Israel made headlines last week when it intercepted a ship that it claimed was carrying a shipment of Iranian weapons to Gaza. The supposed contents of the ship were put on display yesterday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an event that was dubbed “a public relations spectacle” by the New York Times‘ Isabel Kershner (3/11/14). (Kershner ought to recognize a public relations spectacle when she sees one, since her spouse’s job is creating PR strategies for Israel—FAIR Action Alert, 5/16/12.)
Diplomatically speaking, it was a twofer: Israel could use this to show the world that Hamas was more dangerous than ever, and that recent diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran over its nuclear program were merely obscuring “the truth behind Iran’s fake smiles,” as Netanyahu put it. He added: “We have seen smiles and handshakes between representatives of the West and Iranian regime representatives in Tehran, precisely while these rockets were making their way to Eilat.”
Kershner went on to note, with a raised eyebrow, that for Israel “the timing of the shipment—with which Iran has denied any involvement—was opportune, coming as world powers are engaged in talks with Iranian officials over the country’s nuclear program.”
Indeed, the fortuitous timing here should raise eyebrows.
Unfortunately, for a piece that seems to want to convey some skepticism about Israel’s PR maneuver, Kershner’s piece relies on an anonymous Israeli official for some of the details about the weapons: “a senior Israeli intelligence official told reporters in a phone briefing on the condition of anonymity, in line with protocol.”
Kershner added:
The official also said Israel was “100 percent positive that the address of this shipment was the Gaza Strip.” He said that he could not reveal delicate intelligence to the news media, but that Israel would be sharing the evidence with colleagues in intelligence organizations abroad.
Of course, anyone with “100 percent proof” might be willing to make such claims publicly.
But how this—and other—disputes are framed is of real importance. Take this passage from the Times:
Mr. Netanyahu has criticized the negotiation effort as being too friendly toward a country he maintains is resolutely seeking to develop nuclear weapons for possible use against Israel and the West, despite Iranian officials’ claims to the contrary.
That is the kind of pro-forma “one side say this, the other side denies” language you see all the time. But instead of asking readers if they believe a US ally’s claim or an Official Enemy’s denial, consider what an alternative might look like.
There is no publicly available evidence to back up Netanyahu’s claim. Official US intelligence assessments are that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. As Yousaf Butt (Reuters, 2/22/13) noted, “The best intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program indicates that no nuclear weapons work is going on in Iran right now.” He added that the US intelligence consensus is not just that there’s no evidence of such work; it “says there is actual concrete high-quality evidence that Iran is not making nuclear weapons.”
So a more accurate summation would stress that Netanyahu is making unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of what many other intelligence and nuclear analysts say about Iran. That is a formulation, though, that you’ll rarely see in the US media.
If the New York Times did point out that Netanyahu was making debunkable claims about Iranian weapons programs, it might make readers less inclined to accept his unverifiable claims about Iranian weapons shipments. That’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether the Times is in the business of informing readers or facilitating PR spectacles.
Wherever the weapons came from or were going to, jumping from them to the usual unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program is a complete non-sequitur. Maybe the Times should buy one of those fancy Media Manipulation Alarms,* since it seems unable to notice when it’s being used.
* Any high school media studies grad could provide one.
Uhhh, Netanyahu’s claims on the weapons were confirmed by the USG. Moreover, the 100% certainty not being revealed has to do with exposing Mossad tradecraft. It is the same reason why, for instance, the British could not release sources for Ultra, which was based on enigma intercepts.
Iran had no part in this. The Jewish state’s Mossad expertly staged another false flag deception intended to involve United States in yet another Mideast war to further Israel’s grandiose aspirations. But Palestine surely does need missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel. With the world’s fourth most powerful military, Israel routinely uses American fighter jets against the inmates of besieged Palestine. Fathers, mothers and children are killed, splattered actually. The Jews enjoy a kill ratio of near one hundred to one. The Palestinian’s response with crude rockets is pathetic. But those rockets do confirm that Palestine will not accept defeat, they “give proof through the night that (their) flag is still there.”
dcomplex writes: “Uhhh, Netanyahu’s claims on the weapons were confirmed by the USG.”
Maybe so, but on what evidence? The US and Israel were also firmly agreed, in early 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction — a claim based on alleged sure-fire secret intelligence that turned out to be as nonexistent as the WMD themselves. Isn’t some degree of skepticism not only allowable but obligatory when any state, including the US or Israel, makes damning claims about an official enemy but won’t show us the evidence?
You also write, “Moreover, the 100% certainty not being revealed has to do with exposing Mossad tradecraft. It is the same reason why, for instance, the British could not release sources for Ultra, which was based on enigma intercepts.”
