[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Causing Gaza Blackouts, Israel Benefits from Media Double Standards Julianne Tveten ([link removed])


As part of its escalating siege and bombing campaign against Palestinians—in which more than 18,000 people have been killed ([link removed]) and roughly 1.9 million displaced ([link removed]) —Israel has repeatedly disabled internet and phone service throughout Gaza. Israel’s airstrikes and fuel blockades have devastated ([link removed]) the region’s communications infrastructure, depriving more than 2 million Gazans of access to lifesaving information, emergency services and contact with those outside their immediate vicinity, while preventing ([link removed]) journalists from reporting on the situation. Since the first
blackouts occurred shortly after Hamas’s attacks on October 7, residents have suffered multiple outages ([link removed]) .

In recent weeks, Israel-allied media have minimized Israel’s culpability, portraying the shutoffs more as an unforeseeable act of nature than a deliberate act of military aggression.


** Israel as innocent bystander
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: No text, no talk. Palestinians plunged into digital darkness in Gaza.

Washington Post (10/28/23 ([link removed]) ) deploys the passive voice: Who plunged Palestinians into digital darkness?

News sources have rightfully informed readers of the telecommunications void in Gaza. A headline from the Washington Post (10/28/23 ([link removed]) ) read, “No Text, No Talk: Palestinians Plunged Into Digital Darkness in Gaza.” The following month, an Associated Press (11/16/23 ([link removed]) ) dispatch covering a separate shutoff announced that “Under a Communication Blackout, Gaza’s 2.3 Million People Are Cut Off From Each Other and the World.” But judging by these passive-voice alerts, one would have no idea Israel was involved.

Additionally, though the Post promptly alluded to the shutoffs as a “tool of war,” the paper waited 10 paragraphs to assign blame to Israel, noting that “Israel knocked out cell towers, cable lines and infrastructure…creating the near-blackout of connectivity.” The AP also hedged and buried its mentions of Israel’s responsibility, explaining that a lack of fuel—caused by Israel’s obstruction of fuel deliveries to Gaza, which the AP waited two dozen paragraphs to address—paralyzed the region’s internet and phone network.

To further obscure the cause-and-effect relationship of Israel’s violence and Gaza’s infrastructural ruin, media have presented the two as parallel occurrences. Wired (10/27/23 ([link removed]) ) announced that cables, cell towers and other equipment “have been damaged or destroyed as Israel launched thousands of missiles in response to Hamas.” The New York Times (10/29/23 ([link removed]) ) offered a similar construction: “As Israeli forces entered Gaza on Friday to fight Hamas, phone and internet service was severed.” NPR (10/30/23 ([link removed]) ) contributed its own version, stating, “At the same time Israel intensified its assault on Gaza, internet and phone service suddenly dropped.”


** 'Complete siege'
------------------------------------------------------------

These framings are astonishingly charitable to Israel, given the available documentation of its actions. After promising a “complete siege” of Gaza in early October, Israeli officials ordered cuts to electricity, fuel supplies, food and water (Guardian, 10/11/23 ([link removed]) ), amounting to a war crime ([link removed]) . On October 10, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs confirmed ([link removed]) that Israeli airstrikes “targeted several telecommunication installations” in Gaza. Days later, an Israeli Communications Ministry press release ([link removed]) listed “an ongoing examination and preparation for the shutting down of cellular communications and internet services to Gaza” in a
summary of its operations.

This aggression is enabled by Israel’s seizure ([link removed]) and decades-long weakening of Palestinian communications infrastructure, which has rendered Palestinian networks highly vulnerable to damage. According to the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media ([link removed]) :

Since the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967, Israel took complete control of the [Information and Communication Technologies] infrastructure and sector in the West Bank and Gaza, impeding development and blocking the establishment of an independent network, instead making Palestinians entirely dependent on the Israeli occupation authorities.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Palestinian telecom companies have ([link removed]) attributed ([link removed]) the outages to “deliberate actions perpetrated by Israeli authorities ([link removed] from Paltel to Human Rights Watch.pdf) .”


** Enemies as sinister masterminds
------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times: Iran Blocks Nearly All Internet Access

The New York Times headline (11/17/19 ([link removed]) ) held Iran responsible for shutting down the internet, which the story called "one of its most draconian attempts to cut off Iranians from each other and the rest of the world."

