Posts
IDF Moral Code Explains Those Photos of Dead Civilians
By Cori Chascione / January 30, 2009
IDF soldiers are given strict orders in terms of combat procedures as per IDF moral code; the IDF tells them when it is appropriate risk their lives, to save others, and to shoot. The details are numerous, but the basic outline is as follows: IDF soldiers have three priorities in combat, and they are listed here in order of priority (all quotes in italics are taken directly from the IDF Moral Code): 1. Accomplish the mission "The IDF soldiers view their service in the IDF as a mission; They will be ready to give their all in order to defend the state, its citizens and residents." 2. Protect oneself and comrades "The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives." "The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission." 3. Avoid collateral damage (damage to civilians and their property) "The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat."
Among other things, implicit in the IDF moral code is the fact that soldiers risk their own lives in two cases: in order to accomplish a mission and in order to save the lives of their comrades. Individual soldiers are not permitted to risk their own lives in order to avoid collateral damage or to save civilians, and there is nothing peculiar or immoral about this in terms of military protocol. The United States Army, along with most standing armies, have the same principle. The IDF warns civilians about incursions and goes through leaps and bounds to plan missions, on a strategic level, that are designed to keep civilians in mind. During Operation Cast Lead, the IDF even went as far as to reroute missiles already on their way to targets in Gaza, due to the fact that too many civilians ‘gathered’ (they were most likely being used as human shields by Hamas) near the original targets. Individual soldiers, however, must first accomplish their missions and protect themselves and their comrades– these are the rules of war, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a military that does not follow the same protocol. Naturally, in this case, there are civilian casualties. Even though the IDF’s moral code is listed on its official website and is written in various publications for all to see, the IDF’s PR front doesn’t exactly advertise the fact that combat soldiers have a defined list of priorities that does not call for sparing the lives of civilians in all cases. Given the indisputable fact that this moral code is lawful, it should be advertised. During Operation Cast Lead, those speaking for the IDF repeatedly said that the IDF does ‘everything that it can’ to prevent civilian casualties. This is overwhelmingly true when it comes to senior officials planning missions, but the IDF failed to make it clear that there are situations in which it views civilian deaths as unfortunate, but justified. The obvious example is one in which civilians are killed because they were used as human shields by Hamas, who wouldn’t allow them to vacate buildings, homes, schools, and other areas that Hamas used as military targets, despite having been warned before attacks by the IDF; the IDF considers these deaths to have been caused by Hamas, and rightfully so. The other example of civilian deaths that the IDF considers within the bounds of morality and legality is less obvious, and those are the deaths that happen due to a soldier’s adherence to the IDF moral code and its list of priorities. Why should the IDF make this clear in the press? The fact that IDF Moral Code is not made clear worldwide is a major part of the reason that much of the media call the IDF a bunch of liars, though not always in so many words. We say that we do everything possible to avoid civilian deaths, and next to these quotes from senior military officials, you’ll find photos of dead Palestinian civilians. The truth is that, like any other military at war, we have a list of priorities. Contrary to popular belief, the principle of proportionality within the realm of international law does not relate to the number of civilians that are killed during war. Rather, it demands that the civilian casualties and property damage must be in proportion to the significance of the military target as it directly relates to the completion of military objectives. If the IDF kills 15 civilians when bombing a house that a Hamas operative once visited for a cup of tea, that is disproportionate. If , during a war whose objective is to decrease the ability for Hamas to carry out attacks against Israel, 15 civilians are killed when the IAF bombs the Hamas Government Complex, from which the planning of terror attacks occurs, this is not disproportionate. In addition, a soldier’s life comes before a civilian in enemy territory, and even those that ideologically massacre principles of war in the name of ‘international law’ specifically when talking about the IDF, can’t argue that this principle is illegal. As such, it would be to the IDF’s benefit if it were forthcoming about its moral code. Those tragic photographs of dead civilians may be tragic, but why make it easy for the media to call us liars? Our moral code doesn’t state that we protect civilians in all cases, and we need to explain that to the world. Israel would have much less of an image problem if its PR front had the strength of the IDF’s convictions.
POST A COMMENT
The fact that IDF Moral Code is not made clear worldwide is a major part of the
reason that much of the media call the IDF a bunch of liars, though not always
in so many words.
Don’t blame the media; blame Hasbara peddlers. For instance, Alan Dershowitz, the ZOA and Nathan Sharansky have all claimed that the IDF’s Ethical Code, and in particular its Purity of Arms clause, teaches soldiers to put their own lives at risk in order to avoid harming civilians (see here). This inaccuracy has been repeated thousands of times, and it has convinced many people of Israel’s higher moral standing. Yet I don’t recall you or any other Israeli writing a Letter to the Editor to set the record straight.
In other words, when the lie served Israel’s interests you remained silent. Now that it has been turned against Israel, you want the world to know the truth about the IDF’s ethical code. That’s what people call having it both ways.
Dear Reality-Check,
I agree that the situation is unsustainable in the long-term.
I agree that the occupation is corrosive and will have to end, and that abuses take place that must end. You honestly didn’t think I was further to the right than Ariel Sharon, did you? (Oops, sorry. He might not have meant to really withdraw from Gaza, being a politician and all. But you get the point). I do believe it’s important to make sure that a politically corrupt, morally bankrupt, civilly inept and historically deaf vacuum of a government isn’t left in place in return, however, and there’s the rub.
I agree with the importance of applying an eye to Israel’s actions that is as critical as it is humane - devoid of demonizing, devoid of decontextualizing, devoid of demagoguing.
But what I don’t understand is what’s to prevent a sense of fearmongering from leading Israel’s hyper-critics down an equally fatuous path. I remember the aftermath of Lebanon. I remember all the cries of wolf… how this was going to lead to a deeper threat from Hizbullah, from Iran, from the Arab street that still doesn’t govern a single country in the region except for two (well, one-and a half considering the remedial state of Iraq’s democracy). And guess what? Nothing so horrifying seems to have materialized.
