Support NeoGAF

[nelsonroyale]

Doesn't surprise me at all... denied as usual by the propaganda minister speaking to radio 4... Israel is a religious state though, misrepresenting the truth...isn't this the sort of thing which will lead you to Hell's judgement? eh, even the letter of religion is pretty expedient when interests of power are at stake...

viakado: exactly what standard are the Israeli government being held to? They are get alot of benefits from the EU, eventhough they are not a member...they get a huge amount of funding from the US, and they have nuclear armament? Criticism of Israel from the mainstream has always been incredibly light...whereas its only recently that they have dropped calling Hamas a terrorist group...

Both sides have resorted to foul play..bottom line is FAR more Palestinians have been killed...far more Palestinian civilians...

Nyong: Do you think the fact that you have been in the military gives you any more credence in this situation? Did you serve in Israel, in this specific campaign? I have family in the military too... Just because the sources are anonymous doesnt mean they are stating false information... In truth, you personally can't verify any sources that are used in the press, whether named or not... This story is told by more people than just these few

 

[nyong]

Again I don't know what you are trying to say - how is the entire article sensational propaganda. How did this one quote taint the entire article, and how did it retroactively taint the first article in the OP? You need to be clearer with this, and how the whole article is one big 'effect'.

Pretend for a second that you're an unbiased reader with no preconceived notions about the IDF then reread it.

 

[Jonm1010]

No soldier or policeman is told to give civilians the benefit of the doubt in life or death situations. They take steps to minimize casualties, but in the end it's up to the civilian to comply.

It's the reason that cops are routinely let off for shooting someone who "looks" like they had a weapon. That water pistol may not be a 9mm, but the cop is not going to give the kid the benefit of the doubt. This is even more true in warfare.

That doesn't mean that soldiers and cops can go killing everyone who looks at them cross-eyed, but that's not what the quote is saying either.

That is almost a red herring. The argument is not reliant on whether that is a philosophy adhered to by many or not, the argument is whether that line of thinking was taken even further to a point that is morally, ethically or legally wrong. Its one thing to say that your safety comes first, its another to give orders to vandalize or to give very little if any care for civillian casualties. To turn a blind eye to atrocities knowing full well your lax standards of procedure contribute to it. The article highlights very clearly that this went well beyond just being cautious.

Again your arguments are weak and flawed.

 

[Jonm1010]

Pretend for a second that you're an unbiased reader with no preconceived notions about the IDF then reread it.

Now were moving onto cloaked ad hominems! Yay.

 

[nyong]

The article highlights very clearly that this went well beyond just being cautious.

Duh. The entire point of the article is to make this argument.

I'm arguing that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Israeli soldiers were told to "shoot first and worry about the consequences later" based on what the article presents as evidence.

The army said that "a considerable amount of the testimony in this report is... based on hearsay and word of mouth" and "anonymous and lacks any identifying details that would allow the IDF to investigate, confirm or refute it.

But who cares about pesky things like identifying details and allowing the accused to investigate, confirm, or refute accusations?

 

[nyong]

Now were moving onto cloaked ad hominems! Yay.

From the end of the OP:

Defence Minister Ehud Barak in a statement urged that all complaints be sent to him and repeated that the Israeli army "is one of the most moral in the world" -- a phrase often used by the top brass in response to criticism.

More than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed during the 22 operation.

What's your emotional response to reading that the Israeli army "is one of the most moral in the world" followed up by the Palestinian body count? Who got the last word and why would the author construct the ending in such a way? Could you argue that these numbers serve to undermine the statement made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Is that being unbiased?

Read the entire article and look for similar patterns. Vague quotes followed up by facts, for instance. What purpose do these quotes serve? Are they misleading?

 

[Kinitari]

Duh. The entire point of the article is to make this argument.

I'm arguing that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Israeli soldiers were told to "shoot first and worry about the consequences later" based on what the article presents as evidence.



But who cares about pesky things like identifying details and allowing the accused to investigate, confirm, or refute accusations?

I'm getting a little bit sidetracked so I can't respond as frequently as I'd like (in fact this may be the last one I can muster) - but I'll respond to this.

1. I don't think that this article alone is enough to make any conclusions - I know that this gathering of testimonials is one of many bits of evidence that stacks against the IDF's actions in Gaza. Looking past the article and it's apparently obvious bias - the investigations still stand, the humanitarian groups, the government organized probes and the eye witness accounts/pictures. This is just another chip in the stack.

