Yesterday Breaking the Silence broke an important report from Israeli soldiers, one of whom compared the Gaza operation to burning ants with a magnifying glass, as a kid.
Bruce Wolman writes:
The Independent covers the IDF soldiers' testimonies from Gaza, as the "brutal truth" of an assault designed to make sure "not a hair will fall" from an Israeli in the attack. Front page (on web) in Ha'aretz and Norway's Aftenposten. Will there be any mention in the NY Times and WaPo?
Hazel Kahan is on the story too:
The story about Breaking the Silence testimonies against IDF is a leading item on bbc.com and radio, the World Wires section of the Washington Post (AP Story: reckless violence used), but I could find no reference to it on the NYT.
Related posts:
- ‘Forward’ editor Eisner seems to want to silence ‘Breaking the Silence’
- Dispatches from the “most moral army in the world”: The full Breaking the Silence report on Operation Cast Lead
- Correction Re ‘Breaking the Silence’
- Breaking the Silence publishes shocking testimonies from women who served Occupation
- Jewish Administrator at Penn Tours Hebron, Now Hosts ‘Breaking the Silence’
{ 72 comments }
This report must be wrong. eitanbenshlomo has made it very clewar that the IDF is "the most moral army in the world."
NY Times is getting dodgier. They didn't cover it in the national edition. (It is listed on the website among "Stories from AP & Reuters". It was a front page story on the global edition website — but, it seems, only for a nanosecond. Now it has vanished. Doesn't even appear with their search engine. Wonder where it went?
This report is like other reports: anonymous, with no facts, no eyewitnesses, no details, nothing. It's all slander, by MondoLiars in Israel. You know the type. If there are ANY actual details to investigate, then it will be investigated. This won't happen because these things never happened. This is getting boring…
<img src:"http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:_p7ylUpSeZo-wM:<a href="http://www.rcmlibya.org/English/images/Gaza_21.jpg> He is not laughing
I first heard this on the BBC. Finally, it's reported accurately on the news. 26 seperate soldiers gave testimonies and Jake here claims they're lying and that we should trust an IDF investigation – hah!
He also claimed there were no eyewitnesses and no details. Jake wouldn't know the truth if it ran him over with a bulldozer.
BTW, there's good coverage of the testimony by McClatchy here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/7183... Its the most thorough description of the report I've seen in the MSM.
The BBC has a pdf copy of the testimonies here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_...
So, on the one hand we have 110-pages of testimony — along with 16 video clips, all provided by young IDF soldiers who were there at the times in question, and on the other, we have chicken hawk Jake in Jerusalem's simple slur. You choose–check out tree's url source.
RE: "The Independent covers the IDF soldiers' testimonies from Gaza, as the "brutal truth" of an assault…" FROM "THE INDEPENDENT" – …Houses that troops occupied were vandalised. One testimony stated: "One of the soldiers… opened the child's bag… he took out notebooks and ripped them. One guy smashed cupboards for kicks out of boredom. There were guys arguing with the platoon commander before we left the house why he wouldn't let them smash the picture hanging there…" A reservist soldier said that there was a "big difference between the way we treated the contents of the house and the way the regulars did. The regulars wouldn't take care even of the most basic sanitary stuff like going to the toilet, basic hygiene. I mean you could see that they had defecated anywhere and left the stuff lying round"…. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-ea...
The problem with the people who hate Israel is that they also hate reality. The reality is that Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east. The reality is that certain people in the Arab world and in certain European capitals salivate everytime they can find fault with Israel (real or perceived). Heres another reality…. Reality will eventually catch up to you haters.
I read the article. Does anyone have a link to the report itself? One thing I noticed was that the words "I saw" didn't appear in the article. The quotes from the soldiers said "some soldier (never identified) did this or that", but never said that the person reporting it witnessed the soldier doing this or that. This looks like a rerun of the earlier "testimony" at the war college that turned out to be entirely based on rumor with none of the "testifiers" reporting their own observations.
No. The reality is that all the Jews who are not rotten, worthless assholes have condemned Israel's Nazi policies.
Here it is – front page of yahoo! who would have believed it? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_re_mi_e...
I repeat. No one actually saw any of these alleged actions. It's all hearsay. No names, dates, places. Just like previous reports. Very MondoLies, really…
The earlier report you refer to was publicized by an Israeli anarchist who spent time in jail for refusing orders. It turned out to be entirely a publicity stunt by a lunatic leftist. Just as today, no names, dates, locations, specifics. Nothing but malicious slander. Of course there are Israeli MondoLiars, too. They are the ones helping Max et al with their "journalism". This is more MondoJournalism. What a laugh.
