Israel opens dam to flood Palestinians out of their homes...

redrock

yosi wrote:

I also have close friends who have been to Gaza, and who relayed to me what they saw there.

Me too. Friends in Medecins sans Frontieres, the Red Cross and a journalist. So does that make me as knowledgeable as you on the situation in Gaza? A friend of mine is an astronomist. He has never been in space or been anywhere close to a star. Yet he knows his business back to front. Is he just fooling everyone?

yosi

No, not longer than I've been alive. And yes, you might know something about the civil war, but I don't think anyone will ever know all there is to know, and regardless of how much you read on the subject I certainly don't think that you would have a better appreciation for the reality of the civil war than someone who experienced it first hand. As for following a subject for 20 years, the depth of your understanding is limited by the sources you expose yourself to. Leaving aside news items related to specific incidents, every source you cite is entirely biased against Israel, which would seem to suggest that your 20 years has not been spent in objective study, but rather in immersing yourself in only the Palestinian perspective.

redrock

yosi wrote:

....every source you cite is entirely biased against Israel, .....

Change the work Israel to Palestinians and I could swear you are talking about yourself.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Leaving aside news items related to specific incidents, every source you cite is entirely biased against Israel, which would seem to suggest that your 20 years has not been spent in objective study, but rather in immersing yourself in only the Palestinian perspective.

Actually, it's not possible to study this this subject with any kind of seriousness without having to read the arguments and counter-arguments of the pro-Israel brigade.

Do you think I've been simply shouting into an echo chamber for 20 years?

Just to take one example; check out Norman Finkelstein's webpage. He posts practically just as many articles from those he opposes as from those with whom he agrees and supports.

yosi

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

I also have close friends who have been to Gaza, and who relayed to me what they saw there.

Me too. Friends in Medecins sans Frontieres, the Red Cross and a journalist. So does that make me as knowledgeable as you on the situation in Gaza? A friend of mine is an astronomist. He has never been in space or been anywhere close to a star. Yet he knows his business back to front. Is he just fooling everyone?

I have no idea how knowledgeable you are, but I do not doubt that having spoken to people with first hand experience has increased your knowledge. That doesn't mean you (or I) know everything. As for your friend the astronomer, I'm sure he would be the first to admit that as much as he knows about space, stars, distant moons and planets, he would be able to know much more if he could go there himself. We know a lot about Mars, but guess what, most of what we know came out of actually sending missions to mars that allowed us (sort of, through sensors and cameras) to go there and see it first hand. What we learned from "going" to mars radically altered and expanded our understanding of the planet. So yes, I maintain that first hand experience cannot be beaten. (As a side note, since I studied history in school, this is the same reason why historians favor primary sources, because they come closer to be first-hand accounts of events, and are therefore more reliable (though of course not entirely so) than secondary or tertiary sources.)

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Leaving aside news items related to specific incidents, every source you cite is entirely biased against Israel, which would seem to suggest that your 20 years has not been spent in objective study, but rather in immersing yourself in only the Palestinian perspective.

Actually, it's not possible to study this this subject with any kind of seriousness without having to read the arguments and counter-arguments of the pro-Israel brigade.

Do you think I've been simply shouting into an echo chamber for 20 years?

Just to take one example; check out Norman Finkelstein's webpage. He posts practically just as many articles from those he opposes as from those with whom he agrees and supports.

I have no idea what you've been doing for 20 years. If you're main source of "pro-Israel" information is Finkelstein's webpage then I think you are already proving my point. Furthermore, to look at a situation objectively requires not only that you read widely but also that you maintain an open mind to both sides of the argument. From what I've seen you seem to be so closed off to even listening to the other side that I seriously doubt that you approached anything you read with true objectivity and impartiality.

redrock

yosi wrote:

That doesn't mean you (or I) know everything.

It would be proposterous for anyone to claim they know everything, though one can have expert knowledge without this ultimate knowlege.

yosi wrote:

..(As a side note, since I studied history in school, this is the same reason why historians favor primary sources, because they come closer to be first-hand accounts of events, and are therefore more reliable (though of course not entirely so) than secondary or tertiary sources.)

