Thank you. The disgraceful, indeed flagrantly criminal, conduct of the British political and media establishments must be fully documented in order that some day a proper reckoning can be had.
Excellent writing as always. That book by Peter Oborne is going to be a truly damning read.
One awful thing I can't stop thinking about is how many of those who've peddled lies for two years are likely to be rewarded by the system.
Many who lied about past wars were promoted, while those who told the truth were fired and shunned. The long-term decline of the media has left behind a more concentrated pool of stenographers. And it seems to be getting worse.
Thanks, Jordan. Oborne's book is a must-read - one of the best on the UK media we've seen, and from a deeply respected, high-profile media insider. A very, very rare event. I agree on the 'more concentrated pool of stenographers'. They're under siege and battening down the hatches. The more extreme they become, the more people wake up. The general public awakening over Gaza is spectacular and may well bring real change.
It WILL get worse before it gets better, because the old system is obsolete and clinging to power, justifying its old Colonial mindsets. It is unsustainable for human life and our Planet. We are part of creating a new system and must support each other. Some of us will be fired and shunned or even imprisoned for speaking the truth, but they cannot silence all of us. Besides, the truth becomes self-evident, and new solutions must be found. They brought Nelson Mandela back from his jail cell... So persevere and do do not be disheartened!
Well said, Beth. I'm fine with being disheartened - I've been disheartened thousands of times. I just watch it; let it burn sadly in all its melancholy possum playing for as long as it wants. Feeling it digests it. Then it's gone and the fun and delight of sharing what's helped me and that I think might help other people is back - that never stales.
What Ive learned is not to wait, even in hope - we must Embody that hope and give it Legs! Be the Change you want to See, in Community. Then we can grieve, rejoice, eat and march together. We are Unstoppable! ❤️❤️❤️
Definitely agree with this. Those in power have been overreaching for a long time and now they know they've crossed a tipping point. Still a long way to go but hopefully things change for the better and stay that way.
It’s not in doubt that the Ministry of Health’s counts of identified bodies provide no more than the minimum number of direct fatalities, but at least they are robust. We can be confident that there are uncounted bodies buried in the rubble, others buried in mass graves that may never be found, and others so comprehensively pulverised as to be unrecognisable as bodies. Furthermore, there are certain to be many ‘indirect’ fatalities attributable to Israeli hostilities from starvation, untreated and inadequately treated injury and disease, and so forth. Often unremarked is the vast amount of dust and smoke Israeli bombardment has produced and is sure to cause mesothelioma and other dust diseases whose symptoms may not become apparent for decades to come. There will also be further such exposure in the course of removing an estimated 60 million tonnes of rubble. And this leads to the first problem with Polya and Hil’s assertions: most of the indirect fatalities, however calculated, have not yet occurred. So it is quite simply false to allege ‘a staggering total of 680,000 deaths by 25 April 2025’ [my emphasis].
The source of Khatib’s speculation that a direct to indirect fatality ratio of 1:4 is a ‘conservative estimate’, is the 2008 study, _Global Burden of Armed Violence_ (GBAV; https://www.refworld.org/reference/research/gds/2008/en/64390). Its anonymous authors also aver that ‘Studies show that between three and 15 times as many people die indirectly for every person who dies violently.’ And yet, their own data show that in Darfur, the ratio was 2.3:1 and in Kosovo, the number of direct deaths actually exceeded indirect deaths (Table 2.3). Although Khatib, et al. don’t mention it, GBAV also extrapolates on the basis of ‘A conservative ratio of 4:1 indirect to direct deaths’.
It’s worth remarking that the conflicts GBAV discussed may not resemble Gaza in significant respects. For one thing, as many have pointed out, Israel’s recent activities in the Gaza Strip do not really amount to a conventional conflict at all, but a one sided slaughter - more akin to shooting fish in a barrel. For another, Israel’s comprehensive demolition of residential buildings and all other civilian infrastructure suggests that the number of direct fatalities due to violence is going to turn out to be disproportionately high, however astronomical the number of indirect deaths due to starvation and disease, etc.
Polya and Hil also extrapolate from Jamalludin, et al. on the dubious assumption that the average rate of slaughter during the first nine months remained constant ever since.
Furthermore, all of these studies focus exclusively on fatalities as if that were the only cost to the victims of the Israeli genocide. The MoH also releases counts of injuries that will prove to be a minimum. I haven’t seen a disaggregation of the injuries, but some proportion are going to cause lifelong crippling disabilities that will burden not only the direct victim, but those who need to care for them. And then there are the ‘Wounded Children, No Surviving Family’, for which they’ve had to invent an acronym (WCNSF), and other orphaned children, who may not have suffered physical injuries, but will endure psychological trauma for the rest of their lives.
MoH counts and extrapolations from them, like Polya’s, Donziger’s, and Jamaluddine et al. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02678-3/fulltext), are not the only sources of data. Spagat et al. conducted a household survey in January 2025, the Gaza Mortality Survey (GMS; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v4). They estimated total violent deaths at 75,200 and excess ‘nonviolent’ deaths (i.e. beyond expected mortality) at 8,540, giving a direct to indirect fatality ratio not of 1:4, but about 9:1. Their ‘findings are also incompatible with claims that...indirect deaths could exceed violent deaths by at least a factor of four…’ and ‘that a high ratio of indirect to direct deaths is not inevitable in warfare’.
Note what happens when we apply a procedure similar to Polya and Hil’s to find the ‘true’ number suffering injuries at Israel’s hands. We know from the robust MoH counts that on 3 October, there were 67,075 known fatalities and 169,430 injured persons, providing a ratio of 1:2.53. If we then multiply Polya and Hil’s ‘estimate’ of 680,000 fatalities by the same factor, there would then be 1,717,665 injured persons. Adding them to the 680,000 fatalities gives a total of 2,397,665 casualties, more than the total population of the Gaza Strip before 7 October 2023. By this reasoning, there would not be a single able bodied person left in Gaza. We could refine such figures by factoring in estimates of births, deaths from causes unrelated to the Israeli massacre, and some emigration, but that would still result in gibberish.
For a sober, current overview of these and related issues, see Neta Crawford’s ‘The Human Toll of the Gaza War: Direct and Indirect Death from 7 October 2023 to 3 October 2025’ (https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/HumanTollGaza).
The point is not to glorify the MoH or its statistics nor to mitigate Israel’s culpability. As far as I’m concerned, whatever Hamas may have done, NOTHING can justify harming even ONE uninvolved person, much less the myriads Israel has already slaughtered. It’s to reject sensationalism and the bodgy arithmetic that I hesitate to dignify with the label ‘methodology’, including the outright fiction that all indirect fatalities have already occurred.