I remember videos of Israeli soldiers fighting in the Sinai in 1973, complaining about how typical this was of the Arabs. That after this in a few years there will be another war. And another war. And another war. And then I saw a video of Avidgor Kahalani in the early 1990s explaining that the 1973 war allowed the Arabs to feel that they had regained their sense of pride. This, you see, was the necessary element for feeling strong enough to… do whatever, including making peace. Carter didn’t do that. Sadat did. And still it wasn’t enough to keep him from being assassinated. But then again, Carter shouldn’t project his understanding of politics into a context where it doesn’t apply. The incredible degree of ignominy this man achieved in America was just for being a piss-poor president. Imagine if he had done something as taboo to his country as what Sadat did to his! Imagine if the twerp actually had the balls to take a risk. Not just any risk, mind you. A risk calculated specifically to account for a well thought-out implementation and reward. Do you really think this one-term peanut farmer who won office by virtue of our weary nation’s disgust with the criminality of Nixon has the political skills to do that? At the international level and in a conflict as complicated as the one in question? Really? Do you?
Then I read an article by an Egyptian just a few years ago. Do you understand that in Egypt there is so much government propaganda that they actually believe they won the 1973 war? It was a revelation to this highly educated man that his country didn’t even win the war. Museums in Cairo, dedicated to the glory of what it took to "win" back their Sinai. Entire dioramas and panoramas, complete with brave little Egyptian figurines and the like, crossing over the canal (but not ultimately losing the war. Can’t show that). And yet, you expect Israel — the atavistic object of scapegoating across the timeless Middle East — to manage Arab public opinion? Seriously?
Well, I’m sympathetic to that. It means that you think Israel is capable of even more than I’d ever, in my wildest dreams, imagine it could be.
But I’m still not convinced it’s realistic.
And until you can convince me otherwise, I will look at the history of Lebanon in 2006 as a template for the aftermath of Gaza in 2008. I will separate all the demagoguing, politicking and other emotive B.S. from the actual reality of what happened, and look hopefully upon whatever tiny glimmer of reform, stability, reorganization and realization among Hamas that will now emerge from this dreadful episode. I already hear that those interesting in governing are trying to separate themselves from those interested in warring. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking to my reluctantly hawkish ears to believe that means anything. But given the history of the place, it’s all I have. Pretty shitty, but you play life with the hand you’re dealt.
Perhaps not as British as you might prefer, but certainly Whiggish. And the Whigs weren’t exactly pessimists either.
israel has tried to quarantine hamas. there is a certain logic there. from 1974 until 1993 israel did not speak to the plo. by 1993 when they finally spoke, the plo’s positions had changed from rejectionism to recognizing a need for reconciliation. it is "natural" for israel to repeat their "demand" for a shift in hamas’s attitude before talking to them.
i accept this logic, but the logic is not enough. the logic leads to the war we just had and i wish to dismantle the situation that leads to a logic that leads to such a war. therefore i tend to favor talking to hamas. not that such talks guarantee peace. far from it.
one reason for far from it is:
iran
the spiel about the evil of american foreign policy and israel as a bastion of the us is a golden oldie and i never get tired of it. (not.) but nonetheless we’ve all heard that a million times. but when i ask you to analyze the role of iran, you react as if i’m asking a math question on a social studies test and it isn’t so. iran is a very relevant factor. i am not sufficiently facile with world dynamics to overcome the feeling that the iranian quest for nukes is indeed a game changer. maybe the ayatollas and their missile parades and their rhetoric and their centrifuges are a fake threat. they certainly don’t seem that way to me.
you seem too busy patting yourself on the back for repeating the party line that you don’t have time to talk about the issues as the other side might see them.
"And what on earth would have given Hamas the right to demand that the terms of the truce then be altered?"
Who talked about altering the terms? Hamas was willing to extend the truce if Israel agreed to finally honor its assumed obligation under the previous truce agreement.
Hamas did its part, btw. It stopped the rocket fire, almost completely. Defense establishment experts in Israel and the US acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness, given how many obscure Palestinian groups (more militant than Hamas) tend to act on their own.
Look. History teaches us that what governments say and what they actually do are often completely different. That’s the reason why a free press is so important. That’s why I read the Israeli press every day. If one takes what Israel (or any other country for that matter) says at face value without looking at actual policies, then one will end up in la-la land. Trust me, I’ve been there. I was another useful idiot who ended up with serious cognitive dissonance and emotionally tormented once I saw with my own eyes what was really happening in the "territories".
The reason why me and many others are reluctant to focus on the Palestinian shortcomings which you never stop doing is two-fold. First, we can’t deny that they are the flesh and blood victims of our national aspirations who had nothing to do with WWII and the Holocaust. Two, there is no shortage of focus on that side. What has been missing for way too long was a little self-criticism and scrutiny of Israel’s policies from our side. Israel since 1948 is an actual country, you know, not some fairy-tale ideal of passionate ideologues.
And people should realise that if there is no peace, then Israel is doomed. Long term, a country can’t survive in a sea of hatred. Think decades ahead. Think centuries ahead. We’ve put all our eggs in one basket, the US. That’s not smart in my view. Yet we have the chutzpah to accuse the president who actually helped Israel make peace with one of the most important countries in the neighbourhood of being anti-Semitic, for daring to voice uncomfortable truths. And we want to believe that the 200 countries that vote against Israel in the UN consistently are anti-Semitic, as is now Desmond Tutu and Mandela and Carter and the additions on that list go on and on.
It is delusional to think that Israel can possibly survive like that. And even worse than all external factors is what the occupation and this permanent state of semi-war are doing to Israeli society.
Facts are stubborn things
The problem with chess analogies is it formalizes the idea that the world can evenly be split into black/white, good/bad sides. It also mentally disconnects you from the emotional reality of it all.
How about this. Since Reagan took office, Israel has clearly been used as a proxy/puppet for the U.S. policy in the region. And folks like Reagan were—and to an extent still are—backed evangelical Christian lunatics who believe a conflict in the mideast is the precursor to the Rapture. And to use a chess analogy, that basically means to a good chunk of faithful non-Jewish Israel supporters, us Jews are simply pawns in an Apolcalyptic chess game. They have no respect for our lives as a people and they genuinely believe that when "He" comes back to Earth the Jews will gladly convert to Christianty lest we endure the fires of hell on Earth.
Fun stuff huh?
Look let me tell you this. As long as Israel thinks it’s beyond reproach nothing will change anywhere and for any reason with anyone. And to dare to bring up the Anti-Semite or Self-Hating-Jew argument when someone makes a reasonable case against Israeli policy is just as ridiculous as an African American claiming racism anytime they are unable to get their way.
All the centuries of Jewish intellectualism and beard scratching mean nothing when blood spills on the streets of Gaza from people who have no role in this conflict. Know what the "Wannsee Conference" was? Just because German eggheads sat around a table and rationally discussed the murder of millions doesn’t make it more valid.
It is true the loss of pawns strengthens Hamas but the loss of rooks, knights, and bishops hurts them. So keep Hamas leadership off balance with targeted killings of operational personnel. As for their Iranian sponsors, continue covert actions against Iranian nuclear program. Pray for (or somehow assist ) re-election of Mahmoud A-Man-in-a-Dinner-Jacket as President of Iran as his loose lips helps give the West the necessary pretext to continue sanctions. I won’t guarantee that this will lead to checkmate if that is your goal.
your answer was the university equivalent of: i know you are, but what am I?
"But even then Hamas offered to extend the truce on condition that this time, Israel would end the blockade. Israel refused."
And what on earth would have given Hamas the right to demand that the terms of the truce then be altered?
If you’re going to rail against the blockade, you’re going to have to face the reality that this was either a legitimate sanction, or a way to make a weapons embargo more feasible, or both. You never go on about the tunnels and smuggling that Egypt failed to stop. Are you simply indifferent to these concerns? Israeli politicians certainly can’t be. And by the way, that was a significant breach of the treaty too. Do you not distinguish between the "provocation" of destroying tunnels through which to (illegally, in case you forgot) smuggle arms, and actually launching attacks on civilians with those arms? Do you not see the difference?
At some point you’re going to have to face the reality that as many events as you want to blame Israel for manufacturing, Hamas makes decisions too. The Palestinians make decisions too. The feckless U.N. makes decisions, and puts off making decisions, and makes proclamations, and Israel’s allies and non-belligerent partners in the region make proclamations, and they fail to be effective at preventing the means for continuing conflict. It’s as if the Palestinians have no ability to make decisions, no reason for anyone to judge their own intentions, no agency, no responsibility, no will. Israel is the only party in the region for whom a sense of responsibility for anything exists. That sounds like a terrible burden to assign to it, but I’m sure you have a good reason for doing this.
If only I could clear my conscience by proclaiming myself solely responsible for all the world’s ills. If only I could transfer responsibility for the shortcomings of others onto myself for the purpose of their salvation. Much of the world already had a Jew for that purpose. His name was Jesus. He wasn’t meant to be collectivized and projected onto the Jews as a whole. Was he?
Given the following chess position, what strategy do you advise for white (Palestinians)?
1. the Israelis have the advantage of the American thrust for hegemony
2. they are willing to serve as American proxies
3. a loss of pawns strengthens the cause, doesn’t weaken it. (Sderot)
4. they are "unconcerned" about the present tense of their
constituents, are only concerned with final victory (or some strategic
goal that is not current tense).(Greater Israel, see settlements etc.)
glib statements about rationality aside, you are challenged to advise.
Facts are stubborn things
given the following chess position, what strategy do you advise for black (israel)?
1. the palestinians have the advantage of the iranian thrust for hegemony
2. they are willing to serve as iranian proxies
3. a loss of pawns strengthens the cause, doesn’t weaken it.
4. they are "unconcerned" about the present tense of their constituents, are only concerned with final victory (or some strategic goal that is not current tense).
glib statements about rationality aside, you are challenged to advise.
"[t]he idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months before the attack. A military source involved in the planning of the attack, in which dozens of Hamas policemen were killed, says that while military intelligence officers were sure the operation should be carried out and pressed for its approval, the IDF’s international law division and the military advocate general were undecided."
FYI, I read this and still am trying to understand the value of knowing this. Nobody is comforted by the idea there was "great debate" about this, because when all is said and done, Hamas policemen who haven’t even been given a chance to be proven good/bad were simply pre-emptively murdered.
There is 1000% no justification for this specific incident. And the chances of anyone in the IDF ever being convicted of this crime is zero and we all know it.
In contrast, a BART transit cop in San Francisco shot a handcuffed man in the back and killed him and he was indicted on murder charges.
As each year passes and we move further away from the Holocaust, you’re going to find less and less sympathy for these "defensive" moves on the part of the IDF. And please don’t cry "anti-semitism" because that’s a broken record at this point. A culture such as Judaism who has contributed so much richness and positivity to the world can surely think of better ways to solve this mess. But honestly, I think that the IDF underestimates the power of rational thought.
It’s fascinating to read this because the moral justification of civilian deaths is basically based on the same logic that stated that the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was acceptable…
Do us all a favor: These "so called" journalists are simply people who are sick of the bloodshed on both sides. And who also see Israel as a force that should be taking the moral higher ground but is basically sinking down to the same level as the enemy.
Most competent military analysts have even said at this point it’s clear the Israeli offensive into Gaza has not increased safety. And that when all is said and done it was probably Hamas’ goal to provoke this over-reaction.
That said, do Israeli’s actually talk and think about things other than robotic rhetoric about death and destruction? Because personally I have never once met an Israeli who at some point doesn’t say some statement about the right of Israel to defend itself. Said mostly as a straw-man point to spark a debate… Which in it’s own way is a heated battle…
And remember folks, only 3 Israeli civilians were killed in these rocket attacks. 1,300 Palestinians were killed in retaliation. You can’t justify that kind of insane disparity.
Isaac: "Either the blockade was a significant enough provocation for Hamas to
declare that the terms and assumptions of the truce were no longer
sufficient to prevent hostilities, or it wasn’t. "
It was. Both the November 4th raid and the blockade were enough provocations. But even then Hamas offered to extend the truce on condition that this time, Israel would end the blockade. Israel refused.
It’s that simple.
P.S. You should read the articles I link to, they are mostly Israeli news articles, with the kind of info you will have a very hard time to find on US media. In one of them, it was revealed that "[t]he idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza
police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months
before the attack. A military source involved in the planning of the attack, in
which dozens of Hamas policemen were killed, says that while military
intelligence officers were sure the operation should be carried out and pressed
for its approval, the IDF’s international law division and the military
advocate general were undecided."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html
As we all saw, everything worked like clockwork. Attacks that were to happen on specific dates were planned, relevant legal opinions were cooked, American weapons were received just a few weeks before the operation, provocations followed, then the refusal to extend the truce, and enough time was available to go to war and devastate Gaza just before Obama assumed office. Now, you can ignore all this evidence and keep pretending that it was Hamas that wanted this "war" just because it suits your preconceptions or face reality. Your choice.
