...

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'?

Not if the same group could simply "accuse".

A "silence", to be broken, has to exist first. And using the phrase "break the silence" very much implies that such a silence was enforced before it was broken.

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

So far, unattributed and unconfirmed.  In other words, the 'silence' has been allegedly broken by 26 IDF soldiers, to whom unconfirmed accusations have been attributed by anonymous 'sources.'  So far.

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.

Yeah, and international humanitarian organizations, and groups based inside Israel made up of Israeli citizens as well. Breaking the silence purports to be made up IDF veterans and they have the testimonies of dozens of individuals.

Yes, they have not revealed their identities, but if they did, and it turned out that they were who they say they were, what would your response be to their allegations?

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp

It is not anti-semitism to question the tactics employed by the IDF when there is a track record of far more civillians killed than enemy. Just like in Lebanon, for the amount of ordnance used and numbers of troops, tanks and aircraft focused on such a small area during the operation if the bulk of those targeted truly were Hamas, Hamas would be destroyed and would no longer be in power.

But that didn't happen, because the bulk of those killed were civillians, Hamas was mostly nowhere to be found except for brief, rapid engagements. This is because, as always, the IDF employed "force protection" principles which basically state that everything becomes a free fire zone.

So, a large number of troops with modern air and artillery support, go into a heavily populated civilian area and the whole area is, essentially a free-fire zone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens next.

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.

Leauki, you know...

You're coming across as extremely blind. You rarely, if ever, admit to something Israel has done wrong. I'm sorry, but you say we're ignorant, you are as well. Sorry, but Israel is guilty of fucking up. They're not perfect like you're implying. To say otherwise is to delude yourself.But hey, that's just my opinion.

You may not like my comments, and will likely claim I'm anti-semtic...but you know, whatever gets you going. I know who I am thanks.

Be well, ~Alderic

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?

"who have a track record of harming far fewer civilians than any other victorious army in the world"

By the way. This is true.

The IDF do have such a track record.

It's not "blindness" that makes me "believe" it, it's simple acknowledgement of facts without adding the necessary propaganda to make Israel appear more evil.

But please, if I am blind, please show me which victorious army in an actual war, fighting an enemy in the middle of civilian settlements, has ever harmed fewer civilians. If I am blind, I would like to see.

I have heard stories of other wars: Dresden, Nagasaki, Iraq, Vietnam. the list goes on and on. But maybe I was missing something. Maybe it is true and I am blind and the IDF do not have a track record of harming far fewer civilians than any other victorious army in the world. Let's see whether the IDF is as much better than everybody else as I claim or just as bad or worse as it must be if I am blind.

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.

The biggest thing i have a problem with...is the mindset of "Israel has done nothing wrong" along with the israel buddy mentality of our foreign policy. Sorry, but I dont treat one group or person with more favor. And we do favor them, we say we scold them...but most of the time we're all good buddies. (save maybe now with obama) Call it anti-semitic if you want, but whatever.

If expecting equal and impartial relations with all countries is anti-semitic, then so be it. That's the bottom line for me.

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.

So you have a problem with the mindset that Israel might be innocent?

Good to know.

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about "expecting equal and impartial relations with all countries". How did that become part of the discussion?

I was talking about the need to treat an accused as innocent until proven guilty, EVEN if the accused is Israel, AND EVEN when not doing so is anti-Semitism and therefor above criticism.