Oops. I see someone did post a link. Thanks tree. Pretty tame as far as atrocities go. A few incidents of vandalism is about it. Nothing about targeting civilians, nothing about shooting children. Petty acts of vandalism sure, but where is the "brutal"? Frankly, if it weren't Israel, no one would bother reporting this. If the McClatchy report is going by the same testimony in the BBC link then it is simply lying about what is in the testimony. There is nothing in the PDF link about anyone with a white flag (or white anything else) getting shot. Or for that matter anyone with a sack, pack or bag getting shot. Both of which McClatchy reports. Here we see the beginning of one of these echo chamber lies I was talking about. McClatchy lies about the contents of the report, someone will read McClatchy's synopsis of the report, quote what McClatchy says as being from the report, not McClatchy, and five years from now there will be a hundred "scholarly works" citing the report as a source for something McClatchy made up.
The report talks about human shields, but none of the testimony does. The testimony talks about sending Palestinians to act as intermediaries to take requests to surrender to the Hamas fighters. That isn't a human shield. The Palestinian fighters could easily have shot at the Israelis without endangering the Palestinians sent to talk to them. A human shield is when you can't attack a legitimate military target without risking hitting civilians (or your own military men) that the enemy has placed around or in the target. Nothing in the testimony suggests that the Israelis did that. Plenty of info from the war to show that the Palestinians did that.
From what I've seen so far, the Independent covered the story the best, but I give kudos to the BBC for uploading the full text in .PDF format, though you have to navigate a bit to get to it. Al Jazeera English's coverage has been adequate as well, complete with short video.
RE: "Yesterday Breaking the Silence broke an important report from Israeli soldiers…" FROM TPM : "Israeli troops reveal 'shoot first' policy in Gaza" , AFP, 07/15/09 (excerpt) ….The testimony of some 30 soldiers — all unnamed — shows the massive destruction wreaked on the Palestinian territory was "a direct result of IDF (Israel Defence Forces') policy," campaign group Breaking the Silence said in a report. The troops regularly used civilians as human shields when approaching suspect houses during the 22-day conflict which began in December, one soldier told the group, which is made up of veteran troops who served in the occupied Palestinian territories. "To every house we close in on, we send the neighbour in, the 'Johnnie'," he said of an incident in which a man was sent into a house several times during breaks in the fighting to check on three militants holed up there. Another soldier said his commander told him of instances when "the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield."…… ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/07/isr...
It was on HuffPo too!
You didn't read the testimony very well: "The method used has a new name now – no longer 'neighbor procedure.' Now people are called 'Johnnie.' They're Palestinian civilians, and they're called Johnnies and there were civilians there who stayed in spite of the flyers the army distributed before it went in. Most people did leave, but some civilians stayed to watch over the houses. Perhaps they had nowhere else to go. Later we saw people there who could not walk, some simply stayed to keep watch. To every house we close in on, we send the neighbor in, 'the Johnnie,' and if there are armed men inside, we start, like working the 'pressure cooker' in the West Bank. Every unit is familiar with a different kind of 'pressure cooker' practice. What do you mean by it? I'm not sure either about the 'pressure cooker' procedures there, they could be different. Essentially the point was to get them out alive, go in, to catch the armed men. There weren't many encounters. Just a few. In one case, our men tried to get them to come out, then they opened fire, fired some anti-tank missiles at the house and at some point brought out a D-9, combat helicopters. There were three armed men inside. The helicopters fired anti-tank missiles and again the neighbor was sent in. At first he told them that nothing had happened to them yet, they were still in there. Again helicopters were summoned and fired, I don't know at what stage of escalation (in the use of force). The neighbor was sent in once again. He said that two were dead and one was still alive, so a D-9 was brought and started demolishing the house over him until the neighbor went in, the last armed man came out and was caught and passed on to the Shabak… The commanders tell what they saw and make sure we know how things work on the inside. They also talked about things that bothered them. They said that civilians were used to a greater extent than just sending them into houses. For example, some of them were made to smash walls with 5 kilo hammers. There was a wall around a yard where the force didn't want to use the gate, it needed an alternative opening for fear of booby-traps or any other device. So the "Johnnies" themselves were required to bang open another hole with a hammer. Talking of such things, by the way, there was a story published by Amira Hass in Haaretz daily newspaper, about Jebalya where a guy tells exactly the same thing. It's the guy who was sent. I saw him afterwards, the guy who was made to go into that house three times. He also told us about being given hammers to break walls. So you say that, from your own experience, there's truth in these publications. Yes. It was ludicrous to read it and then hear the response of the army spokesperson that the matter was investigated and there are no testimonies on the ground and that the Israeli army is a moral army. It raises doubts about the army spokesperson's responses in general when you know for a fact that these things actually did take place… Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it." From page one and two of the testimonies. I haven't had time to read much of the 81 page report, but apparently you stopped reading half way through page one.
