isn't the reason that the phrase 'breaking the silence' is being used is that the group doing the work etc is called 'breaking the silence'?

Well, the article I read with the same title of "breaking silence" refers to statements from 26 IDF soldiers, not 2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8149464.stm

And Btselem in response re-sent it's 19 demands to open investigations in separately reported incidents (all of which were ignored)

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090715.asp

Exactly.

It is the old story warmed up. They just changed a few numbers but didn't add any new facts (not that they had old facts).

This is where all these stories come from: unconfirmed source, the brother of a nephew; and, if you want to add credibility, an actual unnamed Jew.

But the pattern is always the same.

Some news site reports it. "Peace activists" see it as an excuse to hunt down a few Jews. Jews get beaten up or killed somewhere. Israel gets more paranoid. Finally, both Arabs and Jews in the middle east get it in the neck again when terrorists see the support they have in the west for their "resistance" against the violent and criminal Jew and paranoid Israel reacts harshly.

And somewhere in Berlin or London a journalist counts his income and doesn't care about the number of deaths he helped cause. He even feels good about himself because he exposed the evils of Israel which no one else dares to do.

Oh, please. Anyone can claim to represent someone and pretend to talk in their name.

So far we have NOTHING from those people, except a baseless accusation.

If they revealed their identities and it turned out that they were who they say they were, the situation would be different.

In that case I would ask them for proof rather than dismiss the allegations outright.

It is anti-semitism to question the tactics of the IDF, who have a track record of harming far fewer civilians than any other victorious army in the world.

Don't fool yourself. Israel is accused by those unnamed sources because it is JEWISH, not because the IDF has a particularly bad track record, because they don't.

Not if you are willing to assume that Jews let loose will fire at everything that moves, no.

GENERALLY if an army enters a heavily populated civilian area which people had fired from, the world doesn't care.

Show me three articles calling for an investigation into war crimes committed by the Lebanese army when they entered a "Palestinian" "refugee camp" to fight terrorists (and point to corresponding anti-Lebanese demonstrations by "peace activists") or, for a joke more or less, show me how the same people who are so worried about the Gazan's lives spoke up years ago when Hamas killed hundreds of (innocent) PLO supporters.

What are you talking about?

Just a few days ago I wrote a blog entry about Israel's mistreatment of Bedouins and I wrote several articles about how Israel should do more for Sudanese refugees.

But what you are doing here is criticise me for not believing that Israel has done something wrong by claiming that I just don't "admit" it.

I am sorry, but just because somebody accuses Israel of something is not enough for me to stop defending Israel. And I sure hope that the same will be true for you if you are ever accused without evidence!

I wasn't aware that Israel has a certain number of things it must have done wrong that I have to admit to? I didn't know Israel comes with automatic crimes it has to apologise for regardless of whether the accusations are true or not.

Notice that I am NOT defending what Israel has done. I am denying that Israel HAS done those things it is accused of. That's two different things. Maybe you should watch Matlock more often?

Neither of us know the truth.

But I tend to wait with calling someone guilty until he is proven to be guilty, EVEN when the accused is Israel.

In fact, Israel and Jews have so often been accused of horrible crimes, without evidence or truth behind it, that it is safe position to assume that such accusations are lies.

But for some reason people tend to believe such accusations, even when they come from anonymous sources and might just as well have been made up.

Well, and my opinion is that until somebody PROVES that Israel has "fucked up" I won't believe it.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't claim that not believing whatever accusation is hurled at Israel is somehow deluding oneself. It's perfectly normal not to treat accusations as fact and it's the way it's usually done in civilised countries.

Specifically, in this case, I was criticising not the accusations but the way they were reported.

Do you think that referring to anonymous accusations as "breaking the silence" is neutral reporting or fair?

What if somebody accused YOU of a crime and I reported, as fact, that your victims finally "broke their silence" (rather than the truth, which is it that somebody accused you of a crime and didn't present any evidence or reveal his identity)?

Do you believe that Israel MUST be guilty of SOMETHING just because it is Israel? (Many people do, or how would you explain the the UN spend more time investigating Israel's "crimes" than any other country's issues?)

Do you believe that Israel MUST be guilty of SOMETHING just because many, most, or all countries are and Israel CANNOT be better?

You very obviously believe that Israel isn't innocent, despite the fact that you and I both don't know what really happened in Gaza. So I do wonder what makes you believe that Israel is guilty of something?

Here's what I want to ask the world: Leave Israel alone.