Facts are stubborn things
"How
does a dead 13 year old girl fit with an acquitted Captain and a moral
army? How does it happen that time and time again the IDF emerges out
of the fogginess of its "military operations" and explains to us all
what morality is?
It is unclear why "the acquittal of Captain R. indicates the morality
of the IDF", as one Brigadier General was quoted claiming. We have here
a curious reasoning, for how does a dead 13 year old girl fit with an
acquitted Captain and a moral army? How does it happen that time and
time again the IDF emerges out of the fogginess of its "military
operations" and explains to us all what morality is?
Too little and too late we discover that the IDF operates in our
name according to two moral codes – the first is fit for
air-conditioned neon-lit rooms, and the other fits the reality of the
operational world. Well, this is a problem. Moral codes cannot be
tailored to fit reality. They are kept in test tubes. That is why they
stay clean and pure, and that is why we get dirty trying to stay within
the borders of sane red lines. The IDF failed at the moment it gave up
its independent morality, and began bending and tailoring its moral
codes to different areas, and to random open fire orders."
Read the rest here:
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/article_e.asp?id=2&page=1
Facts are stubborn things
Ok, ok. Because the number of attacks went from a low before November to an immensely larger number afterward, it’s ok to say that the November 4th incident altered the terms and voided the ceasefire. But stop with the bullshit about the blockade. That part’s ridiculous. And if the ceasefire was void after the U.S. elections, then it’s Hamas’ responsibility, as the party that massively escalated its attacks afterward, to admit as much. This did not occur. And it would never have occurred, because like some people, Hamas wants everything both ways and can never admit to anything or even be clear about its intentions.
"The ceasefire was broken by Israel on November 4th. There is also the
argument that Israel never honored its own obligations under the ceasefire by
not easing the blockade."
Which must therefore mean that Hamas was also in violation of the same ceasefire for firing all those rockets before November 4th. And once again, if Hamas never declared the six-month truce null and void before it formally lapsed on December 19th, then the pre-existing blockade that had been in place all this time was not a sufficient justification - according to Hamas’ reasoning – for a formal war to occur. Either the lapses in the truce were meaningful enough for it to no longer hold, or they weren’t. Either the blockade was a significant enough provocation for Hamas to declare that the terms and assumptions of the truce were no longer sufficient to prevent hostilities, or it wasn’t.
It can’t be this simple. You guys really aren’t this dense, are you?
I mean, now I understand all the personalization and side-show tactics. The thousand-word tracts reposted. The esoteric literary and philosophical appeals. I previously just guessed they were an odd way to add some fun into the mix, and that you really had some strong arguments to make. Subtle and complex arguments that were somehow being missed by everyone. A perspective that you just had to know more about where the Palestinians were coming from in order to understand. But I guess it really is just this easy to debate you.
Every time "reality-check" posts a comment I’m reminded of those newstands on college campuses that have the word "LIES!" spray-painted across the display window.
The ceasefire was broken by Israel on November 4th. There is also the
argument that Israel never honored its own obligations under the ceasefire by
not easing the blockade.
You can look all that up, Isaac. Style can never substitute for substance.
If you spent half the time you spend following Ismail around to actually get
some background information, we wouldn’t need to listen to the same, tiring
lies fed to you as talking points again and again. That is, if you are really,
genuinely interested to find the truth.
To anyone interested, here is a good background article on Gaza by Henry
Siegman, former national director of the American Jewish Congress on the London
Review of Books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
And here is another one by Sara Roy (not for the faint of the heart):
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/roy_01_.html
Finally, the lie that Israel left Gaza and the Palestinians didn’t use the
opportunity to advance their society is truly mind-boggling, even more than the
"human shields" one (remember, the IDF has been practicing it for
decades, and when the supreme court outlawed it, the IDF appealed to continue a
practice that is against international law).
Anyone interested in what really happened should read James Wolfensohn’s
interviews, who was Former President of the World Bank and Special Envoy for Gaza
Disengagement of the Bush Administration. This is no leftist peacenik speaking:
***
"… I remember seeing the greenhouses with the
chairman and looking at the fruits and everything, and there was a joyous
atmosphere: ‘Boy, we’re about to get this going and we’re going to have hotels
by the beaches and we’re going to have tourism and it’s going to be fantastic,
and the Palestinians really know how to be hosts.’ But in the months afterward,
first of all Arik [Sharon] became ill and the current prime minister came in,
and there was a clear change of view."
At that time, Wolfensohn recalls, powerful forces in the U.S.
administration worked behind his back: They did not believe in the border
terminals agreement and wanted to undermine his status as the Quartet’s
emissary. The official behind this development, he says, was Elliot Abrams, the
neoconservative who was appointed deputy national security adviser in charge of
disseminating democracy in the Middle East – "and every aspect of that
agreement was abrogated."
The non-implementation of the agreement naturally had serious
economic consequences. According to Wolfensohn, the shattering of the great
hope of normality, which the Palestinians experienced so deeply when the Israel
Defense Forces and the settlers left the Gaza Strip, brought about the rise of
Hamas. "Instead of hope, the Palestinians saw that they were put back in
prison. And with 50 percent unemployment, you would have conflict. This is not
just a Palestinian issue. If you have 50 percent of your people with no work,
chances are they will become annoyed. So it’s not, in my opinion, that
Palestinians are so terrible; it is that they were in a situation where a
modulation of views between one and the other became impossible.
"And you can blame the Palestinians because there were
those among them who were firing rockets or you can blame the Israelis for
overreacting," he continues. "But either way – whichever side you
take – the situation that emerged was that you had 50 percent of the population
frustrated, no resources, and a border which was corrupt on both sides. I saw it
with my own eyes: Israelis and Palestinians, arm in arm, walking off together
and clearly pricing how you could get your truck to the top of the line or get
it through at all. It was an absolutely transparently corrupt system at the
border – you had to buy your truck’s way across. I thought it was a
disgrace."
The issue of the greenhouses is especially painful to
Wolfensohn because of his personal contribution to them. "Everything was
rotting because you couldn’t get the fruit. And if you went to the border, as I
did many times, and saw tomatoes and fruit just being dumped on the side of the
road, you would have to say that if you were a Palestinian farmer you’d be
pretty upset. So my view is to try and not demonize the Palestinians. I’m not
denying that there are Palestinians who fire rockets and do terrible things; I
know that that happens. But to get a fundamental solution, you have to have
hope on both sides."
All the Dreams We Had Are Now Gone,
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884018.html
***
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/international/middleeast/25mideast.html?_r=1
Oh, and the greenhouses that the Palestinians supposedly destroyed because they are such uncivilised savages? That was another lie. Guess who destroyed them?
Israeli Settlers Demolish Greenhouses and Jobs,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/middleeast/15mideast.html
Facts are stubborn things
In case anyone’s interested, Operation Autumn Clouds ("Mivtza’ Ananei Stav") was begun November 1, 2006, and was a case of large-scale conventional warfare. So let’s not pretend that obsessive revisionists can declare the default state of relations between Israel and Gaza to have been anything but belligerent between then and now.
An end to the transfer of electricity, fuel and other sundries to Gaza was not declared until November of 2007, giving Hamas over a year for their pretext for the most recent operation to matter. If a blockade was really an important enough reason to proceed to another formal state of war (Hamas is willing to entertain so many of them, who can count?) one assumes that a cease-fire wouldn’t have been agreed to all this time by Hamas. That is, assuming the one doing the assuming has a brain.
"Really, dude, you’re like the guy who can’t smell his own B.O.-everyone here knows you’re sort of nuts and the more we try to indicate that you need to chill, the more animated you become."
Which doesn’t seem to explain why I have two more friends here at the moment than you do. Well, at least two more. That could grow with time. You, on the other hand are just tolerated by virtue of Jewcy’s interest in a devil’s advocate (sanity and capacity for calm and impersonal reasoning optional. What can I say? Intellectually respectable advocates of the Palestinian cause must be rare these days), which as others see it, has allowed you simply to devolve into an easily managed troll.
"Let Cori avoid addressing the issues on her own."
Which is exactly what you hypocritically implore me to let you do with your characteristic insult above.
"If only Isaac would develop a thin, Cori-like skin and vanish, instead of stalking me and soiling my every utterance."
Your utterances soil themselves. Try recalling Throbert’s quotation of Eleanor Roosevelt to you one more time, because with this comment it seems you’re still not getting it.
Now that I have shown how much work is required just to get through Ismail’s swamp of ad hominems, I will heed Throbert’s previous advice to me and let his substantive rebuttals (which he never takes seriously anyway) above stand.* It’s a testament to his inability to tolerate criticism. But my skin is thick as ever. Not as thick as the part of Ismail’s skull surrounding the humongous area of his mind devoted exclusively to his own vanity. But thick enough to give me the satisfaction of knowing that his hapless deflections are as meaningless now as they will ever be. It’s just too bad that’s all he has. Or maybe not, considering the source.
Continue your trolling ad hominems of Cori, Ismail. I know how much you can’t stand me getting in the way of them.
—————————————————————————————
*Except for the one where Ismail pretends that Eban’s comments provide Hamas’ justification for being at war with Israel, when the most recent episode of war between the parties formally started by virtue of the expiration of a "cease-fire". Perhaps Ismail believes that cease-fires, like the one that had ended between Hamas and Israel, take place absent the state of belligerence that defines war. Or perhaps he just said one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard him say. And that’s saying a lot. Could anyone with a mind really let that one stand?
I would like to see the original Hebrew test for this moral code. Some of the idioms used sound like a throwback to the British mandate period combined with European socialist ideology. For instance the expression "give it your all" sounds like something Colonel Nicholson would entreat his men in Bride Over the River Kwai while the troops whistle the Colonel Bogey March. The phrase "act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades" sounds like a socialist slogan.
Israel calls herself a Jewish state so there is a natural assocation with the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israel and the concept of Chosen People. Once you associate with the concept of Chosen People you invite the world to apply a double standard. So it is not enough to embrace a moral code which merely mirrors the just ethical standards of liberal democracies.
I believe if Israel wants to call herself a Jewish state then the IDF must have moral code that reflects Jewish values and beliefs. I am no Jewish ethicist but as a starting point one thing is certain "recognition of the supreme value of human life" is a humanistic value. In Judaism human life is sacred but it is not supreme – only G-d is supreme.
meshal, the leader in exile of hamas, is in teheran to bless the hands of his handlers, the ayatollas. certainly i don’t expect israel to be honest about the needs of the gazan palestinians, but why should i expect meshal to be honest about the palestinian needs either. if meshal is serving teheran it certainly is within the realm of possibility that he has only the long range interests of gaza at heart and his short range interests are to provoke israel into acts of cruelty. when a leader is that mercenary with the lives of his "constituents" it is difficult to expect rationality to rule the decisions of his opponents. any discussion that doesn’t include iran is neglecting the overall strategy.
viewed with 20/20 hindsight the israeli withdrawal from gaza was a mistake. the removal of settlements was a valid move, but the withdrawal should have entailed some sort of an agreement between israel and the palestinians rather than a unilateral withdrawal that created a vacuum, which hamas filled with "resistance" rather than any thing for short range considerations of the lives of the people there.
One more thing, O Cori; you indicate that we should take seriously your piffle about the IOF’s moral code (presumably the same code that allowed an officer to empty his gun into the wounded and supine body of a fourteen year old Palestinian girl, and a pilot to remark that the only thing he felt when he dropped a bomb upon an apartment building was a small bump in the plane), but what do you make of this Ha’aretz report
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html
regarding the widespread lying about the government’s claims that no Palestinian land was seized to build settlements, that everything was kosher (permits, etc.), when in fact the same lack of permits that "justified" the demolition of Pali homes was the norm for unmolested settlement houses, etc. Note that these crimes were not "bad apples" nor did they fly under the radar of government agencies. Instead, they were normal operating procedure for a government that shamlessly denied their existence.