Applying bogus ‘methodologies’ to questionable assumptions and misinterpreting the nature of ‘indirect fatalities’ to arrive at the largest, most sensational projections does not strengthen the arguments against Israel’s dramatically accelerated genocide over the last two years. On the contrary, it invites doubt.
Sensationalising body counts, moreover, seems to imply that:
- fatalities are the only costs to the victims of Israeli aggression
- 70,000 dead are not bad enough
- bogus assumptions and 'methods' that appeal to you, aka Alternative Facts™, are better than old fashioned evidence and reasoning.
Further to my previous comment, a factor that I overlooked was unexploded ordnance (UXO, or EO). According to the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), there have been 52 documented Palestinian fatalities ‘and 267 wounded by explosive ordnance in Gaza since October 2023’ (https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/unexploded-ordnance-gaza-bomb-remnants-israel-wounded-children-rubble-umas). UNMAS expects these figures, like other casualty counts, to be underreported. And the toll will continue to mount as residents travel through and reside amidst the rubble without training or protection. Meanwhile, ‘Armoured vehicles and other critical equipment remain at the border [sic] awaiting approval for entry.’ (https://www.unmas.org/en/unmas-opt-ceasefire-factsheet-october-2025)
Although _Global Costs of Armed Violence_ is unaccountably silent on the matter, victims of UOX are correctly regarded as *direct* casualties, even though many of them will occur long after Israel desists from active ‘hostilities’, if that ever happens. This will further erode the ratio of indirect to direct fatalities that is crucial to Polya and Hil’s calculations, among others, including Khatib et al, none of whom appear to have taken it into account.
I respect Peter Oborne for his book. I haven’t read it but glimpsing through a review copy I’ve seen, two things Peter Oborne could’ve done or should’ve done:
1. The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on. Not sure if the publisher overrode Peter Oborne’s preferences.
2. Peter Oborne apparently avoids naming the British military brass as fully complicit in the genocide and doing business with the genocide-waging IDF chiefs amidst a genocide that is indicted by both ICJ and ICC.* Notably the following names as mentioned by a junior British army officer for their complicity and participation in the Palestinian genocide in Gaza, Palestine: former UK Chief of Defence Staff (“CDS”) Adm Tony Radakin, former head of Royal Air Force (now current CDS Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Rich Knighton, former RAF Akrotiri base commander Group Captain Simon Cloke (who along with his former boss ACM Rich Knighton oversaw RAF sorties and intelligence flights as well as shipments of arms and logistics shipments from RAF Akrotiri to/from Israel & Gaza) former Chief of joint operations Lt Gen Sir Charles Richard Stickland who played a sizeable role, Commander of CSOC Gen Sir James Hockenhull, current head of PJHQ Lt Gen Nick Perry, and recently appointed commander of RAF Akrotiri Group Captain Adam Smolak, and to some extent Chief of the General Staff (CGS)/British Army chief General Sir Roland Walker (for condoning/permitting IDF personals training with British army), all have “materially and operationally aided and abetted the genocide waged by Israel in full violation of international laws, laws of the armed conflict, ICJ court rulings and provisional measures” as explained by a mid-ranking British military officer. Put simply, one British Army brigadier quipped "Without British military cooperation both Sunak and Starmer governments would never have been able to be participants in Israel’s genocidal war [sic].” By law/international law, the military chiefs and military personals are bound to comply with international law and ICJ Genocide Convention under postwar post Nuremberg precedent, not least when doing business with foreign military establishments whose leaders been served with a live ICC arrest warrant for genocidal crimes. Obeying the command of political leaders does not indemnify the military chiefs and armed forces personals against the legal liability in international law. Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs. It’s not easy for us to name and shame the military brass and our boys but in matters of genocide-complicity which is a red line, there’s no limit to naming and shaming the military officers whose loyalty wasn’t to the law and the country but to the politicians bought and owned by foreign genocidal state Israel's lobby. And of course, some of the senior civil servants and policy advisors are also complicit who should also be named such as former UK national security advisor (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell - unsurprisingly the latter had a key role in waging illegal Iraq war under Iraq war criminal Tony Blair.
‘The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on.’
It’s a fair point. But as you say, we don’t know what pressure Oborne was under, if any, to tone down the title. Would the book have been less likely to be displayed in bookshops, or to be reviewed, with ‘genocide’ in the title? Should that be a consideration for the author and publisher? We guess it can be argued both ways. He mentions the word ‘genocide’ 143 times in the book, and the word ‘genocidal’ 60 times.
You write:
‘Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs.’
In fact, Oborne writes in the book:
'Shame on the British military which trained, advised, and supported the genocidal Israeli army. Damn you Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. As chief of the defence staff, you had the power to stop this. You have brought Britain’s armed forces into disrepute.'
It's true Oborne could have listed more senior armed forces personnel, but he does write about the missions from the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. Should he have named all the names that appeared in that Declassified UK article? Maybe, but he certainly names and shames politicians, editors and journalists, notably in his conclusion.
Thank you Media Lens Team (David Edwards and David Cromwell) for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated. I have respect for Peter Oborne - who is a giant compared to many when it comes to digging things into the establishment's mischiefs and raising the benchmark of holding the establishment to account through investigative journalism.
1. You are absolutely right that Oborne mentions genocide many times. Reason I pointed out to the book title, where title matters, is that the book cover title gives away (often unfairly and un-representatively) the core message to the buyers and readers which the book aims to give. It's understandable that the publisher may have placed pressure or perhaps Oborne was under pressure, which I made it clear in my own (non-traditional) review (link: https://ismailysyed.substack.com/p/91918977-4d29-4955-b730-d5364a1576ad ) but after two years of genocide, the genocide taboo's dam in the west has finally burst; now days even the establishment figures openly say it, albeit in a deflective manner using whataboutism/both-sideism. The book shops are more open about displaying now, even Waterstones in Piccadilly displaying books which was unimaginable even few years ago (whether the staff did it unofficially, is another matter). By omitting the world "genocide", Oborne's book still didn't attract the attention of the mainstream media's book reviewers (though it is too early to say; Channel 4 was an exception). Had it been, say, few months after the start of genocide in October 2023, it would've been one thing why the word "genocide" may be omitted by the those with close proximity to the establishment. Two years later, when the UN body and even the conservative global genocide scholars body saying it, it should've been much easier.
