Israeli soldiers 'break their silence'

Published on July 15, 2009 By Leauki In War on Terror

German n-tv.de has apparently decided that there isn't enough anti-Semitism in Europe, so they are warming up the story about the two soldiers who have accused the IDF of war crimes again.

Of course, the story is not reported as those individuals "accusing" Israel of something but of them "breaking their silence", which is the usual term employed when somebody accuses Israel or Jews of something.*

I figure it will take a few days before their pro-Israeli columnist can write an article explaining the situation as he usually does, but until then Jews in Germany should better hide**.

I _hate_ journalists. Too many of them make their money by funneling hatred into specific tracks. There is no money in "accusing" Israel of crimes. But you will find many readers if you "break the silence"***, since there is a common perception that criticising Israel is a big no-no, despite the fact that you cannot start a day without reading some evil accusation against Israel on some major news site (which a few days later turns out to be a "mistake"****).

*Israel and Jews enforce "silence". It is very difficult to speak up against them. That's why 99.9999% of news media reports about the middle east concentrate on the situation in Darfur rather than on what Israel does to the poor, innocent "Death to the Jews" crowd in Gaza. Only occasionally does an article critical of Israel come through. Usually the news media concentrate solely on criticising Arab states' treatment of non-Arab minorities, which is why everybody in the west knows that Imazighen are the native population of Arab-ruled North-Africa. If anything here seems odd, I might be wrong about those parts.

**Synagogues in Germany have constant police protection as do all Jewish institutions. Walking through German streets wearing a kippa can be very dangerous, especially when "peace activists" alarmed by a brave journalist are around.

***"Breaking the silence" is the same as "accusing", except it's brave and doesn't require proof. Another difference is that using the term "accuse" reports a fact, while using the term "break the silence" adds opinion as it implies that "silence" was enforced by some evil presence before.

****The UN "broke the silence" when they accused Israel of bombing a UN school. After a week of legitimate protests against Israeli policies ("Jews to the gas!") the UN admitted that it was a lie. But they insisted that it was Israel who told the lie. (Apparently Israel is in the business of making up crimes and the UN is just trying to stop Israel from accusing herself for no reason.)

Comments (Page 3)

Starstriker1

on Jul 19, 2009

Maybe I should post when I'm lucid. Then maybe I won't be fielding so many embarassing spelling errors.

Leauki

on Jul 20, 2009

Without questioning the tactics how can anybody tell if those tactics have a better track record?

???

You can look at the results.

The IDF are already producing fewer civilian casualties than any other army in similar situations. So why does it matter how they do it?

All the UN can do is "prove" that the IDF's tactics, DESPITE producing excellent results, are "evil" or something like that.

Leauki

on Jul 20, 2009

I give you the 'technically' - Leauki's point was that there was no reason to accept that they needed to be 'questioned' except that the IDF is Jewish. At least I think so. I'm sure he'll speak for himself.

Yes, that's pretty much it.

The evidence is that the UN and others do not generally have huge meetings about these things when the army in question isn't Jewish.

As I said, nobody in the mainstream accuses President Obama of genocide just because American attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan hit many civilians while (legitimately) aiming for terrorists. Note that the Americans, and I don't hold that against them, do NOT send soldiers into villages containing terrorists. The Americans use missiles. It's _only_ the IDF who regularly risk their own lives by doing the job manually. Heck, when the IDF use bulldozers to get into a building instead of bombing it they are accused of destroying innocent people's homes. It's really ridiculous.

So while I'd agree that the original accusations were probably anti-semitic in nature, the majority of them today are not. It's got more to do with people not turning a critical eye to what they're told, and subscribing to blatant groupthink.

But that's what anti-Semitism is. Very little of it (today) is "active" anti-Semitism (i.e. anti-Semitism practices by those who also made up the stories).

Most anti-Semites are "passive" anti-Semites. They are the ones the white supremacists and terror supporters are trying to convince: "The Jews must have done something, otherwise all those people wouldn't accuse them all the time. It's not about Jews, it's about Israel.".

Ultimately, that's worse for Israel then mere anti-semitism. Not only are they up against an army of bigots, but also against the inertia of half a century of well meaning individuals buying into a smear campaign combined with the overwhelming force of human stupidity... and frankly, trying to deflect human stupidity is probably an unwinnable battle.

True.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I think the best way is to turn the "arguments" around:

1. Land for peace: So how much land should Israel get from the Arab countries?

2. Occupation of Islamic holy cities: So when should Saudi-Arabia withdraw from Mecca and Medina (which they annexed in 1926)?

3. "Settlements": What will we tell Arabs who buy houses in Israel? Is it illegal now because they are Arabs?

4. Refugees: When will the UN start supporting the Jewish refugees, and will they get as much as the Arab refugees got over the last 60 years? When will Israel receive these funds?

I think these are four important questions that stand in the way of peace.

Leauki

on Jul 20, 2009

Because I know them personally, I believe their words.

Based on your track record here I would never for a moment doubt that your friends are as honest as you are.

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!

You know as well as I do that the buildings were hit because Hizbullah was firing from behind them and in many cases from windows within them. You have seen the videos, or at least you could have if you had cared to follow the links I provided back then.

And you are mistaken about what the IDF wanted to achieve, probably because you neglected to listen to what Israel said they were supposed to do and instead believed other people's stories about Israel's ultimate goals. The IDF was supposed to STOP the rocket attacks that had been hitting nothern Israel for five years. The IDF was _NOT_ meant to get far into Lebanon or anything like that.

What the IDF were out to do they achieved. That's a victory.

But for Israeli standards it wasn't a victory as such. We are used to better work from the IDF.

Leauki

on Jul 24, 2009

A view from a Kuwaiti newspaper, where like in many parts of the Arab world, Hamas are not quite as popular as in the west:

http://www.israelwhat.com/?p=2677

A Word of Truth

By Abdallah al-Hadlaq

Al-Watan, Kuwait
19 July 2009

A non-governmental Israeli organization claims that the IDF that attacked Gaza and the ostracized Hamas used local civilians as human shields and opened fire indiscriminately. The report by “Breaking the Silence” says the IDF destroyed buildings, mosques and private homes, and includes testimonies by 30 soldiers who participated in the attack on Gaza (2008/12/27-18/1/2009), but without revealing their names or unit affiliation.

However these allegations are to be rejected because the IDF has proved that its troops follow international law and obey orders despite the stress of battle. These testimonies lack sourcing or corroboration, thus preventing any conclusions from being drawn… Furthermore, it was the ostracized Hamas that caused much grief when it fired dozens of Qassam missiles at innocent civilians in the southern towns and villages of Israel. The IDF had no choice but to fight back causing the deaths of 1400 Palestinians, half of them civilians used as human shields by Hamas, in addition to the 5,000 wounded. Israel lost just 10 soldiers and 3 civilians.

The IDF defended innocent Israeli civilians against Hamas attacks and did all it could to prevent harming any civilians, targeting just the Hamas men, to disarm them by aerial bombing, shelling, and the use of heavy tractors, while maintaining the humane principles of the IDF that seeks to win with minimal human cost to either side.

The report by “Breaking the Silence” was unfair, unbalanced, and lacking in proof, so one wonders where it was when Hamas used schools and homes for weapons storage or for missile launchers. Israeli pilots reported many secondary explosions after they hit Hamas targets. Where was that organization when Hamas smuggled tons of illicit weapons through a network of tunnels from Egypt?

The Arabic original is titled "And Allah is they lie" (which I assume translates to "And by Allah, they are lying", Arabic always seems like a collection of words to me):

http://www.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?tabid=164&article_id=523218

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!