Allowing only one side to be criticised for its crimes – reinforcing the loaded western political narrative of good guys versus bad guys – is likely to fuel war rather than resolve it
Do I really have to explain?
Ukrainian and Israeli atrocities are both abundantly documented. However, like Israel, Ukraine is an American darling, and therefore cannot be criticized.
It also tells us that dissent from the narrative will not be tolerated.
Excellent article. I emailed to my local news paper asking why it didn’t print quality journalism such as this. I’m weary of the propaganda.
A most useful article! A cogent and relevant look at what amounts to "censorship." On the use of the term, "war crimes"--this is, in my opinion, a redundancy,i.e., War is a crime! Period. As concerns Amnesty Intl., this org is most likely funded by various philanthropaths and minions of the NWO/Game Plan(aka: neo-Bolshevism circa 2020). Over the past 25-30 years many left-leaning civil rights orgs have no doubt been infiltrated by the likes of Soros(and his ilk.) Re: Wars for profit: I have a copy of a book published in the 80's I believe, entitled, "Endless Wars"[it's in a storage locker-hence no easy access to identify its author. There are several books with similar titles.] I just did a quick search and came across a WSJ article refuting such nonsensical ideas as deliberate intentions to perpetuate wars on a cyclical basis. I have yet to read the WSJ article; however, in alignment with your talking points I might argue that the term "disinformation" is the new "conspiracy theory" in 2022. Just as censorship is in actuality a form of governmental thought control, and ultmately a tool of the DeepShite. Shaping the narrative came of age at least 10 or more years ago. I recommend reading Sharyl Attkisson's excellent book, "SLANTED." She mentions that she recalls when "the narrative" became the metric by which producers at CBS in 2011(where she was employed)decide what stories would get airtime, or never see the light of day. 'The Narrative' serves the defintion of what needs to be censored, in other words. ps You wrote a great article! pax
FWIW I responded to the Facebook statement by Amnesty International, Ukraine as follows:
"Are you categorically saying that, because there is a human rights team in Ukraine, that the Ukraine military could not have committed war crimes?
I don't wish to strawman your statement, but that is at the very least what you are insinuating.
I'm not sure what motivation that a non-Ukrainian branch of Amnesty International would have for publishing false data, which is what you are accusing them of doing.
It raises a couple of related questions.
How can one be sure there is absolutely no bias from the Ukrainian team?
How strenuously did you try to confirm the accusations?
Your statement stresses how much you tried to prevent the release of the report as much, if not more than your attempt to verify the facts.
Please forgive my cynicism.
Those of us in the UK are familiar with atrocities committed by our own governments and our allies being covered up."
We are encouraged to look at NGO's as noble institutions. As long as they do not interfere too much with government they are allowed to operate. I am far more carefulnow when donating these days.
Another superb article. Your journalism should be required reading in every classroom. The MSM, in the other hand, is dangerous, intentionally misleading propaganda--I think of the corporate media as a criminal enterprise, in fact, because it lies to the public relentlessly and influences it in incredibly violent (towards other humans and the environment) directions. Keep up the fantastic work. I share your articles widely. Thank you as always.
The alleged crimes of Russia, the 'reports of'...contrasted with actual evidence of Ukraine crimes, the footage, serial numbers of Ukrainian shells, the Kremlin's calls, demands for independent investigations, its demands for Security Council meetings and mountains of eye witness testimony from citizens of Mariupol, Donetsk and Ukrainian POW admissions...what Jon Simpson of the BBC calls the 'fog of war' all tells a very conflicted story for our media and human rights 'NGOs'
Thank you. If journalists were like you people would be able to think critically and not just repeat to no end the talking points presented to them by the MSM day and night. Be that television, newspapers, social media.
Great analytical argument. It has long been the practice of the uber-aggressive American full spectrum domination push to funnel money into supposed neutral watchdogs, in order to wage a propaganda war concurrent with its never-ending military push on the global terrain. When the objectivity of such watchdogs is brought into focus, the scope and breadth of the imperial war machine becomes easier to measure. This, in turn, can provoke interested onlookers to question the labels ascribed by our duplicitous war hawkers to those nations on the receiving end of American guns and bombs. Why are Iran and Syria and Russia and Yemen and North Korea enemies to the American State? The simple answer is they do not meet the economic needs of the imperial state. More Americans need to recognize that they reside in an empire that requires absolute compliance, sovereignty be damned.
abundant plaudits, ineffable gratitude, and more accolades than i can conceivably concoct to send your way, jonathan cook. it is clear from the comment section that your readers concur. you are not only a supernal journalist and gifted writer, but also an insuperable, courageous defender of the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, the bullied, and the depauperate. you are the eidolon of an inspired and inspiring humanitarian 'ne-plus-ultra' whose journalistic endeavours i have admired for several years, particularly in regard to the long-besieged palestinians.
Thoughtful and actually balanced commentary. While I have long come to be skeptical of corporate media and ANY government's official posture, especially in connection to war, either economic or literal, I hadn't considered just how vulnerable human rights organizations are to the narrative de jour. I naively thought Amnesty International was one of the few sources with integrity and minimal bias. From now on, I'll think of them no differently than the mainstream media.