2. As for the military chiefs and senior officers, Oborne does address this but I found he touches in a very passive manner when compared with targeting and naming the politicians beyond the usual PMs yet Oborne did not name the military officers other than figurehead CDS Tony Radakin. The former chief of the defence staff, while undoubtedly, is militarily complicit in Palestinian genocide, it was the other senior military officers, notably the former chief of air staff and RAF base commanders as well as the chiefs of PJHQ/CJO who played important roles in genocide facilitation but they were omitted. Put simply, naming the figureheads in the bureaucracy and military establishment, and even at political level, is open to concerns of scapegoatism. I stated the reasons in my review, that Oborne's book is different and he indeed set a legacy for others to follow: naming and shaming individuals - based on facts - for the purpose of accountability thus upping the scale for accountability expectations for the future generation of journalists and authors to follow. A number of serving junior military officers (disclosure: my students/former students at college) told me they are upset that Oborne did not actively mention the senior military figures despite that this time the military did not even did much to hide their dealings and interactions with the Israeli military which they do usually behind the iron wall of secrecy but this time, unlike Iraq war, things were done rather overtly or near-overtly, leaving many trails behind. The military officers (junior officers and mid-ranking ones) tried to raise the issue through their internal legal channels but were transferred from their base/forced to early retirement or their concerns fallen on deaf airs. Worse, the military chaplains, instead of listening and assisting the military officers (mainly the junior ones and soldiers and pilots) to raise concerns, became the establishment's enforcers using God's name - with full backing of the Church of England's then disgraced pro-Israel Archbishop of Canterbury Justine Welby.
3. Oborne fails to mention the role played by former Archbishop of Canterbury Justine Welby and wider Church of England (CoE) in backing Israel in the early days of October 7 2023, by blaming Palestinians' armed resistance factions eg Hamas and toeing the establishment's line. CoE may seem irrelevant in this age of atheism and agnosticism, but they have a huge sway over the rightwing white supremacist establishment, putting moral pressure, never mind, the billions of dollars investments.
4. Oborne's also fails - if I'm not wrong - to mention senior civil servant policy makers or political appointees such as former UK national security advisors (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell and permeant secretary at the Foreign Office who, per my sources (and of course this axiomatic based on public knowledge and information) that NSA play a powerful role in shaping the minds of PMs and the foreign and defence depts. The Attorney General is also powerful in having a sway over PMs despite the PMs can hire and fire AGs and the fact that AG didn't resign means AGs, along with military chiefs and policy advisors, major are partners in crime.
5. Oborne fails to *actively* mention the Israel lobbyist the Board of the Deputies (BoD), Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), and to some lesser extent, Community Security Trust (CST), though he did mentioned UKLFI, BICOM, LFI, CFoI but didn't name the individuals of these bodies despite the fact that number of civil servants and even UK diplomats in private say the individuals notably form BoD, JLM and BICOM (Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre) played an equal role in shaping both PMs' (Sunak and Starmer's) minds similar to NSAs in getting the PM to take decision to back Israel at any cost. Yes, the issue of potential libel/defamation lawsuit may be an issue but the book could've qualify the statements using various statements, but journalists as investigative reporters should still have the courage to name and shame in public interest.
6. Oborne, rightly so, unlike others, probably went the furthest (along with others e.g. Owen Jones, Asa Winstanley, Matt Kennard, Jonathan Cook etc) censuring his fellow journalism fraternity - not an easy thing to do - but fails to name the editors and reporters, news presenters etc for their role in media complicity in terms of their goebellsian role in manufacturing consent for genocide. Editors - and again not just editors in chiefs who are figureheads - but important section editors and directors of respective sections/departments and influential reporters should've been named or examined. As much as the institutionalisation of the blame or accountability is important, not naming the individuals (other than editorial figurehead) just makes it passive, ineffective and worse, another platitude. Oborne showed the courage of naming the individual politicians - along with 1-2 figureheads in the establishment - but that was just about it.
Nevertheless, I do acknowledge I may need to correct/amend my remarks after you pointing out to further nuances.
I also said in my review that Oborne's book, nevertheless still offer a devastating read and for setting the legacy of naming the establishment figures - albeit mostly on political level - for the purpose of accountability. He has set the tone of individualisation along with institutionalisation in the field of accountability for complicity but could've and should've gone much further. I also acknowledge I could have erred in expecting too much or my expectations are not necessarily relevant to serve the book.
Just in case, here's is my review, and yes, please feel free to read/comment/critique (or even condemn!):
Thanks, good points again, and there are no doubt other aspects of the book that merit criticism. As we noted in our alert, Oborne worked as political editor of the Spectator, as chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, as a journalist at the Evening Standard and as a commentator at the Express. He made nearly 30 documentaries for Channel 4, BBC World and BBC Radio 4. So, when he writes, ‘Damn you Chris Evans, editor of the Daily Telegraph, for turning your newspaper into one of Israel’s propaganda tools… Damn The Spectator… Damn the moral cowards at the top of the BBC: Samir Shah, Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, Richard Burgess. Damn you for failing to understand the meaning of the great institution you have disgraced…’ it means he has travelled an extraordinary distance and has burned numerous bridges in his determination to tell the truth. It is a remarkable, rarely seen, display of integrity. In October 2019, Oborne wrote a piece on ‘the way Boris Johnson was debauching Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news’. He submitted the piece for his weekly Saturday column in the Daily Mail, the Spectator and others, and was flatly rejected. He commented:
‘This article marked the end of my thirty-year-long career as a writer and broadcaster in the mainstream British press and media. I had been a regular presenter on Radio 4’s The Week in Westminster for more than two decades. It ceased to use me, without explanation. I parted company on reasonably friendly terms with the Daily Mail after our disagreement…
‘The mainstream British press and media is to all intents and purposes barred to me. I continue to write for the website Middle East Eye, for openDemocracy and from time to time for the British Journalism Review.’ https://www.medialens.org/2021/the-impossible-peter-oborne/
I don’t think we’ve ever been accused of being too soft on ‘mainstream’ journalism, but we do try to be reasonable. When imperfect human beings working within tyrannical systems of power are moving dramatically in a positive direction, or trying to, we like to applaud and encourage their efforts rather than add to the tsunami of criticism and punishment heaped on them by the ‘mainstream’. Oborne is under enormous pressure, has paid a huge price for his honesty and courage, and we’re happy to applaud him. DE
Thank you for your kind nuanced analysis. I agree with most parts. I also made it clear right from the beginning in my review (prior to adding additional remarks) that Oborne went way beyond others and showed the courage to take on his fellow/former journalism fraternity. Let's stay in touch! We may not always agree but in the interest of red-line issues e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, military industrial complex, autocracy/fascism, financial or political corruption by/in the establishment, there is nothing wrong taking maximalist position (though it may unfairly dilute/distort the nuances which you pointed out). Once again, after adding some clarifications/addendum in my review piece, I acknowledged/gave credit to you/Media Lens for prompting me to add clarification.