2. I've said this a few times, but the very nature of the testimonials makes it impossible to get the names and the ranks of the people making them. They maybe only come forward because it's anonymous - so while you point this out as some sort of convenient workaround to an investigation - it's simply just the way it works.

 

[nyong]

I've said this a few times, but the very nature of the testimonials makes it impossible to get the names and the ranks of the people making them. They maybe only come forward because it's anonymous - so while you point this out as some sort of convenient workaround to an investigation - it's simply just the way it works.

"Identifying details" goes a bit further than name or rank. If the IDF is unable to investigate, confirm, or refute the accusations, they are baseless so far as I am concerned. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law, and I won't personally use it as evidence against them.

But again, I know the IDF has done bad things. I'm not arguing against this. But I'm also not prepared to accept the fundamental argument that the article was trying to make. I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the IDF told soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later.

I'll be back in a bit as well. I'm going for a run.

 

[Jonm1010]

From the end of the OP:


What's your emotional response to reading that the Israeli army "is one of the most moral in the world" followed up by the Palestinian body count? Who got the last word and why would the author construct the ending in such a way? Could you argue that these numbers serve to undermine the statement made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Is that being unbiased?

Read the entire article and look for similar patterns. Vague quotes followed up by facts, for instance. What purpose do these quotes serve? Are they misleading?

Do you think the atrocities outlined by the UN, BBC, Haaretz, NPR, Democracy NOW, Human rights watch, Norway, Britain, and countless other human rights organizations are lying? Because all this testimony has done is reinforce what other independent reports have said? Why do you refuse to answer this question?

 

[Jonm1010]

"Identifying details" goes a bit further than name or rank. If the IDF is unable to investigate, confirm, or refute the accusations, they are baseless so far as I am concerned. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law, and I won't personally use it as evidence against them.

But again, I know the IDF has done bad things. I'm not arguing against this. But I'm also not prepared to accept the fundamental argument that the article was trying to make. I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the IDF told soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later.

I'll be back in a bit as well. I'm going for a run.

Have you read the full interviews yet? Yes or No?

 

[goomba]

Some say the devil is dead and buried in Killarny
but most say he rose again and joined the Israeli army.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

As stated, the IDF's use of the human shield tactic is unfortunately nothing new. Lawrence of Cyberia has exhaustively documented this over the years. Here's his compendium as of July '08
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/07/israels-human-shields.html

 

[Forsete]

I saw this on the news. Not that shocked to be honest, IDF is scum.

As stated, the IDF's use of the human shield tactic is unfortunately nothing new. Lawrence of Cyberia has exhaustively documented this over the years. Here's his compendium as of July '08
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/07/israels-human-shields.html

Bias camera.

 

[nib95]

And they call palestians terrorists...god dammit .

This. People talk a lot about terrorists and the danger of Iran etc. But as far as I see it, it's Israel that's doing the most killing, causing the most destruction, and wreaking the most havoc. Naturally all these actions will only spawn more generations of hate induced killers. And thus the cycle continues.

 

[Chichikov]

Either you're lying about your military service, or you never held a weapon outside the firing range. Or you had no idea which quote I'm talking about. Read the above and tell me where I'm wrong, or how the initial quote is a negative.

1st of all, I’ve spent 6 years in the IDF, in a combative role, I’m also a disabled veteran. Next.
And I’m not saying it’s a positive quote; you claimed that the article somehow spin or misrepresent those testimonies, and you said that only someone with military experience can spot it.
Well then, I have plenty of military experience and I don’t see it, I’m just calling your bullshit.
I think the burden of proof is on you.

p.s.
Had you actually spent any time in the occupied territories you would’ve known about the legality of נוהל שכן and would have not embarrassed yourself.

 

[norinrad21]

Thread turning very personal

 

[nyong]

1st of all, I’ve spent 6 years in the IDF, in a combative role, I’m also a disabled veteran. Next.

And I’m not saying it’s a positive quote; you claimed that the article somehow spin or misrepresent those testimonies, and you said that only someone with military experience can spot it.

Well then, I have plenty of military experience and I don’t see it, I’m just calling your bullshit.
I think the burden of proof is on you.

Dude, what I didn't tell you was that I was a former Palestinian who fought under Arafat, who switched sides to the IDF after I saw the blatant manipulation of the world media and the Palestinian government towards the Israelis.

I've personally served in a combat capacity in every single unit of the IDF and have been privileged with secret documents that outline each and every casualty of war that has taken place in Gaza.

