Social media
Israeli AI ‘using WhatsApp data’ to target Gaza families for bomb strikes
‘Lavender’ AI set to prioritise hitting targets at home with their families and is said to be using WhatsApp data for its process – but how is Israel getting hold of it?
Israel’s AI system for targeting people for murder in Gaza uses WhatsApp data among its targeting criteria, according to a report in the Israeli 972 magazine and analysis by Paul Biggar of Tech for Palestine.
The platform is marketed as encrypted ‘end to end’, supposedly offering complete security, and WhatsApp told Middle East Monitor that:
WhatsApp has no backdoors and we do not provide bulk information to any government. For over a decade, Meta has provided consistent transparency reports and those include the limited circumstances when WhatsApp information has been requested. Our principles are firm – we carefully review, validate and respond to law enforcement requests based on applicable law and consistent with internationally recognized standards, including human rights.
However, a 2021 Freedom of Information Request to the FBI revealed that WhatsApp’s owner provides ‘near real-time’ information to US authorities – not the content of messages in most cases, but of who is sending and receiving messages:
WhatsApp will produce certain user metadata, though not actual message content, every 15 minutes in response to a pen register [a special type of federal request], the FBI says. The FBI guide explains that most messaging services do not or cannot do this and instead provide data with a lag and not in anything close to real time: “Return data provided by the companies listed below, with the exception of WhatsApp, are actually logs of latent data that are provided to law enforcement in a non-real-time manner and may impact investigations due to delivery delays.”
This potentially fits with reports in Israeli media that Israel is using an artificial intelligence platform named ‘Lavender’ to identify thousands of human targets in Gaza and flag them for an airstrike, with WhatsApp data forming a key part of the AI’s decision process, based on the WhatsApp connections of supposed ‘militants’ – and that the system is designed to kill large numbers of civilians. One source told 972 that when Lavender identifies a target, Israeli forces:
bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.
But of course, people are in WhatsApp groups of all kinds of topics and for all kind of reasons – and merely being in a group which has a ‘militant’ member is no guarantee of any kind of ‘guilt’ – even if the right to resist occupation is disregarded, as Israel, the US and UK do.
This pattern raises the possibility that Israel is obtaining WhatsApp data, whether directly or from the US government. Another possibility is that Israel is accessing the data through the notorious ‘Pegasus’ hacking programme that has been shown to target WhatsApp users, hijacking their phones through WhatsApp even, in the later Pegasus versions, if they don’t open any suspicious links. Journalists, politicians, human rights activists and others are known to have been hacked by governments using the software, including its use by the Saudis against dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
So serious was the issue that in 2021 tech firm Apple sued NSO, the maker of Pegasus, for targeting Apple users. NSO claimed that the software is used only against ‘terrorists’ – as which Israel, the UK, US and some others have designated Palestinian resistance groups – but there is clearly no guarantee that the definition of ‘terrorist’ is not extended in practice to anyone targeted by Israel. Biggar has accused WhatsApp’s owners of breaking international law and violating human rights.
Facebook, which belongs to the same Meta parent group as WhatsApp, has been accused of shutting down the circulation of pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist posts and treating the term ‘Zionist’ as hate speech. In 2020, the company admitted changing its algorithms to filter out left-wing news and analysis from users’ feeds while allowing right-wing propaganda to flow unchecked.
However Israel is accessing the WhatsApp data it is said to be using to target Palestinians and their families, undoubtedly a war crime, the news that it is doing so is a warning for those who dissent from Establishment narratives and use ‘private’ messaging services to do so.
Meta continued its statement to Middle East Monitor:
Our principles are firm – we carefully review, validate and respond to law enforcement requests based on applicable law and consistent with internationally recognized standards, including human rights.
The US and UK governments, however, continue to insist that Israel is following international law and recognised human rights standards, even as it murders tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Questions raised over pro-Trump, anti-BLM, anti-Labour comments of Labour candidate
Joe Johnson’s social media record includes defence of racist comedy, admiration of Thatcher and Trump, support for far-right views and opposition to Labour – yet he has been selected to stand for the party
Sefton council candidate Joe Johnson, from his Facebook profile
A Labour candidate’s social media output has raised serious questions about his suitability to stand – yet he was apparently waved through by Keir Starmer’s party, either without vetting or in disregard of his record, to stand for the party in the St Oswald ward in Bootle, near Liverpool.
Locals have raised flags about what they say are:
- Historic racist views
- Support of Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party
- Admiration of Margaret Thatcher
- Support of Donald Trump
- Support of far right views on social media (TwitterlX: @joejbsg)
- Public opposition to the Labour Party
In 2020, the BBC reported that a Dover footballer, who was racially abused by Hartlepool fans, said that Johnson had implied he earned the abuse by celebrating his goal:
The ref was saying that I sparked it all off with my celebration. As a ref, you shouldn’t really be saying … it’s sort of saying that, because I did a celebration, I should now be receiving racial abuse.
In the same month the BBC was reporting the Hartlepool incident, Johnson was commenting on his social media that police should be baton-beating and tasing Black Lives Matter protesters:
Johnson also defended the police after video emerged of a Black man being kneed in the face – commenting that the police ‘should be allowed to do their jobs’:
Johnson also commented that ‘blackface’ was ‘comedy at its best’:
In 2019, he supported Boris Johnson over Brexit and in 2020 he defended Johnson’s appalling handling of the pandemic and his wilful ignoring of the advice of government scientists:
And on Brexit he went further, supporting a far-right account’s recommendation that Johnson should invoke emergency legislation to force through a hard Brexit:
Johnson needn’t have bothered: the sabotage by Keir Starmer and the Labour right handed Johnson the hardest of Brexits anyway. He was also apparently a fan of the hated Margaret Thatcher, ‘liking’ a post calling her an ‘inspiration’:
Johnson praised far-right former US president Donald Trump more than once:
And his ‘likes’ included an anti-refugee post by far-right political figures Nigel Farage and former Home Secretary Priti Patel:
Johnson’s likes and comments also indicate a deep distaste for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn – and approval for a video mocking Diane Abbott, Britain’s first Black woman MP:
Johnson’s ‘like’ of a post about Abbott
Contacted for comment about his posts an locals’ concerns, Johnson replied:
I am not surprised, although disappointed by putting myself up for local election to help the area that some people would try and shoot me down for past views, beliefs and opinions.
Labour’s regional director for the north-west, Liam Didsbury, did not respond to a request to confirm whether Labour did any vetting before allowing Johnson to become a candidate.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Strange Bag On Lounge Room Floor Up To No Good Say Nation’s Cats
Australia’s cats have been warned to treat the strange bag that is sitting in the middle of the lounge room with caution and suspicion.
“Its intentions and purpose are unknown at this present time and it wasn’t there this morning when I passed through the lounge room on my way out to the backyard to look for mynah birds,” said Peakhurst tabby Mittens. “The best course of action is to give it a wide berth and maybe carefully moving in for a sniff later on.”
“I’d strongly recommend letting the two legged food providers deal with any foreign object that materialises in the lounge room,” said feline security consultant Mr Socks. “I once went too close to a large pair of boots that were sitting in the lounge room and was forced to jump backwards with all four feet in air when they suddenly made a jiggling motion.”
“It’s a perfectly acceptable response to be alarmed by the arrival of any object on the lounge room floor that wasn’t there before,” said neighbouring persian Fluffles. “While reports of cats actually being eaten by strange bags are scanty, I did once hear of a cat being forced into a basket and taken away to see something called a vee-ee-tee and never being seen ever again.”
Peter Green
http://www.twitter.com/Greeny_Peter
You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.
We’re also on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunoz
The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:
Victorious smear victim takes aim at ‘antisemitism’ lawyer who misled court
Zionist Mark Lewis panned by James Wilson in series of Twitter posts
Earlier this month, university lecturer James Wilson won substantial damages from two so-called ‘antisemitism campaigners’ who had foully smeared and endangered him and his family in their efforts to discredit him as an opponent of the ‘left antisemitism’ narrative that supporters of Israel have weaponised for almost a decade now against supporters of Palestinian human and political rights.
Now the victorious Wilson has taken aim in his social media feed at Zionist lawyer Mark Lewis, who at one time represented at least two of the defendants. Lewis, a pro-Israel activist who spoke about ‘unapologetic Zionism’ at the launch of a UK pro-Israel group considered by many to be far-right and boasted of wanting to make people whom he considered ‘antisemites’ homeless, has been lionised by the Zionist right for his pursuit of their opponents.
He has also been sanctioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for abusive conduct on social media – and wished a young Jewish supporter of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour dead – and was heavily criticised by a judge in a different case for his conduct of the case and his lack of proper research on behalf of his clients:
a matter of very real concern that the Claimants put evidence before the Court, on an ex parte application, that was not true…
…he had simply failed to carry out sufficient (or any) research or to take adequate instructions from his clients.
And, as James Wilson has pointed out – alongside much more – Lewis was forced to apologise to the court for providing misleading information in Wilson’s suit about the financial health of one (by the time of the hearing, apparently former) client, Edward Cantor who, he had claimed, did not own property that could be sold to pay any penalty levied by the court:
As Luke Turner, who responded to Wilson’s posts, pointed out, Lewis’s distaste for ‘antisemites’ did not prevent him representing two extreme right-wingers – described by the judge in the case as bullying and ‘whiffing’ of antisemitism – when they wanted to sue Turner for posts about them:
The irony of that particular quote is really quite something, given who he was representing in my case, and the "whiff of threat and antisemitism" described by the judge in their "aggressive" course of "bullying" towards me. https://t.co/Dly6C3Aqwb
— Luke Turner (@Luke_Turner) April 20, 2024
And in a pair of posts showing screenshots of communications from Lewis, Wilson – himself a now non-practising solicitor – showed that Lewis demanded thousands of pounds, from the victim of the smear, to settle Lewis’s case against them, while expressing his and his clients’ expectation of victory in the case and repeating that Cantor owned nothing that could be used to pay any penalty. The tactic and the refusal to accept Wilson’s settlement proposal racked up enormous legal costs for the failed defendants:
I am worried about recovering my costs. I do not want to bankrupt Mr Mendelsohn or make Mr Cantor and his family homeless.
But if Mark Lewis @MLewisLawyer), Daniel Berke (@DanielBerke1) and Beth Grossman (@DoughtyStreet) refuse to pay my costs, then I may have no choice.— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 21, 2024
And Wilson concluded his posts – for now at least – by taking aim at Simon Myerson, a supporter of Israel and part-time judge recently sanctioned for abusive comments on social media. Myerson had shared a post calling Wilson the ‘scum of the earth’, which the judge in Wilson’s case described as:
abuse of the same dehumanising kind as was used of Jewish people by the Nazis in the 1930s.
The judge also rejected the defence’s claim that Wilson’s correspondence with Myerson about his sharing of the abusive post demonstrated any kind of aggression or unreasonableness on Wilson’s part.
As Jewish author Michael Rosen, who was also targeted by some of the same people, pointed out, perhaps with his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek, it is noteworthy that the UK ‘mainstream’ press – which will run for weeks with any allegation against a left-winger or supporter of Palestinians – has shown no interest in covering the outcome of the Wilson case or the abusive conduct of those on the losing, pro-Israel, side:
However, Skwawkbox has covered the case in full and a timeline of it can be found here.
The case is not the first conducted by Lewis against supporters of Palestinian rights that ended poorly for his clients. In 2020 Jane Heybroek, a human rights barrister, won a stunning victory when actress Tracy-Ann Oberman and TV presenter Rachel Riley dropped their libel claim against her over an article retweeted by Heybroek criticising their behaviour and contributed toward her legal costs defending the action.
Mark Lewis was asked for comment about Wilson’s comments and analysis but had not responded at the time of writing. He was also ‘tagged’ by Wilson at the start of his Twitter analysis about Lewis’s involvement in the case:
Since one of the Defendants’ solicitors, Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron), is mentioned in the statement, I am tagging him here. If he wishes to reply, I’ll post his reply below my statement.
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 13, 2024
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Uni lecturer wins damages from ‘antisemitism campaigners’ who endangered him and family
James Wilson wins defamation case against Mendelsohn and Cantor in judgment that speaks volumes about methods and attitudes of so-called ‘campaigners against antisemitism’
University lecturer James Wilson has been awarded £30,000 in damages against James Mendelsohn and Edward Cantor for defamatory material published about him during an argument about supposed antisemitism in the Labour party. The false claim, that Mr Wilson was a ‘freak [who] takes pictures of kids’, put Mr Wilson and his partner in fear of physical danger, as well as seriously damaging his reputation. The judge had previously rejected an attempt by Mendelsohn and Cantor to quash the lawsuit.
The judgement lays bare that:
- Mendelsohn and Cantor kept private information and recycled it to the late Dr Pete Newbon – a director of the anti-left group ‘Labour against Antisemitism’ (LAAS), so that he could use it to defame Wilson – the information was untrue and based a) on statements from someone the judge found to have lied about Wilson and b) on false claims about a university disciplinary investigation. Newbon was described by the judge as ‘bullying’
- that Newbon, who committed suicided in 2022 after a row with his wife and has been lionised by so-called ‘antisemitism campaigners’ despite his awful record as a serial troll repeatedly disciplined by his employers Northumbria University for his appalling social media conduct, had not told her of Wilson’s lawsuit against him for the defamatory posts
- Mendelsohn and Cantor refused to apologise, mediate or settle, forcing the legal action to proceed to its conclusion
- a key witness for the defendants said that she had been offered £5,000 by Mendelsohn and Cantor to testify for them (though the judge did not make a finding that her claim was true)
- the defendants further abused and insulted Wilson in the course of their defence – despite, in the case of Cantor, being warned by the judge not to do so
The defendants – who represented themselves in court apart from the use of a barrister to cross-examine Wilson – wheeled out a number of figures who are well known for their attacks on the left in an attempt to shore up their defence. The judge dismissed them:
- University lecturer David Hirsh, a prominent, pro-Israel proponent of supposed ‘left antisemitism’, who wrote an unintentionally revealing elegy to Pete Newbon after his suicide. Hirsh was called to bolster the defendants’ claim that Wilson had shown ‘unwarrantedly aggressive and belligerent conduct’. The judge rejected Hirsh’s evidence that Wilson was ‘aggressive, unpredictable, persistent and irrational’ and found that Wilson’s communications with him over the spreading of a crowdfund for the defendants’ legal costs were ‘not unreasonable’
- Nathan Comiskey, another advocate of ‘left antisemitism’, who claimed that Wilson contacting him about insulting remarks was ‘highly intrusive and upsetting’ and that he had felt ‘harassed and targeted’. The judge ruled that there was nothing unreasonable in Wilson’s communications and that Comiskey’s testimony did nothing to support the defendants’ claims about supposed unwarranted aggression or belligerence
- Simon Myerson – a founding signatory of LAAS and supporter of Israel, and a part-time judge recently sanctioned for judicial misconduct for abusive social media posts. Myerson was also a vocal supporter of Newbon, trying to link Jewish author Michael Rosen to Newbon’s suicide, despite a coroner not mentioning Rosen at all in his inquest findings. Mendelsohn and Cantor put forward Wilson’s communications with Myerson, who had shared a post describing Wilson as ‘scum of the earth’, as evidence to support their claim of aggressive behaviour. The judge ruled that it did nothing of the sort
- Joanne Bell and journalist Adam Cailler – more well-known anti-left activists whose correspondence with Wilson was put forward by the defence as supporting evidence. The judge ruled, “I can find nothing in the emails which is particularly aggressive or which points to conduct of the kind said to demonstrate the pleaded propensity [to aggression]”
A Myerson attack on Michael Rosen
The findings, as well as being clearly welcome to the smeared and endangered James Wilson, illuminate much of the approach of the right-wingers who created and propagated the ‘Labour antisemitism’ smear. While so-called ‘antisemitism campaigners’ – lauded by Hirsh in his document supporting the creation of the so-called ‘Pete Newbon award’ – are ready to doxx, insult, smear and abuse those with whom they disagree, the conduct of the defence and the witnesses it put forward or quoted reveal a group that is quick to describe their supposed hurt and fear when someone challenges them and, even in the most reasonable terms, takes issue with the smears and abuse. Happily, the judge saw through such asymmetrical nonsense.
Mr Wilson, in a statement about the result, said:
The Judge has found that Mr James Mendelsohn gave Dr Pete Newbon confidential and defamatory information about me. It included a screenshot of a Facebook post that said I was “a freak who took pictures of kids” outside a school with a clear photo of me. The impression was, as the Judge decided, like a ‘wanted’ poster. When the Facebook post was published originally, there were incidents that made me fear for the safety of me and my family. The police secured its deletion within 24 hours.
The Judge found that the allegations in the Facebook post were untrue. Mr Mendelsohn took a screenshot of the Facebook post in the 24 hours it was published and, having kept it for 19 months, gave it to Dr Newbon in August 2020 knowing Dr Newbon was making abusive attacks on me on Twitter/X and so he could use the screenshot as a weapon against me.
Dr Newbon and Mr Eddy Cantor then published the screenshot on Twitter/X to, as the Judge has found, abuse and bully me. When Dr Newbon realised the screenshot he and Mr Cantor had published put the safety of me and my family at risk, he took no action. I suspect this was on the basis of advice he got from his solicitor.
Even when Dr Newbon deleted the screenshot from his feed, he sent it to other people by private message. He also invented seriously defamatory allegations about me that he sent to other people.
I did not want the litigation to start. The Defendants could have settled for zero damages and zero costs, and an agreement to delete and not to further publish the screenshot. Litigation only started because all the Defendants, presumably on advice from their solicitors, insisted that publication of the screenshot was in the public interest. They claimed this despite knowing of the intimidatory incidents.
I did not want there to be a trial. What made a trial inevitable was the conduct of the Defendants. I suspect some of the Defendants’ conduct was the result of advice from their solicitors. The Defendants’ conduct included:
- Refusing to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules on pre-action conduct.
- Refusing mediation in favour of litigation to drive up my costs and to try to bankrupt me.
- Making repeated threats to bankrupt me, explicitly referring to the impact this would have on my employment and children.
- Making false allegations of anti-Semitism to try to get me to abandon my claim.
- Making misogynistic allegations about my partner and falsely accusing her of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and breaching professional conduct rules.
- Taking the case to trial having stated: (a) they had no money and I would not recover any costs or damages; (b) they did not care about the outcome (they were “blasé about the result”); (c) they saw what they were doing as some sort of revenge (they “regard this as payback time”).
- Refusing to engage sensibly in negotiations to settle the whole claim when both Dr Newbon’s widow and I wanted to quietly and cheaply settle the claim and avoid further publicity after Dr Newbon’s tragic death.
The Defendants received encouragement on social media and financial help in pursuing their
defences. The crowdfunding claims made by the Defendants were outrageous. The most distasteful aspect was using Dr Newbon’s death to raise money (“One of us is now sadly silent. Those remaining must today come together and fight”).
The reality was that, having used Dr Newbon’s death to raise money, no serious effort was made to defend Dr Newbon at trial. I tried to protect Dr Newbon’s posthumous reputation by settling the claim without a trial and judgment. Mr Cantor rejected in principle a settlement for nominal damages and zero costs in November 2021. Rather than getting Mr Cantor out of the litigation for a nominal sum, [his lawyer] insisted I would have to pay him money before Mr Cantor would settle the claim. I do not know whether Mr Cantor himself knew about this, given his subsequent expressions of bemusement about being involved in the proceedings at all.
Both Defendants refused an offer to settle before trial for just a quarter of the damages the Judge has awarded. When the trial started, I avoided seeking a finding of harassment against Dr Newbon. It is unfortunate that detailed information about Dr Newbon’s conduct has been put in the public domain after his death.
In my opinion, the Defendants and/or their solicitors tried to cause me devastating reputational and, through the costs of the proceedings, financial harm because they disagree with my views on the State of Israel. The Defendants’ conduct was encouraged by others who share their views.
Dr Newbon also brought a separate defamation claim [against author Michael Rosen, who had complained about the antisemitic editing of an image showing one of his books]. He had intended to apologise for the conduct which was the subject of that case, but seems to have received dreadful advice to sue rather than simply say sorry. He ended up involved in two completely unnecessary and hopeless legal cases.
As the Judge found, it seemed the Defendants were motivated by an intense dislike if not hatred of me. For my part, I have no antipathy towards the Defendants despite their conduct and its impact on me and my family. I have never published confidential or defamatory information about the Defendants. I have never been abusive to them. I never retaliated to the Defendants’ abuse and bullying. It is ironic that while the Defendants are convinced that I am motivated by prejudice against them, it is they who had an obsessive and irrational dislike of me. I find it sad that the Defendants, their former legal advisers, and others believed that defending the State of Israel from criticism justified their conduct to me and my family.
It is my hope that what has happened to the Defendants and their families, and me and my family, never happens to anyone else again. Please do not use the judgment in my case as a reason to attack or abuse others on social media. Mr Mendelsohn and Mr Cantor definitely do not deserve to be attacked or abused and I urge people not to do so.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
‘The Royal Family’s Sustainability In Its Current Form Can No Longer Be Guaranteed’
In the end, months of conspiracy theories were silenced by a two-minute video.
After a strict media embargo, on Friday at 6pm, Kensington Palace released the statement recorded personally by Catherine, Princess of Wales.
In it, she revealed that, following her abdominal surgery in January, doctors had discovered cancer, and she was now being treated with preventative chemotherapy. She explained how she had sought to share this news appropriately with her young children, reassured the public that she was growing stronger, and finished with a moving message of hope to others undergoing treatment for the disease.
It would once have been unthinkable for members of the Royal Family to share details of their medical conditions, and yet, this seemed like the least extraordinary aspect of the video.
The closest comparison is perhaps 1997, following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, when public and media disquiet effectively forced the Queen to address the nation.
Commentators have been divided on whether Kensington Palace was similarly forced into the statement as a result of mounting public pressure or if Kate would always have explained the details of her condition and was choosing a moment (the beginning of her children’s Easter holidays) that suited her.
Either way, the intense public and media pressure was undeniable. That tells its own story.
In 1997, the ‘public’ could only make its views known through opinion polls, mass gatherings, direct interventions (such as vox pops or letters) and, ultimately, through its arbiters in the press. Social media has upended that framework.
Newspapers now follow the internet’s lead. For weeks, conspiracy theories around Kate's absence from public life dominated the conversation on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), and ranged from light-hearted nonsense to poisonous defamation.
In two clear ways, that leaked into the mainstream ecosystem.
The first surrounded the Mother’s Day photograph on 10 March, presumably released by Kensington Palace to reassure people that Kate was happy and well, surrounded by her family. UK media outlets published the image as issued and only began discussing the edits made to it after analyses began to trend on social media.
That was followed by ‘kill notices’ issued by multiple international press agencies, effectively declaring the photograph unfit to be used – a damaging rebuke to Kensington Palace and its credibility. That, in turn, led to a highly unusual tweet signed by Kate herself, in which she apologised and claimed responsibility for editing the picture as an "amateur photographer".
The second involved another type of photography: an amateur video at a Windsor farm store, purportedly showing Prince William and Kate in good spirits carrying shopping. Crucially, this video was published by the Sun – providing a key contrast with an earlier paparazzo photograph of Kate and her mother Carole Middleton in a car, which was only published abroad.
Some commentators questioned whether Kensington Palace had tacitly approved the video’s publication. Even more significantly, however, some mainstream journalists – notably Rachel Johnson in the Evening Standard – questioned or openly doubted whether the woman was really Kate at all. This might, once again, have demonstrated an example of social media conspiracy spilling into the mainstream – or, more troubling for Kensington Palace, a new dent in the armour of deference which still pertains to William and Kate in a manner that long ago escaped Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
This notion of deference is important.
In some ways things, have not significantly changed since 1936 when American newspapers openly discussed King Edward’s relationship with Wallis Simpson and the British media remained entirely silent.
Foreign media has aired theories about Kate that would not have been touched here. There still exists in Britain a culture either of widely-known open secrets or of journalists hoarding information about the Royal Family – and either dropping small public breadcrumbs or remaining entirely silent.
In some ways, that is legitimate: members of the Royal Family are human beings with the right to a private life. But they are also public figures with, crucially, public and constitutional roles.
This feeds into the most fundamental tension in our modern monarchy: the codependence of members of the Royal Family and the royal press pack.
William and Kate are considered positive assets by both the tabloid media and the monarchy itself – the press’ treatment of them is a far cry from the hounding of both William’s parents in the 1990s. That is a product of multiple factors: a change in tabloid and paparazzi culture, the fact William and Kate have not yet been publicly linked to a tabloid-friendly scandal, and because the couple cooperates.
The media knows that the Royal Family sells newspapers and seeks access. The Royal Family knows that the media sustains both public support for the monarchy and people’s appetite for information about it, and seeks positive coverage. Underlying both anxious institutions is the British public, on whose patronage both depend.
Ordinary people were concerned about Kate’s welfare, but they also wanted information as they would about any other high-profile celebrity. Kate, in turn, was entitled to privacy as an ordinary human being, but will also one day be Queen. Such is the woozy confluence of soap opera and constitution. These people function both as fodder for national entertainment and as instruments of the state.
During the past three months, the media has performed a strange dance, balancing a mostly justifiable interest in a public figure with a mostly unjustifiable interest in a private one – sometimes, it appears, with the cooperation of Kensington Palace, and sometimes, it appears, without.
The media wanted to push, but not too hard. The Palace attempted to manage the coverage and, in the end, through Kate’s video, resolved to produce its own. This appears to have been a power struggle that ended in stalemate.
Once this story dies down, the most important soul-searching will probably take place not in Fleet Street but Kensington Palace. Insofar as the monarchy is a political institution, it relies on trust, both from the media and public. Credibility is not easily replaced and the photograph incident will have damaged faith in its communications machine. Now Kate has revealed her diagnosis, more questions arise about why the princess was thrown into the centre of a PR storm while receiving treatment for cancer.
And yet perhaps the greatest question centres on Kate herself.
The monarchy is a barer institution than a few years ago, and a weaker one. While the King and Queen are liked and respected, they do not attract either the deference of the late Elizabeth II or the rock-star appeal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Only William and Kate come close to embodying both the stability and glamour that the institution needs – and Kate above all. She is the most popular member of the family, and so indispensable that the modern monarchy can scarcely be imagined without her.
That, in turn, reflects the vulnerability of the institution: it can only ever be as strong as its cast. It cannot, constitutionally, just disappear – but it can fade into irrelevance or embarrassment. Its sustainability, in current form, can no longer be guaranteed.
Pro-Israeli judge Myerson sanctioned for ‘judicial misconduct’ for social media
Well-known Israel advocate and Corbyn critic found to have breached professional standards in attack on trans rights campaigner
Pro-Israeli barrister and part-time judge Simon Myerson KC has been disciplined by the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor for attacking a transgender rights campaigner on the Twitter/X social media platform.
Myerson supports Israel against accusations of genocide and has frequently attacked Corbyn and his supporters
Myerson received a sanction for ‘judicial misconduct’ after complaints were upheld for a series of offensive tweets. Myerson accused the campaigner of having a “tiny intellect” and making “idiotic statements”. The disciplinary decision can be found here. Myerson broke the principle that judges should avoid participating in online debates on politically controversial topics to maintain the integrity and dignity of their judicial office.
Myerson insists Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza despite its slaughter of tens of thousands of women and children and insulted a Jewish anti-genocide campaigner
Some observers might consider there to be a suggestion of hypocrisy to Myerson’s behaviour. In September 2023, Myerson was a witness against a solicitor accused of posting offensive tweets at a disciplinary tribunal. Myerson’s evidence was that the solicitor’s tweets went “well beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct”, raising questions about whether he gave evidence to a tribunal about another person’s offensive social media posts without telling the tribunal that his own offensive posts were under investigation by the Lady Chief Justice.
Myerson also has a history of controversial comments on Twitter/X about the suicide of the Northumbria University academic Dr Pete Newbon, who died after a row with his wife. Newbon had posted to Twitter/X a meme of an image that originally showed Jeremy Corbyn reading much-loved author Michael Rosen’s Bear Hunt to some children, but in which the title of grossly antisemitic forgery ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ had been photoshopped onto the book.
Rosen, who is Jewish, was understandably unhappy that the Protocols had been photoshopped on his book. Myerson suggested that it was Rosen’s tweet in response to Newbon that led to complaints to Newbon’s employer that were linked by Newbon’s supporters to his suicide. Rosen’s tweets were far less offensive than the tweets Myerson has now been disciplined for and the coroner did not mention Rosen or his tweets at all in his inquest findings. Newbon, who had tried to get fellow academics sacked, was in fact on a final warning from the university because of his repeatedly awful conduct on social media – and was doing badly in a lawsuit brought by another individual whom his false claims on social media had endangered. Rosen has featured frequently in Myerson’s Twitter/X timeline.
Myerson, like Newbon a founding signatory of the so-called ‘Labour against antisemitism’ (LAAS) group that weaponised antisemitism allegations to attack then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and whose directors have also attacked Michael Rosen, continues to be active on Twitter/X in support of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Myerson rejects the finding of the International Court of Justice that Israel may be engaged in genocide. His position is that Israel’s actions in bombing Gaza and refusing to allow aid to enter are proportionate responses to the October 7 attack by Hamas. Most serious legal commentators are clear that Israel’s actions are disproportionate and are likely to amount to war crimes.
M
Simon Myerson criticised a court for finding anti-Zionism is a protected political belief and insists that Israel was not told to implement a ceasefire even though the International Court of Justice told it to stop killing Gazans and protect them instead.
Those reading Myerson’s recent social media output might feel justified in concluding that a change in his behaviour is unlikely. Yesterday he bizarrely accused a Jewish Twitter/X user of having learned to be snide ‘almost certainly aided by being Jewish’ when the user gently mocked the Israeli spokesperson Eylon Levy.
Mr Myerson did not respond to a request for comment accompanied by an initial draft of this article.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
The Dark Reality Behind Israel’s Military PR Campaign: Genocide in Disguise
As the world is trying to come to terms with the catastrophic results of the creation of Israel, the actual executioners, those charged with committing the crimes, are hard at work to show themselves as heroic, caring, friendly and humane. The Israeli military public relations campaign on the different social media platforms is sickening. Young men just back from committing heinous crimes are asked by a young military reporter, “What is the first thing you will do when you get home?”
“Hug my mama,” one said. Another answered, “See my girlfriend,” while a third said he would get his hands on a juicy steak. How normal! In another scene, the Golani Brigade members compete to see who has the most Golani-loving family. Photos of generations of Israelis who served in the murderous brigade swell with pride as they all admit to having been part of the atrocities taking place for generations.
“Give Respect to the Nahal Brigade” is yet another campaign where one can see members of that particular terrorist unit committing crimes against humanity, attacking and destroying people and infrastructure like the genocidal maniacs that they are. At the same time, they are made to look heroic and friendly.
The campaign goes on and on, and another particularly cynical one shows young women in IDF uniform, ranging the entire racial spectrum and attractive to the Western eye, talking about their role in the genocide and terrorizing of Palestinians. They are commanders, teachers, clerks, observers in observation towers and on and on, and they pretend to take pride in their despicable work.
The Israeli military pages on the various platforms are all in violation of community guidelines because they promote hate and genocide. There needs to be a campaign to report these pages on a massive scale so that they are all taken down. A short list of names of these pages includes idfonline,idf_tsanhanim,idf, golani_1, shakedgdud424, idf_nahal, givati.official, shaytet_13, and sayeretgivati846.
Joe Biden’s comments on Gaza during the State of the Union address were nothing short of a grotesque attempt to claim the U.S. cares about the people of Gaza – who are subjected to genocide – while supplying weapons to the very perpetrators of the genocide. Israel is committing genocide throughout Palestine, and while the world’s attention is on Gaza, human rights abuses of Palestinians have reached unimaginable proportions. Mass murder, arrest, torture, sexual abuse in prisons, and other forms of abuse have become more commonplace than ever. Joe Biden, however, is focused on building a pier.
Never mind the fact that the pier will serve Israel and not the Palestinian people, the notion of a pier as the answer to the intentional starvation of millions of people who can access food and medicine within a five-minute drive but are denied access because of Israel, is nothing short of sadistic.
All of this is to emphasize that there is something every person can do. Social media platforms are there for us to consume, and sadistic Israeli perpetrators of genocide are right there trying to portray themselves as friendly fighters of evil. It is time to report these pages and their posts on a daily basis.
Miko Peled is a MintPress News contributing writer, published author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. His latest books are”The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”
The post The Dark Reality Behind Israel’s Military PR Campaign: Genocide in Disguise appeared first on MintPress News.