My apologies for being unclear. I meant the witness testimony doesn't say anything about witnessing human shields. As opposed to just repeating rumors. The part that you cite says that "Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it…" So the person "testifying" (well, not really testifying since it isn't in court or under oath) is saying that some commanders reported that they (the commanders) were given such instructions and had to do it. Multiple hearsay. The report says that some anonymous person who the report doesn't identify even as to whether he is a soldier says that some commanders said something. The "testimony" doesn't even say that the commanders said that stuff to the "witness" telling the story. For all we know he could have heard it fifth hand from someone repeating a rumor. Actually, now that I read it again, I realize that the "testimony" doesn't even talk about witnessing the neighbor sent in as an intermediary. The case he describes sounds like the one he admits he read in the Amira Hass story. For all we know he just read the story and is reporting on that. The only thing indicating a direct knowledge of the events is that some time later he saw the guy. If the "witness" had seen this incident himself, rather than just reporting what others claim to have seen, then why would the guy have to tell "us" about the hammers? People coming in and making false confessions based on what they read in the paper or saw on TV happens a lot. That's why police hold back details from the press, so if the confessor knows the details, you know he didn't get it from the press.
Thanks Dick for that excellent example of how false quotes can occur in the game of telephone that Palestinians and their supporters play. The actual "testimony" doesn't say that the soldier "testifying" said his commander told him of instances. It just says that unidentified commanders said that they had. Not that the commanders told the soldier (BTW, as far as the report shows, it was the same soldier as the "to every house" quote). So, we have one single generation removed, the day after the report came out and already we have gone from 1) a single anonymous person saying that some commanders said to someone that this happened, with the anonymous person not even claiming that the commanders said it to him. To: 2) two different soldiers and one hearing it direct from his own commander. Remember, that is one citation and one day. What will the story be like in a year, after it has been through fifty levels of the game of telephone? It will probably cite the report as saying that fifty soldiers each personally saw, with their own eyes, someone used as a human shield.
RE: "…one of whom compared the Gaza operation to burning ants with a magnifying glass, as a kid….." MY COMMENT: But…but…but…Senator Schumer(D-NY) assured us that the IDF is "The Most Moral Army In The World™". Why, they even make an effort to text message their prospective victims!
"lovelyisraelis · 5 hours ago " No. The reality is that all the Jews who are not rotten, worthless assholes have condemned Israel's Nazi policies. " Oh please… Jewish people hardly need to look to the likes of you for affirmation. Lovely – you know what… you are so bigoted and misguided and lost that I doubt anyone should heed any advice you have period. Oh and do yourself a favor and get a good psychiatrist.
RE: "Breaking the Silence kinda breaks the silence." SEE ALSO: "BREAKING THE SILENCE EYEWITNESS REPORT DOCUMENTS POSSIBLE IDF WAR CRIMES IN GAZA", by Richard Silverstein, 07/15/09 (EXCERPT) I’ve just received Breaking the Silence’s new blockbuster report (pdf) of eyewitness testimonies by IDF veterans of the Gaza war. The Israeli human rights NGO documents IDF activities in the Occupied Territories through engagement with soldiers themselves and taking their testimony of first hand experiences in the field. The stories in the Operation Cast Lead report portray potential war crimes committed by Israeli troops during the operation. I should add that these charges, though they come from new sources, are not in themselves new as Haaretz, the Guardian and several human rights groups have outlined very similar charges based on IDF and Gaza human sources. But because the IDF brass and political echelon persist in their fictions about the IDF being the most moral army in the world and the operation upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct, it’s important to highlight this startling new material. Because the report is long, quite detailed and shocking in its content, I propose doing a series in which I’ll highlight some of the main findings with some of my own commentary…. ENTIRE POST – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009...