In contrast to their Israel coverage, US and US-allied media waste no time identifying alleged culprits of internet shutdowns in non-allied countries.

Reporting on protests over rising fuel prices, the New York Times (11/17/19 ([link removed]) ) ran the headline “Iran Blocks Nearly All Internet Access.” The active voice in the story’s lead clearly indicated responsibility: “Iran imposed an almost complete nationwide internet blackout on Sunday,” in order to “cut off Iranians” amid “widespread government unrest.” An adjective elsewhere in the lede—“draconian”—which, though it undoubtedly applies to Israel, is almost unimaginable in corporate media discussions of the 75-year ([link removed]) US ally (FAIR.org, 10/20/23 ([link removed]) , 11/15/23 ([link removed]) , 11/17/23 ([link removed]) ).

AP (7/12/21 ([link removed]) ) adopted equally decisive language in a piece scolding Cuba for supposedly blocking social media sites during a protest. The agency insisted that “restricting internet access has become a tried-and-true method of stifling dissent by authoritarian regimes around the world,” a category under which China and North Korea, too, evidently fell.

And, months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, media were swift to caution of the occupying force’s ambitions to wrest control of Ukrainian networks. According to Wired (6/15/22 ([link removed]) ), Russia was “Taking Over Ukraine’s Internet” by rerouting Ukraine’s online traffic through “Vladimir Putin’s powerful online censorship machine.” The New York Times (8/9/22 ([link removed]) ) echoed these charges, characterizing the action as “part of a Russian authoritarian playbook that is likely to be replicated further if they take more Ukrainian territory.”


** Defying evidence (or lack thereof)
------------------------------------------------------------
Rest of the World: Did Cuba really shut down the internet to quell protests?

Although critics pointed to from network monitor Kentik as proof that Cuba was shutting down its internet, a Kentik analyst told Rest of the World (7/14/21 ([link removed]) ) that "internet measurement data alone can’t tell the difference” between an intentional shutdown and an overload.

In many cases, US and Western media’s assertions of enemies’ digital repression lack or contradict evidence. The AP (7/12/21 ([link removed]) ) report on Cuba, for example, called the disruption an instance of a “go-to tactic to suppress dissent.” The agency’s quantitative source was data from NetBlocks, a London-based internet monitoring organization commonly ([link removed]) cited ([link removed]) in Western reporting on global online access, including that in Gaza (Al Jazeera, 12/4/23 ([link removed]) ).

But the referenced information didn’t support all of the AP’s claims. The tech-news site Rest of World (7/14/21 ([link removed]) )—hardly ([link removed]) a Castroite publication—found no conclusive proof that the outage was planned. A source from network monitoring company Kentik told the site that the interruption “could either happen deliberately or due to a technical failure,” adding that “internet measurement data alone”—which NetBlocks and Kentik used ([link removed]) to gauge online activity in Cuba—“can’t tell the difference.” (The AP also neglected to mention the US’s record of limiting ([link removed]) Cuban internet access.)

In a particularly egregious example, Foreign Policy (2/21/23 ([link removed]) ) accused China of muffling internet service for Taiwan’s Matsu Islands, in what “looks like targeted harassment by Beijing.” This assumption was based on reported incidents in which a Chinese fishing vessel and freighter cut undersea cables on separate occasions. No conspiracy was confirmed; Foreign Policy itself acknowledged that a Taiwanese official “told reporters that there was no indication the incidents were intentional.” Still, this didn’t deter the magazine from trumpeting, “China Is Practicing How to Sever Taiwan’s Internet.”

Meanwhile, Western media have access to ample evidence that Israel willfully throttles, disables and bombs the communications networks it has usurped—in part to mute those who might challenge its official narratives (Al Jazeera, 11/9/23 ([link removed]) ; NBC News, 11/11/23 ([link removed]) )—and displaces and kills the people who depend on them.

And yet those same media contort and trivialize that evidence to obfuscate Israel's offenses. Apparently, sabotage of essential lines of communication for a beleaguered population doesn’t constitute subjugation—as long as the saboteur is a friend of the right countries.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .