The motivations for attacking VOA were hardly budgetary. The White House cited a number of sources to back the claim that the organisation had become an outlet of “radical propaganda.” VOA veteran Dan Robinson features, calling it “a hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting leftist bias aligned with partisan national media.” The Daily Caller moaningly remarks that VOA reporters had “repeatedly posted anti-Trump comments on their professional Twitter accounts, despite a social media policy requiring employee impartiality on social media platforms.” The Voice, not aligned with MAGA, had to be silenced.

The measure by Trump drew its inevitable disapproval. VOA director, Michael Abramowitz, stuck to the customary line that his organisation “promotes freedom and democracy around the world by telling America’s story and by providing objective and balanced news and information, especially for those living under tyranny.” Reporters Without Borders condemned the order “as a departure from the US’s historic role as a defender of free information and calls on the US government to restore VOA and urges Congress and the international community to take action against his unprecedented move.”

As with much criticism of Trump’s seemingly impulsive actions, these sentimental views proved misguided and disingenuous. Trump is on uncontentious ground to see the Voice as one dedicated to propaganda. However, he misunderstands most nuttily that the propaganda in question overwhelmingly favours US policies and programs. His quibble is that they are not favourable enough.

Prohibited from broadcasting in the United States, VOA’s propaganda role was always a full-fledged one, promoting the US as a spanking, virtuous brand of democratic good living in the face of garden variety tyrants, usually of the political left. Blemishes were left unmentioned, the role of the US imperium in intervening in the affairs of other countries considered cautiously. Loath to adequately fund domestic public service providers like National Public Radio (NPR), the US Congress was content to fork out for what was effectively an information arm of government sloganeering for Freedom’s Land.

The VOA Charter, drafted in 1960 and signed into law as Public Law 94-350 by President Gerald Ford on July 12, 1976, expressed the view that “The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners.” It stipulated various aspirational and at times unattainable aims: be reliable on the news, have authoritative standing, pursue accuracy, objectivity and be comprehensive. America was to be represented in whole and not as any single segment of society, with the VOA representing “a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.” US policies would be presented “clearly and effectively” as would “responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.”

The aims of the charter were always subordinate to the original purpose of the radio outlet. The Voice was born in the propaganda maelstrom of World War II, keen to win over audiences in Nazi Germany and its occupied territories. Authorised to continue operating by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1946, it continued its work during the Cold War, its primary task that of fending off any appeal communism might have. Till October 1948, program content was governed under contract with the NBC and CBS radio networks. This troubled some members of Congress, notably regarding broadcasts to Latin America. The US State Department then assumed control, authority of which passed on to the newly created United States Information Agency (USIA).

In such arrangements, the objective of fair dissemination of information was always subject to the dictates of US foreign policy. What mattered most, according to R. Peter Straus, who assumed the directorship of VOA in 1977, was to gather “a highly professional group of people and trying to excite them about making the freest democracy in the world understandable to the rest of the world – not necessarily loved by, nor even necessarily liked by but understood by the rest of the world.” The State Department left an enduring legacy in that regard, with the amalgamation of its Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs with the USIA in 1978 during the Carter administration. Furthermore, prominent positions at the Voice tended to be filled by career members of the diplomatic corps.

Given that role, it was rather rich to have the likes of Republican Congresswoman Young Kim of California question Trump’s executive order, worried that closing the Voice would effectively silence a body dedicated to the selfless distribution of accurate information. Accuracy in that sense, alloyed by US interests, would always walk to the dictates of power. Kim errs in assuming that reporting via such outlets, emanating from a “free” society, must therefore be more truthful than authoritarian rivals. “For a long time now, our reporting has not been blocked by adversaries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea,” she claimed in March. “Now, we are ourselves shutting off the ability to get the information into those oppressed regimes to the people that are dying for the real truth and information.” As such truth and information is curated by an adjunct of the State Department, such people would be advised to be a tad sceptical.

The falling out of favour with Trump, not just of the Voice, but such anti-communist creations of the Cold War like Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, is a loss for the propagandists. Arguments that stress the value of their continued existence as organs of veracity in news and accuracy, correctives to the disinformation and misinformation of adversaries, are deludedly slanted. All forms of disinformation and misinformation should be battled and neither the Voice’s critics, nor its fans, seem to understand what they are. VOA and its sister stations could never be relied upon to subject US foreign and domestic policy to rigorous critique. Empires are not in the business of truth but power and effect. Radio stations created in their name must always be viewed with that in mind.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Independent considers The Settlers to be a “masterpiece.”

The Middle East Eye hails the documentary as “an unflinching look at the Israelis [sic] intent on stealing the West Bank.”

The Islam Channel praises Theroux for “highlight[ing] the horrifying influence of the illegal Israeli settler movement.”

The title of the Spectator’s review was rather enigmatic: “How come the only Palestinians Louis Theroux met were non-violent sweeties?” The Spectator granted, “In a program called The Settlers, it’s perhaps fair enough that the focus should be so squarely on these people and their intransigence.”