Just to add, I don't have direct contact, but feel free to pass on my apologies and regret to Peter Oborne for appearing too harsh/maximalist in my criticism/diluting the nuances, and the fact that I in the end praised and highly recommended his books to my audiences (around already 100 copies been ordered within a day of recommending my contacts and followers).
I respect Peter Oborne for his book. I haven’t read it but glimpsing through a review copy I’ve seen, two things Peter Oborne could’ve done or should’ve done:
1. The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on. Not sure if the publisher overrode Peter Oborne’s preferences.
2. Peter Oborne apparently avoids naming the British military brass as fully complicit in the genocide and doing business with the genocide-waging IDF chiefs amidst a genocide that is indicted by both ICJ and ICC.* Notably the following names as mentioned by a junior British army officer for their complicity and participation in the Palestinian genocide in Gaza, Palestine: former UK Chief of Defence Staff (“CDS”) Adm Tony Radakin, former head of Royal Air Force (now current CDS Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Rich Knighton, former RAF Akrotiri base commander Group Captain Simon Cloke (who along with his former boss ACM Rich Knighton oversaw RAF sorties and intelligence flights as well as shipments of arms and logistics shipments from RAF Akrotiri to/from Israel & Gaza) former Chief of joint operations Lt Gen Sir Charles Richard Stickland who played a sizeable role, Commander of CSOC Gen Sir James Hockenhull, current head of PJHQ Lt Gen Nick Perry, and recently appointed commander of RAF Akrotiri Group Captain Adam Smolak, and to some extent Chief of the General Staff (CGS)/British Army chief General Sir Roland Walker (for condoning/permitting IDF personals training with British army), all have “materially and operationally aided and abetted the genocide waged by Israel in full violation of international laws, laws of the armed conflict, ICJ court rulings and provisional measures” as explained by a mid-ranking British military officer. Put simply, one British Army brigadier quipped "Without British military cooperation both Sunak and Starmer governments would never have been able to be participants in Israel’s genocidal war [sic].” By law/international law, the military chiefs and military personals are bound to comply with international law and ICJ Genocide Convention under postwar post Nuremberg precedent, not least when doing business with foreign military establishments whose leaders been served with a live ICC arrest warrant for genocidal crimes. Obeying the command of political leaders does not indemnify the military chiefs and armed forces personals against the legal liability in international law. Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs. It’s not easy for us to name and shame the military brass and our boys but in matters of genocide-complicity which is a red line, there’s no limit to naming and shaming the military officers whose loyalty wasn’t to the law and the country but to the politicians bought and owned by foreign genocidal state Israel's lobby. And of course, some of the senior civil servants and policy advisors are also complicit who should also be named such as former UK national security advisor (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell - unsurprisingly the latter had a key role in waging illegal Iraq war under Iraq war criminal Tony Blair.
Like how Brits wrote, read, mediated, organised, and protested Germany's Nazis to kill off their movement and pacisfism eradicated Hindutva fascism in India and elsewhere? 🤷♂️
Brits certainly set things on fire in Germany, but did we kill off fascism? Nietzsche's warning sums up post-1945 political history:
‘He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.’
The historian Howard Zinn, who fought in the Second World War, pointed out that while the Allies did defeat Hitler’s regime, they did not defeat fascistic militarism:
‘Yes, we were right to celebrate. Hitler was dead, the Japanese military machine was destroyed, Mussolini was hanging in a town square. But, looking at the world after the war, was Fascism really defeated? The elements of Fascism —totalitarianism, racism — were still alive all over the world. Was militarism defeated? No, there were now two superpowers, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons, which if used would make Hitler’s holocaust look insignificant. And after fifty million died in World War II, was this the end of war? No, wars continued over the next decades, and tens of millions of people died in these wars.’ (Zinn, ‘Howard Zinn Speaks: Collected Speeches, 1963-2009’, Haymarket Books, 2012, p.197)
Moreover, as Zinn noted, the resort to total war to defeat fascism gave birth to a post-war, Western military-industrial complex with a deep investment in war and yet more war:
‘I came to the conclusion that war, even a victorious war over an evil enemy, as in the war against Fascism, is a quick fix, like a drug, which gives you a rush of euphoria, but when it wears away you are back in the depths and you must have another fix, another war. Yes, war is an addiction that we must decide to break, for the sake of the children of the world.’ (p.197)
As Zinn noted, fighting Nazism had the ironic effect of deeply embedding militarism and violence in Western societies. We burned down fascism but, in doing, so we became fascistic, exactly as Nietzsche warned. See here for discussion:
80 years of failure from people who seem quite proficient at politely talking about things that need solving whilst violent fascists do as they please. How lovely for all the fascists.
Guess I'll be down the pub reading books in peace while other people sitting down reading books end fascism.
Thank you. The disgraceful, indeed flagrantly criminal, conduct of the British political and media establishments must be fully documented in order that some day a proper reckoning can be had.
Excellent writing as always. That book by Peter Oborne is going to be a truly damning read.
One awful thing I can't stop thinking about is how many of those who've peddled lies for two years are likely to be rewarded by the system.
Many who lied about past wars were promoted, while those who told the truth were fired and shunned. The long-term decline of the media has left behind a more concentrated pool of stenographers. And it seems to be getting worse.
Thanks, Jordan. Oborne's book is a must-read - one of the best on the UK media we've seen, and from a deeply respected, high-profile media insider. A very, very rare event. I agree on the 'more concentrated pool of stenographers'. They're under siege and battening down the hatches. The more extreme they become, the more people wake up. The general public awakening over Gaza is spectacular and may well bring real change.
It WILL get worse before it gets better, because the old system is obsolete and clinging to power, justifying its old Colonial mindsets. It is unsustainable for human life and our Planet. We are part of creating a new system and must support each other. Some of us will be fired and shunned or even imprisoned for speaking the truth, but they cannot silence all of us. Besides, the truth becomes self-evident, and new solutions must be found. They brought Nelson Mandela back from his jail cell... So persevere and do do not be disheartened!