I've seen the war from both sides and would totally side with the IDF now. They're the bees-knees.

 

[Zenith]

Dude, what I didn't tell you was that I was a former Palestinian who fought under Arafat, who switched sides to the IDF after I saw the blatant manipulation of the world media and the Palestinian government towards the Israelis.

I've personally served in a combat capacity in every single unit of the IDF and have been privileged with secret documents that outline each and every casualty of war that has taken place in Gaza.

I've seen the war from both sides and would totally side with the IDF now. They're the bees-knees.

So basically you're a troll who knows nothing and has just invalidated all his arguments.

 

[A.R.K]

I have my doubts that this true. It's certainly convenient that the 30 IDF troops are unnamed.

since mainstream media never shows what is really going around in the world much of the time and more concerned about the stupid things going on...yeah these things never happen ..its all lies...all lies ..right?

 

[nyong]

So basically you're a troll who knows nothing and has just invalidated all his arguments.

I'm saying that Chic-whatever is full of it. My sarcasm is usually hard to read, but I slathered it on that post like peanut butter on toast.

 

[falastini]

still joke shirts?

 

[A.R.K]

This. People talk a lot about terrorists and the danger of Iran etc. But as far as I see it, it's Israel that's doing the most killing, causing the most destruction, and wreaking the most havoc. Naturally all these actions will only spawn more generations of hate induced killers. And thus the cycle continues.

QFT!

And usually when you look at the casualties on both sides in these kinds of raids its mind bogling .. Palestanian killed (mostly civilians) in 1000s ... israeli soldiers killed in 10s. Yeah keep telling yourself israel is justified to do whatever it wants.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm saying that Chic-whatever is full of it. My sarcasm is usually hard to read, but I slathered it on that post like peanut butter on toast.

This is the internet, I cannot prove anything, but it was you who made a claim that is solely based on your supposed military record.
It’s true that I may be full of it, but go ahead, check my post history; I challenge you to find a single post that contradicts my story.
You on the other hand, have a couple in this thread alone.
At the very least I’m a much better liar than you.

 

[nyong]

You on the other hand, have a couple in this thread alone.
At the very least I’m a much better liar than you.

The only claim I made in this thread was having served in the military. That last post was obvious sarcasm in response to your weird tangent. What in the world are you talking about?

And you still haven't responded to my question in post #150 which was created in response to your challenge of "try me." It's pretty simple, take apart the soldier's quote and my response to it.

 

[Chichikov]

The only claim I made in this thread was having served in the military. That last post was obvious sarcasm in response to your weird tangent. What in the world are you talking about?

And you still haven't responded to my question in post #150 which was created in response to your challenge of "try me." It's pretty simple, take apart the soldier's quote and my response to it.

I thought I did:
"I’m not saying it’s a positive quote; you claimed that the article somehow spin or misrepresent those testimonies, and you said that only someone with military experience can spot it.
Well then, I have plenty of military experience and I don’t see it, I’m just calling your bullshit.
I think the burden of proof is on you".

 

[nyong]

I’m not saying it’s a positive quote; you claimed that the article somehow spin or misrepresent those testimonies, and you said that only someone with military experience can spot it.

There have been similar misunderstandings in police escalation of force threads, which is why I made that statement. Many people seem to think that soldiers and police should put their lives at risk long before taking a life. Because they're getting paid to put their life on the line. Which is nonsense.

This...

"The soldiers were made to understand that their lives were the most important"

...is absolutely correct. If a five year old child is pointing a weapon at you, you shoot him. There is absolutely nothing under the rules of engagement that states the civilian life- even that of a child- is more important than your own. Your primary goals are to finish the mission within the rules of engagement, and to go home alive and intact.

Cops are taught the same thing. Note that this doesn't not mean "by any means necessary" of course. Although that can certainly include deadly force if that's what it takes.

there was no way our soldiers would get killed for the sake of leaving civilians the benefit of the doubt

This is also true. If that child points something that you feel in the moment is a weapon, you react to it. You shoot the child if you feel endangered. You don't give him the benefit of the doubt because they look like they're five.

And if you are unwilling to kill to protect your comrades, you have no place in the armed forces.

I think the burden of proof is on you.

You're the one who said "try me"

 

[professor_t]

Poster 1: My dick is bigger than yours.
Poster 2: No way, my dick is much bigger.
Poster 1: What?! My dick is enormous! Your dick is tiny.
Poster 2: Are you kidding me? This is the biggest dick ever. Definitely bigger than yours.
Poster 1: GTFO. Everyone can clearly see that my dick is bigger than yours.
Poster 2: Well, they must be blind, because MY dick is bigger. I pounded a railroad spike through a cinderblock with my dick.