Does the IOF operate on a higher plane than the civilian government? Oh, wait, couldn’t be-remember, we have ample evidence that the IOF used Pali civilians as human shields for years. Oops.
So, please. No more fairy tales about moral codes. I know that you’re paid to conceal the truth, but please try to craft your lies with a smidgen more artistry, would you? Your crudeness insults us.
Oh, and Isaac? Hands down, go away from the keyboard, no one wants to hear your incoherent shrieks. Really, dude, you’re like the guy who can’t smell his own B.O.-everyone here knows you’re sort of nuts and the more we try to indicate that you need to chill, the more animated you become.
Let Cori avoid addressing the issues on her own.
"But the "blockade" of weapons into the territory had been imposed from much earlier than December 2008…"
Weapons like wheat? Antibiotics? Cooking oil?
"…so this fact obviously provides nothing by way of a defensible context for Hamas’ justification for being at a state of war with Israel."
Not so, if you buy the reasoning of Abba Eban, which you appear to.
I won’t bother to reply to Isaac’s silly comments about Hamas’ refusal to coexist, a fiction which has been rejected by Halevy and other Israeli machers.
If only Isaac would develop a thin, Cori-like skin and vanish, instead of stalking me and soiling my every utterance.
But the "blockade" of weapons into the territory had been imposed from much earlier than December 2008, so this fact obviously provides nothing by way of a defensible context for Hamas’ justification for being at a state of war with Israel. It does nothing to provide the real reason for Hamas’ willingness to, according to the PNA and Egypt, break the ceasefire. It provides none of the context of how Hamas’ interest in ending the blockade might make it easier to import more Grad missiles from Iran with which to hit Tel Aviv. Minor details, of course. This concerns Israel’s interests at preventing the deaths of its own civilians and preventing Iranian influence to grow, and one can’t expect such things to matter to everyone here.
Now, I’m sure there are people here who will deny that dead babies provide a useful pretext for a war on Hamas’ part – one that is at least as much based in propaganda aims as it is in anything else, just as I’m sure there are those who will refuse to recognize that Hamas’ renunciation of coexistence, diplomacy or Israel’s right to even exist form any context for Israel’s unwillingness to assume the terrorist group has any workable, pacific or realistic intentions. But at least Ismail is continuing to look to Israelis such as Abba Eban to guide and further shape his otherwise primeval moral sensibilities. That’s an improvement. Too bad he refuses to learn more from them. But then again, when did Ismail ever show much capacity for learning to separate his own penchant for propaganda from the need to continue refining and expanding upon his own moral sensibilities? And Ismail, Habibi… there is such a thing as strategy, wouldn’t you know? It ain’t all just about tactics!
But maybe you knew that already and just wanted to pretend the distinction doesn’t matter for Hamas’ sake.
I was wondering how long it would take for Hasbara Specialist Fourth Class Chascione to emerge, blinking, into sunlight to offer us the IOF’s current take on murdering civilians. Usually these Goebbels-esque efforts appear while the bodies of the incinerated 4 and 5 year old Hamas operatives have not yet cooled, but it seems that Cori has observed a tasteful pause this time.
It’s always nice to know that one can count on certain comforting verities to provide constancy in this crazy, on-the-go world of ours. As she always has, Cori reliably opts out of any conversation which challenges her talking points. This is done via two time-honored methods; promising to get back to us with damning evidence contradicting her interlocutor’s claims and then vanishing into silence, or refusing to converse with anyone she determines is getting too personal. Now, I won’t deny that I’ve enjoyed tweaking the shameless flack from time to time, but poor reality-check did nothing but provide copious documentation of his assertions, laced with a tiny remark or two about Cori’s naivete. Unspeakable barbarity!
Regarding the content of Cori’s post, let’s get one thing straight; the assault on Gaza was a war of choice, conducted for reasons that had nothing to do with flying pipes over Sderot. Once we establish that, Cori’s claims about what’s illegitimate or not are very distantly secondary in importance or relevance.
As I’ve pointed out before, during the summer ceasefire, rockets from Gaza decreased from hundreds a month to between one and eight a month, this despite Israel’s criminal blockade (I use the word "criminal" on good authority;
"To blockade, after all, is to attempt strangulation–and sovereign states are entitled not to have their State strangled. The blockade is by definition an act of war, imposed and enforced through violence. Never in history have a blockade and peace existed side by side."
And whose words might those be? Fella named Abba Eban, you might have heard of him. And don’t embarrass yourself by declaring that Gaza is not a sovereign state, as though that made any difference to his point.)
To the rational person whose interests involved the welfare of the people of Sderot, this marked decrease in hostility would be good news. Israel, however, decided to use this relative period of calm to kill 6 Palestinians on Gazan territory, on the grounds that they were planning to tunnel into Israel for nefarious purposes. Even if this were true, you might think that waiting on your own side of the border for the scoundrels to pop up and then dispatching them would be the wiser course.
Hamas retaliated, but again offered a ceasefire if Israel stopped its aggression and lifted the blockade. Israel chose to widen the war and proceeded to kill with wanton and slavering vigor.
Given that Israel’s actions were aggressive in nature, talk about whether or not they violated the rules (they did, by the way) are nothing but misdirection and avoidance of the prior issue-Israel’s aggression.
Cori sets back the efforts of both feminism and righteous Israelis who truly want peace by her fainting spells whenever someone hurts her feelings and by her transparent flackery for thuggishness.
She is to Israeli policy what Don Draper is to Lucky Strikes; a mendacious cynic paid to prettify a ghastly horde of killers.
Turkey cannot serve as a mediator until it acknowledges the Armenian genocide. This outburst from Erdogan is a Divine gift, causing Israel to keep the Golan and forcing Turkey to acknowledge its role in the Armenian genocide
Alcove-One: Israeli journalist Ze’ev Chafetz made the same point. In previous decades, for example, every supposed Israeli crime or injustice was widely broadcast, while very little came out of Sadam’s Iraq. Chafetz tells numerous stories of Middle East foreign correspondents who had to drop their beats due to threats on their lives. So of course more bad news comes out of Israel!