Well said, Beth. I'm fine with being disheartened - I've been disheartened thousands of times. I just watch it; let it burn sadly in all its melancholy possum playing for as long as it wants. Feeling it digests it. Then it's gone and the fun and delight of sharing what's helped me and that I think might help other people is back - that never stales.
What Ive learned is not to wait, even in hope - we must Embody that hope and give it Legs! Be the Change you want to See, in Community. Then we can grieve, rejoice, eat and march together. We are Unstoppable! ❤️❤️❤️
Definitely agree with this. Those in power have been overreaching for a long time and now they know they've crossed a tipping point. Still a long way to go but hopefully things change for the better and stay that way.
All this was already foreseen by Eric Blair (aka George Orwell)
Doublespeak = War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery.
Disgusted by the BBC and the cojones lacking meedja.
Literally a 1984 world.
War is peace. The empire's warmongers celebrated and awarded trophies.
A dystopian reality created by anti-Golden-Rule billionaire predators patting each other on the back as they mass-murder
It’s not in doubt that the Ministry of Health’s counts of identified bodies provide no more than the minimum number of direct fatalities, but at least they are robust. We can be confident that there are uncounted bodies buried in the rubble, others buried in mass graves that may never be found, and others so comprehensively pulverised as to be unrecognisable as bodies. Furthermore, there are certain to be many ‘indirect’ fatalities attributable to Israeli hostilities from starvation, untreated and inadequately treated injury and disease, and so forth. Often unremarked is the vast amount of dust and smoke Israeli bombardment has produced and is sure to cause mesothelioma and other dust diseases whose symptoms may not become apparent for decades to come. There will also be further such exposure in the course of removing an estimated 60 million tonnes of rubble. And this leads to the first problem with Polya and Hil’s assertions: most of the indirect fatalities, however calculated, have not yet occurred. So it is quite simply false to allege ‘a staggering total of 680,000 deaths by 25 April 2025’ [my emphasis].
Furthermore, Polya (https://arena.org.au/politics-of-counting-gazas-dead/) and others (https://stevendonziger.substack.com/p/update-israel-has-killed-500000-people) follow Khatib et al., which they link to, but don’t appear to have read (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext), in multiplying an estimate of direct fatalities (Jamaluddine et al. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02678-3/fulltext)) by a factor of four, as you mention. It’s worth noting that Khatib, et al. are so confident of their conclusion that they assert it is ‘not implausible’. See (https://bureauofcounterpropaganda.substack.com/p/counting-the-dead and https://aoav.org.uk/2024/a-critical-analysis-of-the-lancets-letter-counting-the-dead-in-gaza-difficult-but-essential-professor-mike-spagat-reviews-the-claim-the-total-gaza-death-toll-may-reach-upwards-of-186000/) for detailed critiques.
The source of Khatib’s speculation that a direct to indirect fatality ratio of 1:4 is a ‘conservative estimate’, is the 2008 study, _Global Burden of Armed Violence_ (GBAV; https://www.refworld.org/reference/research/gds/2008/en/64390). Its anonymous authors also aver that ‘Studies show that between three and 15 times as many people die indirectly for every person who dies violently.’ And yet, their own data show that in Darfur, the ratio was 2.3:1 and in Kosovo, the number of direct deaths actually exceeded indirect deaths (Table 2.3). Although Khatib, et al. don’t mention it, GBAV also extrapolates on the basis of ‘A conservative ratio of 4:1 indirect to direct deaths’.
It’s worth remarking that the conflicts GBAV discussed may not resemble Gaza in significant respects. For one thing, as many have pointed out, Israel’s recent activities in the Gaza Strip do not really amount to a conventional conflict at all, but a one sided slaughter - more akin to shooting fish in a barrel. For another, Israel’s comprehensive demolition of residential buildings and all other civilian infrastructure suggests that the number of direct fatalities due to violence is going to turn out to be disproportionately high, however astronomical the number of indirect deaths due to starvation and disease, etc.
Polya and Hil also extrapolate from Jamalludin, et al. on the dubious assumption that the average rate of slaughter during the first nine months remained constant ever since.
Furthermore, all of these studies focus exclusively on fatalities as if that were the only cost to the victims of the Israeli genocide. The MoH also releases counts of injuries that will prove to be a minimum. I haven’t seen a disaggregation of the injuries, but some proportion are going to cause lifelong crippling disabilities that will burden not only the direct victim, but those who need to care for them. And then there are the ‘Wounded Children, No Surviving Family’, for which they’ve had to invent an acronym (WCNSF), and other orphaned children, who may not have suffered physical injuries, but will endure psychological trauma for the rest of their lives.
MoH counts and extrapolations from them, like Polya’s, Donziger’s, and Jamaluddine et al. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02678-3/fulltext), are not the only sources of data. Spagat et al. conducted a household survey in January 2025, the Gaza Mortality Survey (GMS; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v4). They estimated total violent deaths at 75,200 and excess ‘nonviolent’ deaths (i.e. beyond expected mortality) at 8,540, giving a direct to indirect fatality ratio not of 1:4, but about 9:1. Their ‘findings are also incompatible with claims that...indirect deaths could exceed violent deaths by at least a factor of four…’ and ‘that a high ratio of indirect to direct deaths is not inevitable in warfare’.
Note what happens when we apply a procedure similar to Polya and Hil’s to find the ‘true’ number suffering injuries at Israel’s hands. We know from the robust MoH counts that on 3 October, there were 67,075 known fatalities and 169,430 injured persons, providing a ratio of 1:2.53. If we then multiply Polya and Hil’s ‘estimate’ of 680,000 fatalities by the same factor, there would then be 1,717,665 injured persons. Adding them to the 680,000 fatalities gives a total of 2,397,665 casualties, more than the total population of the Gaza Strip before 7 October 2023. By this reasoning, there would not be a single able bodied person left in Gaza. We could refine such figures by factoring in estimates of births, deaths from causes unrelated to the Israeli massacre, and some emigration, but that would still result in gibberish.
For a sober, current overview of these and related issues, see Neta Crawford’s ‘The Human Toll of the Gaza War: Direct and Indirect Death from 7 October 2023 to 3 October 2025’ (https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/HumanTollGaza).
The point is not to glorify the MoH or its statistics nor to mitigate Israel’s culpability. As far as I’m concerned, whatever Hamas may have done, NOTHING can justify harming even ONE uninvolved person, much less the myriads Israel has already slaughtered. It’s to reject sensationalism and the bodgy arithmetic that I hesitate to dignify with the label ‘methodology’, including the outright fiction that all indirect fatalities have already occurred.