Yes, all hearsay: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_...
There aren't any real democracies in the Middle East.
Thom, you ought to research more and post less until you are sure of what you are saying. You sound like an idiot apologist now who pops off with conspiracy tales of "echo chamber lies" when you don't know what you are talking about. McClatchy didn't make up anything. Richard Silverstein has posted the complete 112 page pdf here: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-c... If you'd read the McClatchy report for comprehension you would have noticed that it mentions there are 110 pages of testimonies and 16 video clips. The BBC pdf, for some unknown reason, is only 81 pages long. If you look at Silverstein's pdf, which I assume is directly from Braking the Silence, not only will you notice that it is longer than the BBC version, you will also notice that everything that McClatchy reported was in fact in the testimonies. You've made a fool of yourself with your bias and your emotional need to "prove" that McClatchy was lying. It wasn't. Are you grown-up enough to admit that you falsely accused?
No, Thom, you aren't reading for comprehension, you are trying to force-fit the testimony to your pre-conceived notions. The IDF soldier states "To every house WE close in on, WE send the neighbor in, 'the Johnnie,' and if there are armed men inside, WE start, like working the 'pressure cooker' in the West Bank. " He's talking about what his unit (or force) did, something HE witnessed. He then goes on to describe a particular use of a Palestinian "Johnnie",which is the new name for the Supreme Court banned "neighbor procedure", which occurred in his unit. He isn't reporting rumors, he is stating what he witnessed. That's why he is so angry with the denials by the IDF spokesperson, because he has witnessed these things directly. "Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and WE had to do it." The soldier uses the term "force" as a synonym for his "unit" in his testimony, as is clear earlier in his testimony. He's talking about his own unit and his own commanders who told him and his fellow soldiers(the WE in the above quote) that those were the instructions. The idea that he is talking about some "fifth hand" rumor is nonsensical and a desperate case of denial on your part. And BTW, all of the testimonies are from IDF soldiers. If you'd read the report for comprehension you would have known that rather than insisted that it is unknown if he is a soldier. His testimony alone would have cleared up the question of whether he was a soldier or not, had you bothered to pay attention to what you were reading.
Thom, the IDF has already admitted that it uses the "neighbor procedure", which the Israeli Supreme Court has attempted to ban, when dealing with Palestinians. This is not a mystery nor a rumor, and it is not based on one person's testimony. Here's a timeline from B'Tselem of their suit against the IDF in an attempt to halt the use of the "neighbor procedure" Timeline of events * April 2002 – During Operation Defensive Shield, soldiers greatly increase the use of Palestinians as human shields. * May 2002 – Seven human rights organizations petition the High Court of Justice against the use of Palestinians as human shields. The IDF informs the court that it will stop using civilians for military tasks, except for the "neighbor procedure." * August 2002 – Nidal Abu Mukhsan is killed while serving as a human shield during implementation of the "neighbor procedure." Following another petition filed by the human rights organizations, the court issues a temporary injunction forbidding the IDF to use the procedure. Soldiers continue to use it. * November 2002 – B'Tselem publishes a report that describes five cases in which soldiers violated the court's order. The petitioners file an application in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance. more…
"* December 2002 – The State files its response to the Court, in which it contends that the army is no longer using Palestinians as human shields but only “is assisted by residents to prevent the loss of life.” The State attaches the “prior warning procedure,” which is intended to replace the “neighbor procedure.” According to the new procedure, “assistance” by civilians is allowed if, in the judgment of the military commander in the field, the life of the “person giving assistance” is not endangered, provided that the individual consents. In reply, the human rights organizations contend that the new procedure is unlawful and that it is incorrect to state that such “assistance” does not endanger the person’s life. The petitioners include testimonies relating to cases in which civilians were used as human shields after the High Court issued the temporary injunction. * January 2003 – The High Court of Justice reduces the temporary injunction, and allows use of the “prior warning procedure.” At the request of the High Court, the human rights organizations file a legal opinion stating that the procedure is unlawful. The IDF has not yet responded to the petitioners’ arguments. In the meanwhile, it implements the “prior warning procedure.” * July 2003 – The High Court hears the petition of the human rights organizations, in which the parties argue the legality of the “prior warning procedure” and the application to hold