Now then…
Anyway, I’m not sure that more widely publishing the IDF’s code will help matters; the world will condemn us no matter what. In the first week of warfare, some 40 civilians were killed, accidently of course. The world accused us of genocide, and I pointed out that besides the fact that genocide cannot be accidental, it should also be noted that if we kill 40 civilians in 7 days, or some 6 per day, it will take some 456 YEARS of constant daily warfare in Gaza to equal genocide, if we suppose 1 million civilian deaths as a roundabout number for genocide. Even if we say 100,000 instead, that’s still 46 years of uninterrupted warfare. And I mean UNINTERRUPTED – imagine the same war in Gaza, but occurring as it did, not for two or three weeks, but rather, for 50 YEARS. That’s what it would take to make it genocide.
See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292929480&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull – when the UN blasts us for war crimes, but pays no attention to Hamas’s blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions (human shields, deliberately targetting civilians), then the UN has no moral standing whatsoever, and we have no sense in listening to them.
A wise man, I forget who, once pointed out that the blood libels were actually a blessing from G-d: Ordinarily, we’d have assumed that if the whole Medieval world villanized us, surely there must be at least some basis to the aspersions cast against us. But when we were accused of using Christian blood in our matzah, we KNEW they were wrong. We learned that yes, the majority can be wrong in every detail, and the minority can be absolutely correct.
I submit that Israel stands to benefit from this lesson today. Unfortunately, the blood libels will be of little use, because Israel has forgotten that it is Jewish. http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/01/sick-of-chauvinistic-israelis.html
It would be naive to assume that this would change the perceptions of the world, but don’t make that assumption. I’m suggesting that the IDF covers its bases and that more moderate publications and media outlets would have less material to work with in terms of villianizing its actions.
Reality Check– if you want to do it Ismail style and insult me personally, that’s up to you– but I won’t be having ‘conversation’ with people that do so.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
Cori seems like a nice idealistic girl who bought all the mythology of
Israel uncritically, making aliyah and ending up in the IDF PR Department while
the horror of Gaza happened. I read a thread where she expressed her sincere
outrage at a war crime a fellow soldier committed, and her absolute conviction
he would be punished, only to have the unfortunate reality hit her: That
soldier, who shot a cuffed and blindfolded Palestinian protester with a rubber
bullet, was back with his unit within days, and the investigation was
"pending". She might be tempted to update us on that soldier. What
happened Cori? How does the most moral army in the world deal with soldiers who
shoot and kill cuffed and blindfolded Palestinians?
Now, I don’t expect such a nice, idealistic girl to look too closely into
such things. Imagine the horror, the cognitive dissonance if she were to
discover that she is helping to polish the image of an army that is not really
that moral. But what can she do? Who would want to be in her shoes?
Well, values have no real meaning until the person who thinks he or she
lives by them is tested. And Cori is tested. And there is a great moral
lesson here. If someone like Cori can keep on working on the IDF’s public
relations department after all we’ve seen in Gaza, then God help us all.
And to preempt the usual, reflexive reactions of ardent Israel defenders
here at Jewcy, take a look at Breaking The Silence’s website to see what we are
talking about here: An occupation army, and what it does, every day:
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/index_e.asp
Or we can look at the advice the defense establishment’s
legal advisers gave Barak before Cast Lead:
*****
Jurists tell Barak: Don’t shell Gaza population centers
"Israel should not use artillery fire to target
rocket-launching militants in the Gaza Strip if the fire is aimed at populated
areas, the defense establishment’s legal adviser recently told Defense Minister
Ehud Barak.
"Artillery fire is permissible only in relatively open
areas," Ahaz Benari wrote in the legal opinion. "Artillery fire at
urban areas is problematic, if the assessment is that the chance that the shell
will hit the launchers is relatively low, while the risk that many civilians
will be hurt is substantial."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1047267.html
*****
Obviously, that advice was never taken seriously with more than 1000
civilians, including more than 300 children dead.
Then, we can look at "How IDF legal experts legitimized strikes
involving Gaza civilians":
*****
"The idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza
police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months
before the attack. A military source involved in the planning of the attack, in
which dozens of Hamas policemen were killed, says that while military
intelligence officers were sure the operation should be carried out and pressed
for its approval, the IDF’s international law division and the military
advocate general were undecided.
After months of the operational elements pushing for the
attack’s approval, the international law division headed by Col. Pnina
Sharvit-Baruch gave the go-ahead. In spite of doubts, and also under pressure,
Sharvit-Baruch and the division also legitimized the attack on Hamas government
buildings and the relaxing of the rules of engagement, resulting in numerous
Palestinian casualties. In the division it is also believed that the killing of
civilians in a house whose residents the IDF has warned might be considered
legally justified, although the IDF does not actually target civilians in this
way.
Many legal experts, including former international law division
head Daniel Reisner, do not accept this position. "I don’t think a person
on a rooftop can be incriminated just because he is standing there," he
said.
One reason for the international law division’s permissive
positions is its desire to remain relevant and influential. Sources involved in
the work of the Southern Command said that its GOC, Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant, is
quite suspicious of legal experts and has a reputation of not attaching much
importance to their advice. The Southern Command’s legal adviser was not
invited to consultations before the attack, and was compartmentalized when it
came to smaller forums. It was actually during the action in Gaza that
consideration for his opinions grew.
The legal addendum to Operation Cast Lead’s order shows the way
the IDF’s legal experts legitimized the army’s actions: "As much as
possible and under the circumstances of the matter, the civilian population in
a target area is to be warned," it states, adding "unless so doing
endangers the operation or the forces."
The addendum orders commanders to be extremely cautious in the
use of "incendiary weapons" (for example, phosphorus bombs), but does
not prohibit their use: "Before using these weapons, the the military
advocate general or international law division must be consulted on the
specific case."
A source who served in the division in the past says it is
"more liberal than the attorney general and the High Court petitions
department." "The army knows what it wants, and pressure was
certainly brought to bear when legal advisers thought that something was
unacceptable or problematic," an operational military source said.
According to a senior official in the international law
division, "Our goal is not to tie down the army, but to give it the tools
to win in a way that is legal."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html
*****
And now, the consequences for Israel’s John Yoos:
" Lecturers say IDF officer who justified Gaza strikes should not teach
law":
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058847.html
As touching as Cori’s efforts are, and no matter how nice she surely
is as a person, I think it is high time for Jewcy to stop publishing her IDF
apologias. It’s not only that it is probably unprecedented having a foreign army’s PR person blogging on such a site. We certainly don’t need IDF’s PR machine on Jewcy, thank you very
much. This is too Orwellian by any standard. Enough is enough.