Applying bogus ‘methodologies’ to questionable assumptions and misinterpreting the nature of ‘indirect fatalities’ to arrive at the largest, most sensational projections does not strengthen the arguments against Israel’s dramatically accelerated genocide over the last two years. On the contrary, it invites doubt.
Sensationalising body counts, moreover, seems to imply that:
- fatalities are the only costs to the victims of Israeli aggression
- 70,000 dead are not bad enough
- bogus assumptions and 'methods' that appeal to you, aka Alternative Facts™, are better than old fashioned evidence and reasoning.
Further to my previous comment, a factor that I overlooked was unexploded ordnance (UXO, or EO). According to the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), there have been 52 documented Palestinian fatalities ‘and 267 wounded by explosive ordnance in Gaza since October 2023’ (https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/unexploded-ordnance-gaza-bomb-remnants-israel-wounded-children-rubble-umas). UNMAS expects these figures, like other casualty counts, to be underreported. And the toll will continue to mount as residents travel through and reside amidst the rubble without training or protection. Meanwhile, ‘Armoured vehicles and other critical equipment remain at the border [sic] awaiting approval for entry.’ (https://www.unmas.org/en/unmas-opt-ceasefire-factsheet-october-2025)
Although _Global Costs of Armed Violence_ is unaccountably silent on the matter, victims of UOX are correctly regarded as *direct* casualties, even though many of them will occur long after Israel desists from active ‘hostilities’, if that ever happens. This will further erode the ratio of indirect to direct fatalities that is crucial to Polya and Hil’s calculations, among others, including Khatib et al, none of whom appear to have taken it into account.
I respect Peter Oborne for his book. I haven’t read it but glimpsing through a review copy I’ve seen, two things Peter Oborne could’ve done or should’ve done:
1. The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on. Not sure if the publisher overrode Peter Oborne’s preferences.
2. Peter Oborne apparently avoids naming the British military brass as fully complicit in the genocide and doing business with the genocide-waging IDF chiefs amidst a genocide that is indicted by both ICJ and ICC.* Notably the following names as mentioned by a junior British army officer for their complicity and participation in the Palestinian genocide in Gaza, Palestine: former UK Chief of Defence Staff (“CDS”) Adm Tony Radakin, former head of Royal Air Force (now current CDS Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Rich Knighton, former RAF Akrotiri base commander Group Captain Simon Cloke (who along with his former boss ACM Rich Knighton oversaw RAF sorties and intelligence flights as well as shipments of arms and logistics shipments from RAF Akrotiri to/from Israel & Gaza) former Chief of joint operations Lt Gen Sir Charles Richard Stickland who played a sizeable role, Commander of CSOC Gen Sir James Hockenhull, current head of PJHQ Lt Gen Nick Perry, and recently appointed commander of RAF Akrotiri Group Captain Adam Smolak, and to some extent Chief of the General Staff (CGS)/British Army chief General Sir Roland Walker (for condoning/permitting IDF personals training with British army), all have “materially and operationally aided and abetted the genocide waged by Israel in full violation of international laws, laws of the armed conflict, ICJ court rulings and provisional measures” as explained by a mid-ranking British military officer. Put simply, one British Army brigadier quipped "Without British military cooperation both Sunak and Starmer governments would never have been able to be participants in Israel’s genocidal war [sic].” By law/international law, the military chiefs and military personals are bound to comply with international law and ICJ Genocide Convention under postwar post Nuremberg precedent, not least when doing business with foreign military establishments whose leaders been served with a live ICC arrest warrant for genocidal crimes. Obeying the command of political leaders does not indemnify the military chiefs and armed forces personals against the legal liability in international law. Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs. It’s not easy for us to name and shame the military brass and our boys but in matters of genocide-complicity which is a red line, there’s no limit to naming and shaming the military officers whose loyalty wasn’t to the law and the country but to the politicians bought and owned by foreign genocidal state Israel's lobby. And of course, some of the senior civil servants and policy advisors are also complicit who should also be named such as former UK national security advisor (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell - unsurprisingly the latter had a key role in waging illegal Iraq war under Iraq war criminal Tony Blair.
—
*Overton, Iain. “UK Defence Chiefs Made 12 Trips to Israel During Gaza War.” Declassified UK, October 30, 2025. https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-defence-chiefs-made-12-trips-to-israel-during-gaza-war.
Thanks, Ismail Y Syed. You write:
‘The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on.’
It’s a fair point. But as you say, we don’t know what pressure Oborne was under, if any, to tone down the title. Would the book have been less likely to be displayed in bookshops, or to be reviewed, with ‘genocide’ in the title? Should that be a consideration for the author and publisher? We guess it can be argued both ways. He mentions the word ‘genocide’ 143 times in the book, and the word ‘genocidal’ 60 times.
You write:
‘Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs.’
In fact, Oborne writes in the book:
'Shame on the British military which trained, advised, and supported the genocidal Israeli army. Damn you Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. As chief of the defence staff, you had the power to stop this. You have brought Britain’s armed forces into disrepute.'
It's true Oborne could have listed more senior armed forces personnel, but he does write about the missions from the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. Should he have named all the names that appeared in that Declassified UK article? Maybe, but he certainly names and shames politicians, editors and journalists, notably in his conclusion.
Best wishes
David Edwards and David Cromwell
Thank you Media Lens Team (David Edwards and David Cromwell) for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated. I have respect for Peter Oborne - who is a giant compared to many when it comes to digging things into the establishment's mischiefs and raising the benchmark of holding the establishment to account through investigative journalism.
1. You are absolutely right that Oborne mentions genocide many times. Reason I pointed out to the book title, where title matters, is that the book cover title gives away (often unfairly and un-representatively) the core message to the buyers and readers which the book aims to give. It's understandable that the publisher may have placed pressure or perhaps Oborne was under pressure, which I made it clear in my own (non-traditional) review (link: https://ismailysyed.substack.com/p/91918977-4d29-4955-b730-d5364a1576ad ) but after two years of genocide, the genocide taboo's dam in the west has finally burst; now days even the establishment figures openly say it, albeit in a deflective manner using whataboutism/both-sideism. The book shops are more open about displaying now, even Waterstones in Piccadilly displaying books which was unimaginable even few years ago (whether the staff did it unofficially, is another matter). By omitting the world "genocide", Oborne's book still didn't attract the attention of the mainstream media's book reviewers (though it is too early to say; Channel 4 was an exception). Had it been, say, few months after the start of genocide in October 2023, it would've been one thing why the word "genocide" may be omitted by the those with close proximity to the establishment. Two years later, when the UN body and even the conservative global genocide scholars body saying it, it should've been much easier.