the respondent in contempt of court, which was filed after the IDF continued to use human shields. The High Court extends the validity of the temporary injunction until further order. * April 2004 – The human rights organizations file an application with the High Court for a temporary order directing the IDF to refrain from using Palestinians as human shields and/or hostages, and to forbid the IDF from asking them to take part in any military action, or to use them in any such action, without exception and without army officials having any discretion in the matter. The petitioners attach testimonies and affidavits relating to additional cases, dating from December 2003 to April 2004, in which civilians were used as human shields. * August 2004 – On 16 August 2004, Adalah files an application requesting that the Court order the IDF, in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, to comply with the High Court’s order prohibiting it from using individuals as human shields or hostages in military operations. The application also requests that the High Court impose a fine on the military authorities. In its application, Adalah contends that the IDF is continuing to violate the High Court prohibition on the use of human shields. Attached to the application are eight new testimonies, which were given to B’Tselem, involving cases in which the IDF used Palestinians as human shields or hostages between the period January-July 2004. * September 2004 – On 5 September 2004, the High Court hears the petition filed by Adalah in May 2002 against the use of Palestinians as human shields or hostages. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak criticizes the “prior warning procedure,” which replaced the “neighbor procedure,” and urges the IDF to forego use of the procedure, on the grounds that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the use of local residents in military actions by the occupying army. In his comments, President Barak says that, “Out of one hundred cases in which the neighbor willingly helps the army, ninety-nine of them will be against his will. It is very hard to verify willingness, and the fear is that, when a contingent of soldier come at night, out of fear no neighbor will refuse to cooperate with the soldiers.” The High Court announces that it will give it decision at a later time. * October 2005 – On 6 October 2005, the High Court of Justice rules that it is illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions and that it is forbidden to use the prior warning procedure. * 2007 – Despite the High Court’s decision and army orders preceding and following it, security forces continue to use Palestinians as human shields. In 2007, B'Tselem documented twelve such cases. For example, in February, soldiers forced two Palestinian minors, aged 11 and 15, to accompany them in combing houses and opening the doors to the houses and the rooms. In July, a 14-year-old girl from Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, was shot in the leg and stomach when soldiers used her as a human shield. October 2007 – The Judge Advocate General decides not to prosecute the commander of IDF forces in the West Bank, Brig.-Gen. Yair Golan, who in five cases ordered use of the “prior-warning procedure.” The JAG suffices with a light disciplinary punishment. This decision transmits a message of contempt for Palestinian life and the High Court. " So, really, to pretend that this is just one citation is ludicrous. The IDF has already admitted years ago that it uses this procedure and clearly continues to use it.
No names, dates, places. Publicity seeking anarchists. Instead of going to authorities with allegations of "war-crimes" someone wrote a novellette and submitted it to the BBC. Non details, of course. Nothing to investigate. Without details, nothing can be investigated, prosecuted – or defended! So this is slander. Basless slander. That's why there are no details provided.
Please name one of the eyewitnesses. I have named Liberty crew with whom I have discussed that case. Do you have ANY details on your allegations? Not something anonymous and faceless, something real. Names, dates, places. If not, then it is just slander. Easy to do. Any Moron Anarchist can do this. Even MondoBrainers.
How do you know that these testimonies are from IDF soldiers? No names or addresses. Not even rank and serial number. Maybe it was "testimony" from Mondo "jouranlists" like Max and Phil? Maybe it was from "IDF soldiers" like Mohammed and Abdul? Maybe it was just made up? You have no way to check the veracity of anything you present. Nothing at all. But there are loads of statements and documentation that negate this "report". Ignore that. Believe your imaginary report. No facts. As always.
Sure, Jon. I value YOUR opinion of the marvelous Israelis and their actions over the likes of Sara Roy, Albert Einstein, Primo Levi, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Ilan Pappe, Jennifer Lowenstein, Amira Hass, Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter etc etc etc etc I repeat…ALL jews of character, all people of character stand with the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli Nazism and barbarity. For you, the great Jews are Bernie Maddoff, Adam Sandler, Avigdor Lieberman and Ariel Sharon. That says a LOT about your knowledge of Jewish history and culture.
It's your reading comprehension that needs work. What part of "If the McClatchy report is going by the same testimony in the BBC link" didn't you understand. It's not my fault you posted a link to an abbreviated version of the report. Now that you have, all the incidents are hearsay. None of the "witnesses" saw them, just heard about them: 1) White flag. "Testimony" didn't say he saw a guy with a white flag getting shot, only that he heard about a guy with a white flag getting shot while talking on a cell phone and approaching the Israelis position. This in a war in which the soldiers knew that the Palestinians were using people with white flags and explosives. From the same soldier's "testimony" "There were alerts about people with explosive charges and white flags." 2) Elderly man killed: "They [civilians] were inside the houses. I didn't see any with my own eyes but I do think there was one civilian killed in the first house" So the guy didn't even see any civilians, but he thinks one civilian was killed in a house. Again rumor and hearsay. 3) Old woman with a sack. Nothing in the testimony that says the "soldier" saw the incident himself rather than repeating a rumor. The circumstances he described would justify the use of deadly force though. Lights turned on her, a soldier yelling in Arabic to stop and she was carrying a sack that could have been filled with explosives. Aside from the issues of the Geneva conventions, this is another reason why civilized countries have their soldiers fight in uniform, so that when one of your people shows up in civilian clothes, they don't get mistaken for a suicide bomber.
4) Man with a torch, similar. The "testimony" says that he was 150-200 meters away, approaching their position on a zig-zag. An unspecified distance away, he slipped behind some trees and the next time they saw him he was close enough to make a quick run with a suicide bomb, if he had one. Maybe they should have fired warning shots when he was 200 meters away, but at that range they might have accidentally hit someone who wasn't yet a threat before he got too close to their position. Once he popped up again, 15 meters away, he was close enough to them to be a potential threat. It also doesn't say that the flashlight was on at the time. If it was off, the clear implication would be that he was trying to sneak up on their position. The McClatchy article makes it sound like the guy walked in plain sight, with a flashlight on the whole way without a warning shot fired rather than going from too far away to warrant a warning shot to too close to warrant a warning shot without being seen in between. The McClatchy report is very dishonest. And a good example of the kind of distortions that happen in the echo chamber. Six months from now, the false characterization of events in McClatchy will be all over the net as being from the report itself. No doubt embellished by an additional lie that "the soldier said he knew that the person was no threat". When in every case reported here the person who got shot acted exactly the same way a suicide bomber would. 5) Guy on a motorcycle. OK, a guy riding around on a motorcycle in a war zone, where the civilians had been warned to leave for days, and not to go outside if they stayed, dressed the same way that Hamas soldiers were dressed (in civilian clothes). Gee, that's not going to be a target by any army anywhere in the world.
Now that you have belatedly provided the full report, I see that the McClatchy report is the worst kind of lie, the half-truth. It says who the people who got shot were (e.g., a woman carrying a sack), but not what they appeared to be to the soldiers (approaching suicide bombers). It's like saying that the woman who tried to commit suicide-by-soldier by pulling a fake gun on the Israelis soldiers was an unarmed woman shot by Israeli soldiers.
BTW, in your full version of the report, still no eyewitnesses to "human shields". The closest it comes is a guy who was practically just reading aloud from the Amira Hass article he mentioned. There are two different incidents in both article and "testimony" described in no more detail in the "testimony" than the guy could have made up after reading the article.
No names, dates, places. No hard information at all. Nothing. All anonymous, vague, uncorroborated. Is this another homosexual fantasy by some publicity-seekers like that other author you dopes brought as "evidence?
He doesn't say he is talking about his own unit. He doesn't say he saw anyone do that. He talks about commanders describing it at a meeting. He doesn't even say he was at the meeting. The quote says that "Commanders said that these were the instructions [to the commanders] and we [the Commanders] had to do it". The square brackets are mine, but that is just to clarify it. It doesn't say that "my commanders said" or "our commanders said" or give the rank of anyone who gave him an order. Elsewhere he says "The commanders tell what they saw and make sure we know how things work on the inside. They also talked about things that bothered them. They said that civilians were used to a greater extent than just sending them into houses." So clearly he is someone hearing about what the commanders say, not someone getting orders from the commanders in question.
There is absolutely nothing in the "testimony" that indicates that "the force would enter" refers to his own unit. For that matter, there is nothing in the "testimony" that says that he is part of a unit, rather than some desk jockey. He says earlier that "Every unit, every force had a rather small designated area of several dozen houses only, which they had to take over, and that took a whole week." Note, "they" had to take over, not "we" had to take over. Even the parts about "we" are ambiguous. "We" doesn't mean that he witnessed it, just that he claims the Israeli army did it. Heck, I'm not even in the army and I talk about how "we" invaded Iraq or "we" tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib simply because those are action by the American forces. The "we" is in a part where he is describing a method that he alleges the Israeli army used. He never says "I" did this or that or "I saw", or "I heard" the events themselves. The only time the guy says "I" this or that is when he is describing things that took place afterward or saying that he doesn't know something "It's the guy who was sent. I saw him afterwards, the guy who was made to go into that house three times. He also told us about being given hammers to break walls." If the soldier making the statement saw the hammers, why wouldn't he say "I saw the events" instead of "I saw him afterwards…He told us about being given the hammers". BTW, none of the statements in the report are testimony. They are informal statements. They are not made under oath (or affirmation) and under penalty of perjury. No penalty of perjury=no testimony.
Point is, if "Breaking the silence" had actually been looking for a credible report, they really screwed the pooch. They should have told the soldiers to describe only things that they saw with their own eyes, not rumor, innuendo, and "I read it in the paper". I mean what kind of serious report supposedly from people there at the time includes someone citing a newspaper article?
Which doesn't make them human shields. Though if the procedure of using them as go-betweens is also forbidden then any soldier who actually witnessed it should report it. Any soldier who only read about it in the paper, shouldn't make a statement that it happened when all he has is a third hand account. BTW, where is the Palestinian decision to not use Palestinians as human shields? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1120-03.h... Got to give the late Nazir Rayan credit though, he practiced what he preached. He used his own four wives and eleven children as human shields for himself and his house/armory. Now his late four wives and eleven children.
BTW, LI(ar) still hasn't denied being a member of Neturei Karta. The Einstein "quotes" against Israel are all fakes. Chomsky is an anti-Semitic anti-American, pro-communist. pro-terrorist asshole. Klein is a useful idiot (at best). Carter is a moron. The rest, some quotes about Israel supposedly by Mandela are fake (I don't know whether all of them are). The rest I don't know enough about their positions. Madoff is a scumbag who Jews wish wasn't Jewish. Sandler is a sometimes entertaining comedian (what does he have to do with this?). Lieberman is too extreme for my tastes. Sharon, a good leader.
"The Einstein "quotes" against Israel are all fakes. " Nope. You're a fake. We have established that again and again, haven't we thom? Here's the letter, signed by Einstein and other prominent Jews Get an adult to read it to you. By the way, this site includes a a scanned file of the NYTimes original article. http://www.archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLett... Neturei Karta? That's a good one. No..I leave Judaism and similar lunacy to nut cases like you, thom.
So you were lying earlier when you said you were Jewish? OK. Thanks for proving that you are a liar. I don't know whether the letter is fake, but it talks about the Tnuat Haherut party of 60 years ago, not about Israel. Too bad, so sad, you lose. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
No one saw these incidents except for the IDF soldiers that were there who then reported it. I always amazed at how Zionsit fanatics train themselves to ignore the elephant in the room and comment in the wallpaper.
As a spokesman on behalf fo these troops said, the names, dates, and places are already known to the IDF.
No names, dates, places are all known to the IDF. Wow Jake, I know the IDF suck, but I woudl never have described all of them as homosexuals.
"Please name one of the eyewitnesses. " There are plenty. They are IDF soldiers. "Do you have ANY details on your allegations? " No the IDF have those.
"The earlier report you refer to was publicized by an Israeli anarchist who spent time in jail for refusing orders. " Which proves what exactly? "It turned out to be entirely a publicity stunt by a lunatic leftist. " No the IDF just swept it under the carpet. Having the IDF investigate itself is like having Al Capone do his own tax returns.
"The Einstein "quotes" against Israel are all fakes" Quotes are always fakes according to Thom, unless they say nice things about Israel, in which case they're not. "Chomsky is an anti-Semitic anti-American, pro-communist. pro-terrorist asshole. " This Jewish professor is the most highly regraded intellectual of our time, but because he criticizes Israel, he is an anti-Semitic anti-American, pro-communist. pro-terrorist asshole. If he said nice things about Isel, it would be anti-Semitic to criticize him. "Klein is a useful idiot (at best)." Because she criticizes Israel. "The rest, some quotes about Israel supposedly by Mandela are fake (I don't know whether all of them are)." Because Thom says so, unless they say nice things about Israel, in which case they're not. "Sharon, a good leader." Thom loves war criminals and murders. Thom also believes that he's a liberal, yet he spews forth Bile that one would expect from far rghtwing blogs Little green Footballs.