Just for once, for maybe a decade or so, err on the side of the Jews.

Maybe Israel is good, maybe it's evil. Maybe now the stories about the Jews are all true, maybe they are lies again, like they have been for over 2000 years.

But why the heck is it impossible to err on Israel's side?

Why can you not risk believing that Israel is innocent? What would happen to the world if people did that just for a short period of time?

I'd really want to know.

Remember the "massacre" in Jenin? Would it have been so bad if the world had immediately rejected the stories of the massacre and not believed it until even the UN found that no such massacre happened? What would be so terrible about granting Israel the same privilege everybody ought to enjoy: innocent until proven guilty.

What the heck, dude? What's so important about believing that Israel is guilty?

Is it just so you can tell yourself that you are a good person who does not want to contradict world opinion?

Here is a video of a British colonel describing what the IDF does to avoid civilian casualties:

http://www.israellycool.com/2009/07/07/the-fabulous-british-colonel/

Of course, he is only an expert in warfare and we know his name, so he is hardly as reputable a source as some unnamed source who simply accuses Israel of war crimes.

He pretty much says the same things about the IDF as I do, so he is obviously as blind as I am, whereas the rest of the world can see, even when they have never really seen (in the physical sense)  anything and really don't know what actually happened.

Perhaps, maybe we can consider it, it's true and the IDF really is better than the other armies? Or is that impossible? Why? Because they are Israelis?

Perhaps, Alderic, maybe you haven't considered this, you really don't know what happened in Gaza and just decided that anonymous accusers can be believed. You are probably no anti-Semite. I think it just that people everywhere have been trained for decades to believe whatever lie is told about Israel that it is really difficult, when it comes to Israel, to consider the possibility that anonymous accusations might just have been made up.

You know, I could be wrong about this.

But I'd rather be wrong about Israel being an angel than be wrong about Israel being guilty of war crimes.

Jourdain, does North Korea deserve "equal and impartial" relations as compared to, say, France? Poland? Despite their history of belligerence, threats, way, oppression of their own people, economic and social disaster, and pursuit of technologies which could conceivably begin a nuclear war?

It's entirely possible to judge two parties impartially and still find one to be more noble, rational, reasonable, etc. By all means, don't approach diplomacy with pre-concieved bias, but that's no excuse for not making a value judgement.

Also, even if Leauki is completely overboard with his defense of Israel (of which I am not convinced, since his mantra of "don't believe something until you can fricking verify it" is pretty damned reasonable), there's a few million others who'll take the same opportunity to declare it the devil, so perhaps erring to Israels side will bring some much needed balance to the discussion.

Thanks!

But I don't think this mantra is really regarded as "reasonable" when it is applied to Israel.

When I say that, for example, Mr Peterson, accused of murder by an unnamed source, should be considered innocent at least until the unnamed source becomes a name, everyone would agree that I am being reasonable.

But when I say the same thing about Israel and unnamed accusers, I am being an unreasonable bigot who defends Israel even when it obviously committed horrible crimes.

Israel simply doesn't have the status of "could be innocent". Everybody already knows that Israel must be guilty of _something_. How could it be an angel? And how could there be any acceptable level between "angel" and "guilty of war crimes"?

I sometimes do believe unnamed sources. But I don't pretend that not believing them is some type of bigoted fanaticism. There are unconfirmed (who could confirm it?) stories of the Iranian regime using Hizbullah and other Arabs to beat up protesters in Iran. Apparently Hizbullah and the Basij "militia" have attacked university dorms in Tehran. I believe the story because I know from my own experience that Hizbullah are not above attacking student dorms.

Similarly I would assume that someone who has actually been witness to an Israel war crime should be likely to believe accusations of further war crimes.

But the problem I have with the world is that people believe stories about Israeli war crimes even though they haven't witnessed them while my believing, for example, the Iranian reports might be considered ignorant and blind by those same people despite the fact that the same thing reported happened to me to.

Why?

How can somebody prove the IDF has done wrong if even questioning their tatics is anti-semtic?

The British tactics in Iraq and Afgansatian are being questioned.  So are the US ones.  It is more a case of 'western' nations get questioned more than 'non-western' nations rather that Isreal gets questioned.

You didn't quote the entire sentence, it was qualified:

"It is anti-semitism to question the tactics of the IDF, who have a track record of harming far fewer civilians than any other victoruious army in the world."

This was about questioning the (or those) tactics of the IDF that have already created a better track record than all other armies in situations anywhere near similar to those handled by the IDF.