2. As for the military chiefs and senior officers, Oborne does address this but I found he touches in a very passive manner when compared with targeting and naming the politicians beyond the usual PMs yet Oborne did not name the military officers other than figurehead CDS Tony Radakin. The former chief of the defence staff, while undoubtedly, is militarily complicit in Palestinian genocide, it was the other senior military officers, notably the former chief of air staff and RAF base commanders as well as the chiefs of PJHQ/CJO who played important roles in genocide facilitation but they were omitted. Put simply, naming the figureheads in the bureaucracy and military establishment, and even at political level, is open to concerns of scapegoatism. I stated the reasons in my review, that Oborne's book is different and he indeed set a legacy for others to follow: naming and shaming individuals - based on facts - for the purpose of accountability thus upping the scale for accountability expectations for the future generation of journalists and authors to follow. A number of serving junior military officers (disclosure: my students/former students at college) told me they are upset that Oborne did not actively mention the senior military figures despite that this time the military did not even did much to hide their dealings and interactions with the Israeli military which they do usually behind the iron wall of secrecy but this time, unlike Iraq war, things were done rather overtly or near-overtly, leaving many trails behind. The military officers (junior officers and mid-ranking ones) tried to raise the issue through their internal legal channels but were transferred from their base/forced to early retirement or their concerns fallen on deaf airs. Worse, the military chaplains, instead of listening and assisting the military officers (mainly the junior ones and soldiers and pilots) to raise concerns, became the establishment's enforcers using God's name - with full backing of the Church of England's then disgraced pro-Israel Archbishop of Canterbury Justine Welby.
3. Oborne fails to mention the role played by former Archbishop of Canterbury Justine Welby and wider Church of England (CoE) in backing Israel in the early days of October 7 2023, by blaming Palestinians' armed resistance factions eg Hamas and toeing the establishment's line. CoE may seem irrelevant in this age of atheism and agnosticism, but they have a huge sway over the rightwing white supremacist establishment, putting moral pressure, never mind, the billions of dollars investments.
4. Oborne's also fails - if I'm not wrong - to mention senior civil servant policy makers or political appointees such as former UK national security advisors (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell and permeant secretary at the Foreign Office who, per my sources (and of course this axiomatic based on public knowledge and information) that NSA play a powerful role in shaping the minds of PMs and the foreign and defence depts. The Attorney General is also powerful in having a sway over PMs despite the PMs can hire and fire AGs and the fact that AG didn't resign means AGs, along with military chiefs and policy advisors, major are partners in crime.
5. Oborne fails to *actively* mention the Israel lobbyist the Board of the Deputies (BoD), Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), and to some lesser extent, Community Security Trust (CST), though he did mentioned UKLFI, BICOM, LFI, CFoI but didn't name the individuals of these bodies despite the fact that number of civil servants and even UK diplomats in private say the individuals notably form BoD, JLM and BICOM (Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre) played an equal role in shaping both PMs' (Sunak and Starmer's) minds similar to NSAs in getting the PM to take decision to back Israel at any cost. Yes, the issue of potential libel/defamation lawsuit may be an issue but the book could've qualify the statements using various statements, but journalists as investigative reporters should still have the courage to name and shame in public interest.
6. Oborne, rightly so, unlike others, probably went the furthest (along with others e.g. Owen Jones, Asa Winstanley, Matt Kennard, Jonathan Cook etc) censuring his fellow journalism fraternity - not an easy thing to do - but fails to name the editors and reporters, news presenters etc for their role in media complicity in terms of their goebellsian role in manufacturing consent for genocide. Editors - and again not just editors in chiefs who are figureheads - but important section editors and directors of respective sections/departments and influential reporters should've been named or examined. As much as the institutionalisation of the blame or accountability is important, not naming the individuals (other than editorial figurehead) just makes it passive, ineffective and worse, another platitude. Oborne showed the courage of naming the individual politicians - along with 1-2 figureheads in the establishment - but that was just about it.
Nevertheless, I do acknowledge I may need to correct/amend my remarks after you pointing out to further nuances.
I also said in my review that Oborne's book, nevertheless still offer a devastating read and for setting the legacy of naming the establishment figures - albeit mostly on political level - for the purpose of accountability. He has set the tone of individualisation along with institutionalisation in the field of accountability for complicity but could've and should've gone much further. I also acknowledge I could have erred in expecting too much or my expectations are not necessarily relevant to serve the book.
Just in case, here's is my review, and yes, please feel free to read/comment/critique (or even condemn!):
https://ismailysyed.substack.com/p/91918977-4d29-4955-b730-d5364a1576ad
Thanks, good points again, and there are no doubt other aspects of the book that merit criticism. As we noted in our alert, Oborne worked as political editor of the Spectator, as chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, as a journalist at the Evening Standard and as a commentator at the Express. He made nearly 30 documentaries for Channel 4, BBC World and BBC Radio 4. So, when he writes, ‘Damn you Chris Evans, editor of the Daily Telegraph, for turning your newspaper into one of Israel’s propaganda tools… Damn The Spectator… Damn the moral cowards at the top of the BBC: Samir Shah, Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, Richard Burgess. Damn you for failing to understand the meaning of the great institution you have disgraced…’ it means he has travelled an extraordinary distance and has burned numerous bridges in his determination to tell the truth. It is a remarkable, rarely seen, display of integrity. In October 2019, Oborne wrote a piece on ‘the way Boris Johnson was debauching Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news’. He submitted the piece for his weekly Saturday column in the Daily Mail, the Spectator and others, and was flatly rejected. He commented:
‘This article marked the end of my thirty-year-long career as a writer and broadcaster in the mainstream British press and media. I had been a regular presenter on Radio 4’s The Week in Westminster for more than two decades. It ceased to use me, without explanation. I parted company on reasonably friendly terms with the Daily Mail after our disagreement…
‘The mainstream British press and media is to all intents and purposes barred to me. I continue to write for the website Middle East Eye, for openDemocracy and from time to time for the British Journalism Review.’ https://www.medialens.org/2021/the-impossible-peter-oborne/
I don’t think we’ve ever been accused of being too soft on ‘mainstream’ journalism, but we do try to be reasonable. When imperfect human beings working within tyrannical systems of power are moving dramatically in a positive direction, or trying to, we like to applaud and encourage their efforts rather than add to the tsunami of criticism and punishment heaped on them by the ‘mainstream’. Oborne is under enormous pressure, has paid a huge price for his honesty and courage, and we’re happy to applaud him. DE
Thank you for your kind nuanced analysis. I agree with most parts. I also made it clear right from the beginning in my review (prior to adding additional remarks) that Oborne went way beyond others and showed the courage to take on his fellow/former journalism fraternity. Let's stay in touch! We may not always agree but in the interest of red-line issues e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, military industrial complex, autocracy/fascism, financial or political corruption by/in the establishment, there is nothing wrong taking maximalist position (though it may unfairly dilute/distort the nuances which you pointed out). Once again, after adding some clarifications/addendum in my review piece, I acknowledged/gave credit to you/Media Lens for prompting me to add clarification.