Well done lovelyisraelis. Can you believe that this wing nut Thom believes himself o be a liberal? Maybe he was trying to be funny?
Yes you see Tree, holding up a Palestinian such as in these videos is using he/she as a go between. Of course, Thom will say that this video doesn't exist because no IDF soldier reported it, and if he did, well, then he's just a radical looking for attention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU8N-TQEdA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU8N-TQEdA
Thom is such an anti Semite, because he is calling Jewish liars.
Thanks DICKERSON3870, For having confirmed that Israel does indeed use human shields. Hopefully Thom and Jake will accept that as established truth.
"Why, they even make an effort to text message their prospective victims!" The IRA used to also send warnings before blowing up buildings. I guess that makes them the most moral terrorists in the world
"26 seperate soldiers gave testimonies and Jake here claims they're lying and that we should trust an IDF investigation – hah!" The IDF investigating itself is like Bernie Madoff auditing his won company.
"The earlier report you refer to was publicized by an Israeli anarchist who spent time in jail for refusing orders. " So you see, according to Jake, a conscientious objector cannot be trusted because he refuses to take orders that he is conscientiously objecting to. You have to hand to the grand master of circular reasoning. There could not possibly be a reason why serving IDF soldiers might want o remain anonymous.
Shingo has a pattern of making dishonest statements without references. Sometimes Shingo even invents references. Typical.
Shingo, where is your information? More stuff you just made up? Names, dates, etc….????? Well??? Liar.
Shingo, the obsessed liar.
I havet yet to see SHINGO THE LIAR present a single factual statement. Shingo OBSESSES with this, is a hyper-poster, but has yet to post anything that contributes to public knowledge. Obssessive liar.
Some of the "testimony" sources weren't even on the battlefield at the time of the events they are "testifying" about! All hearsay… slander… rumor.. Not a single hard fact, date, place to reference. Not one. Hilarious.
oh..and Thom also thinks it's impossible to be an atheist Jew. I earlier provided him with the ha'aretz article, again quoting Einstein's rejection of Judaism as "childish" but the childish Thom would have none of it. Einstein: Nothing 'chosen' about the Jews, Bible 'childish' legends http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/983001.html
The first one at least blurs the boundaries. I'd say that in one of those scenes the guy is close enough to maybe qualify as a human shield. Though I note that the "rifle on the shoulder" thing isn't there. Also, the footage is from Nablus, two years ago, not Gaza. The second one is a couple of guys leaning on a jeep that doesn't appear to be in a combat zone. Where is the human shield?
Someone can be culturally Jewish and an atheist. You however denied being Jewish, culturally or otherwise. "No..I leave Judaism and similar lunacy to nut cases like you, thom." If you meant you were a Jewish-born atheist who hates Jews and Jewish culture, you should have said that. BTW, I never cite religious reasons (e.g., "God said so") to justify the Jews' claim on Israel. I cite facts not Bible stories. Of course, I can argue in religious terms if someone claims that the Jewish religion forbids something that is allowed, or vice versa. For example, "thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. The correct translation is "thou shalt not commit murder".
The real question is whether "Breaking the Silence" produced such a poorly done report out of malice or incompetence. If they wanted an honest report with some actual credibility, they should have identified the soldiers by code name or number, rather than just running all of the statements together. They should also have separated hearsay from eyewitness reports. The statements are full of "someone did this" "someone did that". OK, great, now, did you see the person do that, or did you just hear about it or read about it later? Can't tell from the report. I looked it over and I can't find a single statement that unequivocally says that the "witness" saw anyone do anything wrong. Anyone care to cite any? Before you post, remember, we are looking for clear, unequivocal statements that the person giving the statement was a witness on the scene and saw the event. "We did this" or "we did that" doesn't count since "we" won the basketball game last night (we being the basketball team in the city I'm in) and "we" tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib (we being Americans).
If there were any eyewitness reports of any wrongdoing, I couldn't find them in the report. 110 pages of reporting on wrong things they didn't see personally with a sprinkling of things they did see that amount to nothing illegal. Anyone care to post a report in there that was unequivocally witnessed. As in the person says they saw it, not just that something happened? I hear we invaded Iraq, that doesn't mean I saw it happen.
Comments on this entry are closed.