Questioning successful tactics, which are proven to harm fewer civilians than all others, because the IDF employs them, is anti-Semitism, no matter how you turn it. Nobody questions a tactic unless there is reason to believe that there is something wrong with it. A tactic that causes fewer civilian deaths than others obviously doesn't have the "excessive violence" fault. So what is the problem with it that makes people want to question it?

They can start with questioning those tactics that have not already demonstrated superiority.

Focusing on that which the IDF does better than others, just because it is the IDF and hence there must be something wrong with those tactics has absolutely nothing to do with "proving" anything.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25635162-2703,00.html

The US missile strike, which killed at least five people in South Waziristan, capped three days of extraordinary violence, even by Pakistan's standards, in the country's strife-torn northwest.

I have no idea who those five people were, neither do the US or anybody else. This happened a lot of times. A lot. It adds up to hundreds of deaths, probably more, many of them civilians, probably mostly human shields. I do not blame the US (or even Obama) for the deaths.

But somehow I don't see the world demanding an inquiry or a list of names where every casualty is explained in detail. I don't see special UN security council meetings discussing the situation (the war they discuss, the specific question of how many people the US killed and whether their actions constitute "war crimes" they discuss not).

President Obama has as much blood on his hand due to the war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) as Prime Minister Olmert had due to the war in Gaza. Neither man started the war and neither man had the choice of not hitting vicilians while trying to hit terrorists who hide among them. But somehow President Obama is not wanted for war crimes in Spain because of this.

If you had read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I am not against questioning Israeli tactics.

I am against looking for faults for no other reason than the fact that the IDF are (mostly) Jewish. And given that the IDF has, as I said before, a better track record than all other armies, what specific reason is there to accuse and accuse and keep accusing the IDF?

That's true too.

But the Americans are not asked for, and do not deliver, a name-by-name list of every person killed in an attack. The Israelis have provided such a list for Gaza. And the world did not recognise that as an amazing feat but simply treated it as a normal procedure any Jewish army is expected to go through.

Not only did the IDF harm fewer civilians than any other army ever has in such a situation (or say, in the last 20 years or so), but the world not only didn't recognise that fact but also demanded special proof because the IDF apparently cannot be trusted like the other armies can, who are not asked to provide evidence like that.

The IDF is always guilty until proven innocent. And don't tell me that there is a good reason for that other than the fact that the IDF is Jewish.

The IDF simply does not have a history of excessive violence. (It does have a history of being accused of excessive violence though.) So what is the basis for this special scrutiny if not anti-Semitism?

Mmm, well with communication sometimes what one person says isn't what the receiver thinks they hear. Or however the theory goes. I apologize for coming off as attacking.

~A

Yes, it is all anonymous accusations.

My Lebanese friends who had to abandon their vehicle and run into the ditch because the IDF was shooting at anything that moved told me quite a different story. Why would they lie to me about something like that?

Because I know them personally, I believe their words.

The pictures of apartment buildings and high-rises in Beirut and other Lebanese cities that were flatenned during the war is also testament to the IDF's tactics of "force projection"

Again, for the sheer amount of -guided- ordnance fired and the thousands of civilian buildings leveled in Lebanon, the IDF had tens of thousands of troops -still- bogged down in small unit actions that didn't make it terribly far into Lebanon despite several weeks of concerted effort. If you want to call that a "victorious army" then by all means, be my guest!

So what does that tell us? It tells us that most of the bombs dropped by the IDF didn't kill many Hezbollah members or damage their capacity very badly. If it -did-, then who the heck was fighting the IDF in the field? Remember that Hezbollah at the time only had a few thousand actual combatants that were outnumbered 10 to 1 in the field to begin with.

So, if most of the bombs dropped by the IDF didn't seriously impact Hezbollah, then what, praytel, could the reason be for that? Keep in mind that they pulled out all stops to take Al-Menar off the air, this failed. They pulled out all the stops to kill command and control, but this too failed. Despite all their talk of taking out launch sites and depots 'hidden' in civilian buildings they were unable to create the conditions in the rear that had any appreciable impact on the actual front in the field. So why, could the IDF bombing, for the sheer amount of bombs dropped, have been so incredibly inefectual?

1) The IDF had the wrong intelligence.

2) The IDF didn't know where Hezbollah really was, and when the army got bogged down at the front they stepped up bombing of urban areas in order to prompt the population to 'turn' against Hezbollah.

Yes, truly the most humane army in the world!