Facts are stubborn things
Israel bans use of human shields (October 6, 2005).
"Israel’s supreme court has banned the use of
Palestinian human shields in arrest raids, saying the practice violates
international law."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314898.stm
***
IDF to appeal human shield ban (October 12, 2005)
"The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a
supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in
raids, officials said.
Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a
personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials
added.
Human rights groups have frequently condemned the use of human shields.
The Israeli military believes that the use of Palestinian civilians can often defuse a tense situation.
Mr Mofaz is also set to argue that alternative methods
of apprehending suspects, such as through the use of bulldozers, would
endanger the lives of both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians,
a military source said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm
***
20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
***
IDF soldiers use Nablus youths as ‘human shield’
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3387356,00.html
***
Amnesty International accuses the IDF of using Palestinian families as "human shields". (January 13, 2009).
Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel, is quoted in today’s Guardian
as saying: "It’s standard practice for Israeli soldiers to go into a
house, lock up the family in a room on the ground floor and use the
rest of the house as a military base, as a sniper’s position. That is
the absolute textbook case of human shields.
"It has been practised by the Israeli army for many years and they are doing it again in Gaza now."
Facts are stubborn things
So why do you think that ‘the world’ and the UN (excepting maybe the US) is critical of this war and IDF’s role in it, more than of Hamas? Not all the civilians in Gaza were killed because they were shielding Hamas’ fighters, and no one has said Hamas didn’t provoke this war.
But do you think that perhaps Israel is criticized precisely because it is expecting to be justified, to be considered on a higher moral ground? Or can all the reaction be put down to antisemitism?
How naive. They have done that over and over again and it is ignored and dismissed by the Arab world and the United Nations. Now what?
Mostly for Shira– I didn’t mean to imply that Israel shouldn’t be held accountable for civilian deaths simply because it follows its own moral code. My point was that the IDF’s moral code is in accordance with international law, and so when civilians are killed within the bounds of that code, it’s to Israel’s benefit to make it known that these civilian deaths, although very tragic, are not ‘illegal’– which is how the media generally presents them.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
So, who is supporting Hamas’s war goals more? Those who point out the tragedy of what is happening, or Israel for fulfilling its part in the points you outlined?
Since you have outlined your view of Hamas’s goals, do you not think that Israel has done exactly what Hamas wanted and expected it to do? This is not a PR problem, its a reality problem.
Shira’s remarks are quite clear; she accuses the IDF of "designing missions that they knew would cause death." Her comment is an accusation of war crimes by the IDF, and thereby, reinforces Hamas’ war strategy: (1) provoke and attack Israel until it must respond (2) hide behind innocent civilians with the intent of parading casualties before the media (3) accuse Israel of intentionally slaughtering civilians with the hopes of bringing down on its head the opproprium of the world. (This, by the way, is nothing other than a modern blood libel).
It disturbs me when anyone makes a moral equivalence between Hamas’ behavior and the IDF. The truth was eloquently expressed on BBC by Col. Richard Kemp (British Army), when he said: “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”
I certainly "have qualms" about the deaths of innocent civilians, and yet, I’m realistic enough to realize that war causes death and suffering of innocent civilians. Hell, almost half of Israel’s casualties were caused by friendly fire. But responsibility for those Palestinian deaths lies with the aggressor, Hamas, and not with the IDF who was forced to wage a defensive war. There doesn’t seem to be any moral ambiquity here.
Tzvi, Who is defending Hamas? I dont see anything in what Shira
wrote a defense of Hamas. Your present this as either a choice of
defending the IDF or defending Hamas, when Shira’s comment was about civilian
deaths.
You state " You act as if they intended to kill civilians." While killing civilians isn’t the IDFs goal, anybody
who denies that the IDF was unconscious of how many civilians it was
killing in "Cast Lead" is deluding themselves, and worse, those who
have no qualms with the massive numbers of civilian death and casualtias seem to be lacking a basic element of human compassion.
Before you accuse me of minimizing the suffering and death of
Israeli’s in the south, answer me this: why does feeling the least bit
upset about Palestinian deaths, minimize the terror felt by Israeli’s
in Sderot and Ashkeon? Why must it be a one-or-the-other choice?
War is hell and civilians die. Is there anything that you would fight and die for…or G-d forbid kill for? The difference between Hamas — who you seem intent on defending — and the IDF — who you seem intent on condemning– is that Hamas aims to kill innocent civilians. The IDF was responding in self-defense. They targeted military personnel and buildings. You act as if they intended to kill civilians. Do you believe that? When do you feel a military response would be appropriate: After 10 innocent Israelis die from Hamas attacks? After 20? After 30? Are you willing to play Russian roulette with those lives? Would you insist that your country defend you if your city/town was being bombed regularly (even if few people were dying?) Could you stand the stress? Why do you minimize their terror? I sincerely want to hear your responses.
Cori, are you by chance a Doveret Tzahal?
I think Eretz Nehederet did a pretty good job of illuminating Israels Hasbara failures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS3H3waiAUU&feature=channel_page
Sadly, the IDF Moral Code could be sent to every news outlet on earth and it will not make a bit of difference to the treatment Israel gets in the world media. Journalists know very well that Israel is a free and open society and that Gaza and the West Bank are places where you must grease palms and risk your life because their it the law of the jungle. All of that is reflected in their news coverage. They can bash Israel and Israeli law will protect them while the Arab cause must be catered to or else you will be denied access or threatened. Most so-called journalists are not concerned about reporting the truth but opportunistic cowards out for themselves and their own glory.
Hamas is very open open their "moral code" including the revival of crucifixion and it does not stop the media from being sympathetic to their cause.
If Israel just proclaim that they only follow their military’s moral code, the rest of the world would say that the IDF’s moral code is corrupt and needs changing.
Israel must reclaim the moral high ground.
It is notGaza
only the photographs that are tragic; it is the deaths themselves. Explaining
that the IDF has not broken its own code in the war in
account for designing missions that it knew would result in the deaths of
civilians—that PR ploy seems to me incredibly cynical.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!