Just to add, I don't have direct contact, but feel free to pass on my apologies and regret to Peter Oborne for appearing too harsh/maximalist in my criticism/diluting the nuances, and the fact that I in the end praised and highly recommended his books to my audiences (around already 100 copies been ordered within a day of recommending my contacts and followers).
Kind regards
Ismail Syed
Email: correspondence.ismailsyed@gmail.com
I respect Peter Oborne for his book. I haven’t read it but glimpsing through a review copy I’ve seen, two things Peter Oborne could’ve done or should’ve done:
1. The title of the book should’ve said “genocide” or “genocidal erasure” instead of “destruction”, the latter which kind of tone downs the genocide which the UN bodies reported on. Not sure if the publisher overrode Peter Oborne’s preferences.
2. Peter Oborne apparently avoids naming the British military brass as fully complicit in the genocide and doing business with the genocide-waging IDF chiefs amidst a genocide that is indicted by both ICJ and ICC.* Notably the following names as mentioned by a junior British army officer for their complicity and participation in the Palestinian genocide in Gaza, Palestine: former UK Chief of Defence Staff (“CDS”) Adm Tony Radakin, former head of Royal Air Force (now current CDS Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Rich Knighton, former RAF Akrotiri base commander Group Captain Simon Cloke (who along with his former boss ACM Rich Knighton oversaw RAF sorties and intelligence flights as well as shipments of arms and logistics shipments from RAF Akrotiri to/from Israel & Gaza) former Chief of joint operations Lt Gen Sir Charles Richard Stickland who played a sizeable role, Commander of CSOC Gen Sir James Hockenhull, current head of PJHQ Lt Gen Nick Perry, and recently appointed commander of RAF Akrotiri Group Captain Adam Smolak, and to some extent Chief of the General Staff (CGS)/British Army chief General Sir Roland Walker (for condoning/permitting IDF personals training with British army), all have “materially and operationally aided and abetted the genocide waged by Israel in full violation of international laws, laws of the armed conflict, ICJ court rulings and provisional measures” as explained by a mid-ranking British military officer. Put simply, one British Army brigadier quipped "Without British military cooperation both Sunak and Starmer governments would never have been able to be participants in Israel’s genocidal war [sic].” By law/international law, the military chiefs and military personals are bound to comply with international law and ICJ Genocide Convention under postwar post Nuremberg precedent, not least when doing business with foreign military establishments whose leaders been served with a live ICC arrest warrant for genocidal crimes. Obeying the command of political leaders does not indemnify the military chiefs and armed forces personals against the legal liability in international law. Regrettably, Peter Oborne didn’t mention/implicate any UK military chiefs. It’s not easy for us to name and shame the military brass and our boys but in matters of genocide-complicity which is a red line, there’s no limit to naming and shaming the military officers whose loyalty wasn’t to the law and the country but to the politicians bought and owned by foreign genocidal state Israel's lobby. And of course, some of the senior civil servants and policy advisors are also complicit who should also be named such as former UK national security advisor (NSA) Tim Barrow and current NSA Jonathan Powell - unsurprisingly the latter had a key role in waging illegal Iraq war under Iraq war criminal Tony Blair.
—
*Overton, Iain. “UK Defence Chiefs Made 12 Trips to Israel During Gaza War.” Declassified UK, October 30, 2025. https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-defence-chiefs-made-12-trips-to-israel-during-gaza-war.
https://open.substack.com/pub/harriboyshut/p/how-did-that-happen?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=dxax5
Remember that the British ‘gave’ Palestine to Jewish terrorists
Will we write our way out of all the fascism or should we be reading a bit but mostly setting things on fire?
Reading, writing, meditating, organising, protesting. You can find your way *into* fascism by setting things on fire, but not out.
Like how Brits wrote, read, mediated, organised, and protested Germany's Nazis to kill off their movement and pacisfism eradicated Hindutva fascism in India and elsewhere? 🤷♂️
Brits certainly set things on fire in Germany, but did we kill off fascism? Nietzsche's warning sums up post-1945 political history:
‘He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.’
The historian Howard Zinn, who fought in the Second World War, pointed out that while the Allies did defeat Hitler’s regime, they did not defeat fascistic militarism:
‘Yes, we were right to celebrate. Hitler was dead, the Japanese military machine was destroyed, Mussolini was hanging in a town square. But, looking at the world after the war, was Fascism really defeated? The elements of Fascism —totalitarianism, racism — were still alive all over the world. Was militarism defeated? No, there were now two superpowers, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons, which if used would make Hitler’s holocaust look insignificant. And after fifty million died in World War II, was this the end of war? No, wars continued over the next decades, and tens of millions of people died in these wars.’ (Zinn, ‘Howard Zinn Speaks: Collected Speeches, 1963-2009’, Haymarket Books, 2012, p.197)
Moreover, as Zinn noted, the resort to total war to defeat fascism gave birth to a post-war, Western military-industrial complex with a deep investment in war and yet more war:
‘I came to the conclusion that war, even a victorious war over an evil enemy, as in the war against Fascism, is a quick fix, like a drug, which gives you a rush of euphoria, but when it wears away you are back in the depths and you must have another fix, another war. Yes, war is an addiction that we must decide to break, for the sake of the children of the world.’ (p.197)
As Zinn noted, fighting Nazism had the ironic effect of deeply embedding militarism and violence in Western societies. We burned down fascism but, in doing, so we became fascistic, exactly as Nietzsche warned. See here for discussion:
https://www.medialens.org/2025/wurden-wir-alle-deutsch-sprechen-the-case-against-fighting-for-sir-keir-starmer/
80 years of failure from people who seem quite proficient at politely talking about things that need solving whilst violent fascists do as they please. How lovely for all the fascists.
Guess I'll be down the pub reading books in peace while other people sitting down reading books end fascism.