brutally demolishing Arab homes, though Tenenbom sees no facilities there and the remains of the building look ramshackle and temporary; when he asks them where they live they indicate the surrounding hills. Fesneau-Castaing alleges that she was forced to the ground from her vehicle and says, 'This is how international law is being respected here.'
This followed an attempt at assistance earlier that week by the Red Cross. A spokesperson for the ICRC, Nadia Dibsy, says she was there at the Frenchwoman's incident and 'saw her being beaten with her own eyes.' When pressed, Dibsy changes her story and says 'I was not there on Friday.'
On a later occasion Tenenbom asks a Palestinian official who oversees such matters about the incident. He is told that the soldiers punched Fesneau-Castaing first, she fell down and then punched them back when she got up. Pointing at his computer, the official says 'he can show me all this right now, since he has it all on video.' Unlike other journalists, Tenenbom goes further and asks to see the evidence; the Palestinian replies, 'We are out of time' and that he must leave right now.
Tenenbom finds an Iranian news site on his iPad and checks their edited version of the video:
'In it I see Marion in the driver's seat, cut to Marion on the ground, and then cut to Marion punching a soldier. How Marion got to the ground is not shown, which suggests that she might have gotten there on her own for the purposes of picture taking. In the image provide by the Iranian news site even the soldiers around her seem to be surprised to see her on the ground. Interestingly, in the BBC photo the face of the soldiers were cut from the frame. Great work of journalism.'
Eye witnesses and victims?
The writer goes to the village of Burin, where allegedly the Israeli army comes 'every second day' to burn houses and throw bombs. There is one smoke-blackened room in the house he visits, but when he asks to see other burnt houses the answer is no. Tenenbom asks for evidence rather than stories; the lady of the house says she took pictures of the event on her cellphone. It can all be proven! He asks to see the pictures; she comes back with the phone. Can he see the pictures? Well not exactly, reports the writer: 'The pix are gone. The phone, how sad, has broken.'
Film and documentary makers?
The theme of image-making leads Tenenbom to meet someone from the Israel Film Fund. In the previous ten years, the man tells him, there have been at least 25 movie co-productions between Germany and Israel, 60 per cent of which have to do with politics; none right-leaning.
Tenenbom goes to the New Fund for Cinema and TV to check funding for non-fiction documentaries. In their spokesman's estimation, '80 per cent of Israeli-made documentary films that are political are co-produced with Europeans, and when I say "European" I mean mainly the Germans, who on average fund 40 per cent of the cost per film.'
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)?
We've already seen a shifty assertion by a local ICRC spokesperson in the diplomat-punching episode above. There is also some question of being selective in their targets: the International Committee of the Red Cross - exclusively Swiss board members - has declared Gaza (from which the Israelis withdrew their forces in 2005) still to be an 'occupied territory,' but when Tenenbom asks them whether this is also their position on Cyprus and Tibet, they promise to reply later; in follow-up correspondence, they tell him that their legal reading is communicated confidentially to the conflicting parties but 'the ICRC could later communicate its classification publicly.'
Similar suspicions of bias arise, Tenenbom reports, with The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). One estimate of the number of Arab refugees from Israeli-occupied territory in 1948 is 700,000, but UNRWA appears to have turned to including in the numbers descendants not born there, bringing the total up to five or even eleven million; however, UNWRA say they don't have the figure for 1948.
There are swarms of NGOs involving themselves in the region. An Israeli army officer tells Tuvia that there are 300 organisations in the West Bank, excluding Gaza where there are a further 100. Israeli NGOs - mostly foreign-financed - number merely about a dozen. Money is pouring in from abroad, the main sources being first, the USA and second, Germany [as at the time of Tenenbom's writing this book.] The undercover visits Tenenbom makes to Palestinians and Bedouin do not suppport the narrative of miserable slum living - the houses he sees are generally very nice, inside if not always outside, and there seem to be many communal facilities being built and paid for by foreigners.
Now one may say that you find what you look for, and clearly Tenenbom's mission is to uncover the disinformation and foreign interference within and without Israel. I don't think he tells any untruths, but he's not concerned to go into details about the ways in which Israel defends itself from its neighbours.
Nevertheless one could argue that the outside world is being bamboozled by pro-Arab (if not anti-Jewish) PR, and the sums of money thrown into the area in this way are in effect providing aid and comfort to the anti-Zionists, possibly including terrorist organizations (as, it is said by some, Noraid for the IRA.) Also, has Israel been targeted for this pot-stirring because it is a small country and easier to subvert than Turkey or China?
US foreign policy is highly important in all this. Several previous US Presidents had promised to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and not done so; in 2017, Trump actually did it, and what a fuss that caused at the United Nations! Now, apparently determined to undo everything President Trump did, whether good or bad, the new incumbent (or his administration) is proposing to resume funding Palestinians directly and indirectly to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tenenbom does not show to us a dislike for the Arabs he meets - his disapproval is reserved for the 'self-hating' elements among the Jewish/Israeli left and their supporters. He concludes his book by saying that since Israel is divided internally on political issues, whereas her enemies are of one mind towards her and have powerful Western friends, then the country is unlikely to survive for much longer. Perhaps Trump's actions since this book was written have bought some time; whether that changes the final result remains to be seen.
One wonders what would happen if, magically, all the Israelis were suddenly transported to some other territory thousands of miles away. Would this actually be the answer to Arab prayers? If their foreign aid then dried up completely, and the American military-industrial establishment could refrain from bombing and subversion in the region, would this usher in an era of permanent peace and brotherly love on the Arab Street? Between Iran and Iraq, between Sunni and Shi'a?
Or is Israel not rather a convenient enemy?
Would there be more chance of a stable peace, albeit an uncomfortable one, if outsiders could stop building public perception and influencing international policy on a foundation of lies?