And what about the documentary’s title?

Dictionary.com defines settler innocuously as “a person who settles in a new region or colony.” Is this the proper appellation? Others would argue that the term settler-colonialist is more accurate. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School states, “Settler colonialism can be defined as a system of oppression based on genocide and colonialism, that aims to displace a population of a nation (oftentimes indigenous people) and replace it with a new settler population.”

The documentary begins with the lanky, bespectacled Theroux asking a settler whether they are “deep inside the Palestinian territories”? The settler-colonialist Ari Abramowitz objected, calling it “the heart of Judea.” He further objected to a “jihadist Palestinian state” being located in the heart of Israel.

Abramowitz is forthright in saying he aspires to win territory from Palestinians.

The settler-colonialists are described as “religionist nationalists.” A young Jewish woman Ovi says, “I believe Gaza is ours … The Bible says this place was given to the Jews. This place is ours.”

Throughout the documentary, the Zionist goal is clear: to remove Palestinians and repopulate the land with Jews.

Theroux spends much time interviewing Daniella Weiss, the “godmother of the settler movement,” an unabashed Zionist, who claimed: “We do for governments what they cannot do for themselves… Netanyahu is very happy at what we do but he cannot say it.”

Gaza fits what Netanyahu cannot say, Weiss states the goal of “the practical idea of establishing Jewish settlements in the entire Gaza Strip. We very much encourage and enable the population in Gaza to go to other countries. You will witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs disappear from Gaza. They lost their right to stay in this holy place.”

But Jews are not a pure monolith. Theroux interviews a protesting Israeli man who says, “The question is: what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a colonizing country or do we want to be a country that at least offers peace and wants to live in peace with Palestinians?”

What can Gazans expect if settler-colonialists create outposts in Gaza? The documentary examines the situation in the West Bank where outposts are set up to expand and become communities with the aim of becoming recognized as settlements by the Israeli government. These outposts and settlements are under the protection of the Israeli military.

The Texan-raised Abramowitz denies Palestinians exist. When pressed by Theroux on this, Abramowitz replies, “They are Arabs.”

The illegality of settlements is disregarded by Abramowitz. This is echoed by Weiss who shrugs off the commission of war crimes as a “lighter felony.”

Such Zionist views point to the impunity of settler colonialists in dealing with the indigenous Palestinians. One common war crime is preventing Palestinian farmers from harvesting their produce, particularly olives. Israeli soldiers will arrive, demand identification, and send the farmers away from their land. And if a farmer is lucky, he will still be alive after the encounter.

The filmmaker spoke of an “ideology of superiority of one group over another.” This even has rabbinical support.

Rabbi Dove Leor said, “To my mind, there was never peace with these [Palestinian] savages. There is no peace and never will be…. This land belongs only to the people of Israel. All of Gaza, all of Lebanon should be cleansed of these ‘camel riders.’”

To accomplish the disappearance of Palestinians, Weiss advocates using “the magic system of Zionism” to take over the land and repopulate it with Jews. “This will bring light instead of darkness,” says Weiss.

Issa Amrou, a Palestinian activist, guides Theroux around occupied Hebron and explains the life of Palestinians under occupation. The system of encouraging Palestinians to leave is through fear of the Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, closing Palestinian businesses, making life intolerable, and fragmentation of Palestinian towns, leading to Jews taking more land.

Near the end of the documentary, Theroux speaks again with the Texan-cum-settler-colonialist Abramowitz who makes known his feelings for Palestinians: “I don’t have tremendous compassion for a society that has an unquenchable genocidal, theological, bloodlust. It’s like a death cult.”

Says Abramowitz, “I reject the real premise that these people [Palestinians] are actually a real nation for a lot of reasons.”

“We know the righteousness of our cause. That’s what it means to be a Hebrew, what it means to be a Jew…”

The Israeli government’s recognition of the Evyatar settlement in the lands of the Palestinian town of Beita spurred a celebration, and Weiss arrived to speak to a jubilating crowd.

Theroux catches up with the settler-colonial godmother after her speech to the festive gathering. He asks what is wrong with a two-state solution?

Says Weiss, “We want to have a Jewish state based on Jewish rules, on Jewish values. It is not a relationship of neighbors.”

“Why not?” asks Theroux.

“Because we are two nations.” At least Weiss admits to there being a Palestinian nation.

Weiss makes clear that her overarching aim is Aliyah, bringing more settler-colonialists to the land. She does not think about the Palestinians because she is a Jew.

Theroux says, “That seems sociopathic.”

Weiss rejects this, saying, “It is normal.”

In the settler-colonialist Zionist mindset, othering is normal.

*****

People who care about humans elsewhere and are unfamiliar or uninformed about the plight of Palestinians ought to watch The Settlers and become familiar and informed. Theroux probably presents the situation as close to the line as one could hope to have broadcast. Through the narrative, the viewer will hear that there is anti-Palestinian racism and violence against them, but the discussion will not be graphic, and visually the violence is downplayed.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.