Ad nauseum. Great thread, folks.

 

[nyong]

Poster 2: No way, my dick is much bigger.

Well, it's true you know.

 

[Chichikov]

There have been similar misunderstandings in police escalation of force threads, which is why I made that statement. Many people seem to think that soldiers and police should put their lives at risk long before taking a life. Because they're getting paid to put their life on the line. Which is nonsense.

This...

...is absolutely correct. If a five year old child is pointing a weapon at you, you shoot him. There is absolutely nothing under the rules of engagement that states the civilian life- even that of a child- is more important than your own. Your primary goals are to finish the mission within the rules of engagement, and to go home alive and intact.

Cops are taught the same thing. Note that this doesn't not mean "by any means necessary" of course. Although that can certainly include deadly force if that's what it takes.

This is also true. If that child points something that you feel in the moment is a weapon, you react to it. You shoot the child if you feel endangered. You don't give him the benefit of the doubt because they look like they're five.

And if you are unwilling to kill to protect your comrades, you have no place in the armed forces.

You're the one who said "try me"

Now it’s you who are taking these quotes out of context, they are specifically talking about a procedure that is illegal by IDF regulations and Israeli law.
Also, the escalation of force procedure you describe (which I assume you know from your guard duties) do not apply to operations like in Gaza.

 

[typhonsentra]

As stated, the IDF's use of the human shield tactic is unfortunately nothing new. Lawrence of Cyberia has exhaustively documented this over the years. Here's his compendium as of July '08
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/07/israels-human-shields.html

I'm looking through the actual pictures and videos on this site and they really aren't very convincing. None of the pictures actually shows anything conclusive (The one picture of the blindfolded kid over and over again has him against a wall, the text simply tells us he was used as a shield with no evidence of it). The video "Proof" on that site is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tomdEkOgdKU

They had the guys stand in front of the truck while they sat in the back. They had shots of armed soldiers on patrol earlier in the video and I didn't see any civilians being used there.

You can say I'm turning a blind eye but most of you seem to be accepting this information too readily because it confirms your own preconceived notions about Israel (That they're essentially monsters, at least the government is) when you'd normally question allegations like this. Think about the source of these testimonials: "Breaking the Silence", this doesn't raise any red flags about a potential agenda here, really?

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Think about the source of these testimonials

Lawrence cites the Associated Press, the BBC, ABC News, B'tselem, Haaretz, Amnesty International, HRW, YNet, IDF reservists and other radical propagandist organizations. In 2005 the Israeli Supreme court had to ban these otherwise fictional accounts of human shield tactics in arrest raids. Although the IDF understands they're not required to listen to what their courts decide (ie: media ban in Gaza) so I suppose thats moot.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I'm looking through the actual pictures and videos on this site and they really aren't very convincing. None of the pictures actually shows anything conclusive (The one picture of the blindfolded kid over and over again has him against a wall, the text simply tells us he was used as a shield with no evidence of it). The video "Proof" on that site is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tomdEkOgdKU

They had the guys stand in front of the truck while they sat in the back. They had shots of armed soldiers on patrol earlier in the video and I didn't see any civilians being used there.

You can say I'm turning a blind eye but most of you seem to be accepting this information too readily because it confirms your own preconceived notions about Israel (That they're essentially monsters, at least the government is) when you'd normally question allegations like this. Think about the source of these testimonials: "Breaking the Silence", this doesn't raise any red flags about a potential agenda here, really?

There needs to be a healthy balance of scepticism, and I'd say that the status quo is that most of the world believes whatever world view the Israelis allow the media to actually see and witness...

in this particular 'war', more an assault than a real war, there was no media coverage whatsoever. There were giant walls and gates that Western media simply couldn't bypass. There was a writer of the Guardian or the Independent, who had a relative who owned a farm in Gaza -- he described his relative's remains as nothing but fleshy mush, not even his cows were spared. We all saw the photos of the purely evident concrete devestation, we all saw the photos and videos of people wailing in depressing disbelief at what was going on...

had it been in some other part of the world, some oil rich corner of the world led by an anti-west despot our leaders and our media would have been leading the charge for change.