Of course there might be a valid intelligence-craft motive for not revealing evidence, but there might just as conceivably not be. Invalid motives are not hard to think of: e.g., the alleged intelligence is nonexistent or feeble but there is a desire to dirtwash an official enemy. See under Iraq war, probably a more relevant, as well as much more recent, case than World War II.
Hey, dcomplex, is the “USG” United States Gypsum?” Glad to know that since our government agrees with Bibi, it must therefore be true.
Netanyahu has a black spot in his eye (hypocrite) since Israel has nuclear weapons which are illegal under International Law. They use our tax dollars for war which is also against our loaning it to them. Their use and possession of nuclear weapons is denied but it has been proven…as Iran has not. Who would want a neighbor like Israel who thinks everyone is their enemy and needs to be occupied for their own power and growth? They own the area according to certain misguided clergy…Zionists.
Me thinks you do protest too much Netanyahu! We are onto your game since many false flags have been proven in the past.
Another way the Times could have framed this through comparison is that if Iran is not fit to negotiate over the nuclear issue because they allegedly shipped weapons to Hamas, then the U.S. is certainly not fit to be at that negotiating table because they undeniably have shipped far more, and far more potent weapons to Israel.
Yet, what Israel is doing is no different from let say June 1967 when it’s officials kept crying wolf about Nasser in the face of American intelligence and their own information and got away with it.
First ,thank you FAIR for reporting on this.I wondered if you would ignore it or try to twist it.Twist it ..you tried.Facts are these were very very good missiles packed into this ship.Enough to decimate Israel.Fact…They came from some where,and were going some where.Now if you have any information that Israel is wrong on their assumptions ,please state it.Im only hearing you say that so far they have not released enough to make you sure that what they have stated- is true.ok fair enough.I just love that everyone is playing innocent.Looking up in the air and whistling.Lets strive to find where these missiles came from.And lets make those folks pay.Most security people say Iran is the place where the weapons came from.Most agree with where they were going.They did not grow on trees.And they were not going out to sea to be dumped.Also we have a defector saying that lockabie was an Iranian operation.
The Guardian reports the weapons as mfg’d in Syria…so what makes them “Iranian”…?
R dawson I have read that the actual missiles and their manufacture have come from several places.But Israel has a forensic track on them that would hold up in any court.Simply put they have the trail of where, when ,and how these missiles came to be.They were waiting for them.This was no surprise raid.Inside intel is the word.They will present it to the UN ,and the world bodies.The point is will it change anything once their providence is established?
The only ones in the US selling the WMD were Bush, Cheney and their ilk. They so cowed the corpress that the folks who wanted to present an alternative view could not even buy air time much less get coverage. So are we to go down that road again?
It seems to me that Israel’s leadership and our too gullible press are the only ones pushing these claims. Too bad our corp press won’t interview Israeli citizens to find out that they don’t buy the goods their leadership is selling.
Not that I’m a fan of Iranian rockets but the US and Israel ship for more tools for murder every day. If anyone else had done this we’d be calling it what it is – high seas piracy.
For all we know the Israelis made those bombs or they could be frigging duds. When the U.N. created Israel it created one big problem. That problem has never been solved.
That’s exactly what I was thinking, Silver Fox. Given Netanyahu’s past “artistic license” with the truth, it is quite possible this was all just a PR stunt orchestrated by Israel (even Netanyahu himself) to thwart US/Iran negotiations. Wouldn’t put it past the guy (or his administration) at all.
So they find a couple thousand missiles and all you dolts can do is blame it on the US,Israel,and any other diversion so as to not let it fall squarely on the backs of these terrorist nations.I wonder…….It is like talking to a wall.God how long before people who share an ounce of your fantasy beliefs shall be swept from a voice in government is such an important question for this country and the safety of the free world.You are the epitome of blame America(and her allies)first.Sickening
Bravo FAIR! Splendid reporting.
No smiling and backslapping while stockpiling armaments! Only the international community, i.e. the imperial West can do that.
Proper balance of nuclear weapons:
Israel: 400
Iran: 0
Countries which must adhere to the NPT: Iran
Countries which can ignore the NPT with impunity: Israel
Countries which Alexander Cockburn should have nuclear weapons since the United States did: all of them.
michael e, it was 40 Syrian-manufactured rockets, as the linked article and every other article about the ship has said, not your “couple thousand missiles”. Why are you such a liar and why are your lies such stupid ones?
Sorry Vrede .I meant to say “IF” they found a couple thousand rockets……
Wimpy excuse making, michael e. You continued with present tense in the rest of your sentence as if “a couple thousand missiles” was a fact. Man up.
@TimN, since I was forced to look it up in order to understand what dcomplex was alleging, I’m going with USG = Urine Specific Gravity.