You ARE turning a blind eye. I hope when the reality of this all comes out in our lifetimes, which it will, that you're fucking ashamed of yourself. If you're religious, you might also wanna pray to whatever God it is you worship for forgiveness... because at the end of the day - the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government are seperate from the people. You're not an anti-semite to challenge them or suspect them of wrongdoing. You're an enabler of criminal atrocity though if you simply give them the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity... at least I think so.

 

[Chichikov]

Although the IDF understands they're not required to listen to what their courts decide (ie: media ban in Gaza) so I suppose thats moot.

Where the hell did you get that from?

Also, there’s no point to debate about this procedure, I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it happened, and it happened frequently.
By the way, while I’m not justifying it in any shape of form, it’s important to understand that calling it human shield (while technically true) may lead to misconceptions about what it really was.
It was done when the army was trying to arrest armed suspects in barricaded houses. Regulations required asking the person to surrender before entering the house, so a neighbor was sent to deliver that warning; it was never about shooting behind civilians.

Again, it doesn’t make it justifiable, not by a long shot; I’m just trying to set the record straight.

 

[Salazar]

Is good ol' Mark Regev still doing the blandly aggressive radio and tv denials of wrongdoing, or has Israel found someone new ?

 

[radioheadrule83]

Is good ol' Mark Regev still doing the blandly aggressive radio and tv denials of wrongdoing, or has Israel found someone new ?

That shit was almost funny during the last Gaza incursion... I almost felt sorry for the guy

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Where the hell did you get that from?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/31/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrated-over-gaza

Regulations required asking the person to surrender before entering the house, so a neighbor was sent to deliver that warning; it was never about shooting behind civilians.

Again, it doesn’t make it justifiable, not by a long shot; I’m just trying to set the record straight.

Yes thats understood, I hope I wasn't implying otherwise. The problem is it puts civilians in harms way against their will and further incites the occupied populace. I would argue thats a form of terror. These debates tend to focus much on intent in lieu of actual facts on the ground. The IDF doesn't intend to kill hundreds of innocent civilians when they drop bombs in densely populated areas, its just an unfortunate byproduct of their intent.

 

[Chichikov]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/31/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrated-over-gaza

Well, the IDF is required to listen to the courts, but yeah, military forces not always do what is required from them.

Yes thats understood, I hope I wasn't implying otherwise. The problem is it puts civilians in harms way against their will and further incites the occupied populace. I would argue thats a form of terror. These debates tend to focus much on intent in lieu of actual facts on the ground. The IDF doesn't intend to kill hundreds of innocent civilians when they drop bombs in densely populated areas, its just an unfortunate byproduct of their intent.

Well put, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Azih]

Heck There's already proof that the IDF used white phosphorous in Gaza.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5519433.ece

 

[theignoramus]

There's a great documentary on the Gaza War called "To Shoot an Elephant", which is being screened all over the place in commemoration of the first anniversary of the Gaza massacre. It's basically an eyewitness account of what was happening in Gaza while Israel launched its offensive. The makers of this are openly calling for people to torrent it. Having watched a significant portion, it's safe to say that the footage reflects poorly on the international response to what went on here, as the footage corroborates much of what was mentioned in the U.N.'s Goldstone report.

The official website gives you a link to the piratebay torrent

This is an embedded film. We decided to be "embedded within the ambulances" opening an imaginary dialogue with those journalists who embed themselves within armies. Everyone is free to choose the side where they want to report from. But decisions are often not unbiased. We decided that civilians working for the rescue of the injured would give us a far more honest perspective of the situation than those whose job is to shoot, to injure and to kill. We prefer medics rather than soldiers. We prefer the bravery of those unarmed rescuers than those with -also interesting, but morally rejectable experiences who enlist to kill. It is a matter of focus. I am not interested in the fears, traumas and contradictions of those who have a choice: the choice of staying home and saying no to war.

The IDF doesn't intend to kill hundreds of innocent civilians when they drop bombs in densely populated areas, its just an unfortunate byproduct of their intent.

[is] “there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective.”[?] Of course, there’s a difference, but is there a “moral” difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other?

In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters’ questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were “unintentional” or “inadvertent” or “accidental,” as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.

These words are misleading because they assume an action is either “deliberate” or “unintentional.” There is something in between, for which the word is “inevitable.” If you engage in an action, like aerial bombing, in which you cannot possibly distinguish between combatants and civilians (as a former Air Force bombardier, I will attest to that), the deaths of civilians are inevitable, even if not “intentional.” Does that difference exonerate you morally?

The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent. To say otherwise (as either side might) is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.