So it is perfectly acceptable for a historian to study events in the past and be 'experts' in the field? Primary sources for such past events are obviously written - they may be biaised, they may be written by someone not 'having the full story'. Accounts of the Israel-Palestinian issue which we all have now will eventually become the 'first hand' accounts of the event for future historians, whether they have been written by politicians, journalists, palestinians or israelis. Historians will also decide which 'first hand' accounts they wish to study.
From country to country, historical recounting of the same event/person differs.

yosi wrote:

but I do not doubt that having spoken to people with first hand experience has increased your knowledge. )

The world is such now that I, personally, do not have to speak to people first hand to understand or increase my knowledge. One can see interviews and images on TV, read papers, blogs, etc. What my friend from MSF can tell me is the same as what any MSF would tell a journalist who would then publish or interview shown on TV, etc. So many ways to be kept informed - not only from official channels but very unofficial ones as well.

yosi

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

....every source you cite is entirely biased against Israel, .....

Change the work Israel to Palestinians and I could swear you are talking about yourself.

I try not to cite sources because I prefer to make my own arguments. However, one of the few sources I have cited has been Moshe Halbertal. It does not seem that anyone bothered to read the article I linked to in its entirety so here is a portion of the article from the last few pages:

"So a good deal of the outrage that has greeted the Goldstone Report is perfectly justified. And yet its sections devoted to the Gaza war do make claims and cite testimonies that no honest Israeli can ignore. They demand a thorough investigation, and I will enumerate them in their order of severity.

The worst testimonies are of civilian deaths, some of which sound like cold-blooded murders. In the report, such cases amount to a few individual incidents, and they call for criminal investigation of particular soldiers. Was there indeed a killing at close range of a mother and her three daughters carrying white flags? Then there are a few cases of alleged civilian deaths that are the result of the reckless use of firepower. The most disturbing of them is the testimony about the Al Samouni neighborhood in Gaza City, in which 21 members of a family were killed in an attack on a house. The place and the names are given in the report, and Israel will have to provide answers. Was it a mistake? Were some of the family members Hamas fighters? Did someone shoot at the soldiers from the house? Or was this an act of unjustified homicide?

The testimonies in the Goldstone Report are Palestinian testimonies. They were collected in Gaza, where the watchful eye of Hamas authorities always looms, rendering them vulnerable and partial. Israel chose not to cooperate with the commission, and so the Israeli version of events is not here. It was a mistake on Israel’s part not to participate in the inquiry--though, after reading the report, I am more sympathetic to Israel’s reluctance. This commission that describes its mission as fact-finding treats the missing Israeli testimonies as if they are Israel’s problem, rather than a methodological and empirical shortcoming in the report itself. Whatever one thinks about Israel’s refusal to cooperate, the Goldstone Report is still only 452 pages of mostly Palestinian testimony, and this grave limitation must be acknowledged.

Yet the allegations have now been made, and Israeli answers must be given. The next issue that Israel will have to deal with is the use of what the report calls “human shields,” which seems to have been an Israeli practice on some occasions. In justifying such a practice, Israeli commanders claim that they forced Palestinian civilians to go to certain homes to warn other civilians before attacking the houses. This might be justified, but the testimonies sound different. They sound as if Israeli soldiers were using civilians to gather information. After attacking a certain building, a civilian was allegedly forced to go and check whether the Hamas militants were dead or not. This is a troubling testimony. Was this done, or not? If it was done, then it is in violation of Israel’s own Supreme Court ruling on the matter of human shields.

Other testimonies pertain to the destruction of civilian property. One of the most disturbing is the report of the flattening with bulldozers of the chicken farm at Zeytoun, in which 31,000 chickens were killed. Such destruction, like other reported destructions of agricultural and industrial facilities, does not seem to serve any purpose. The accusation concerning the destruction of civilian property pertains as well to the large-scale destruction of homes. According to the commission, aerial photographs show that, of the total number of homes that were destroyed in two of the hardest-hit neighborhoods, about half were destroyed in the last three days of the operation. If so, then such destruction cannot be justified as in the heat of the battle. It was done to leave a brutal scar as proof of the Israeli presence, as immoral and illegal instruments of deterrence. If this were the case, then reparations should be made to the families whose homes were destroyed.

Next in order of severity comes the bombing of civilian infrastructure. According to the report, the Israeli Air Force bombed the flour mill, the water wells, and the sewage pipes in Gaza. It is possible that the flour mill was strategically located and was used as a perch for snipers or as a launching facility for Qassam rockets fired in the war. This would be the only justification for such a bombing. Israel should now provide its version of these events. If indeed these facilities were attacked as part of a premeditated policy, then this was wrong, and Israel should say so.

I do not see much substance in the complaint against Israel’s bombing of the Hamas parliament and other offices while they were empty. A persuasive case can be made that an organization such as Hamas does not have a division of labor between its military and civilian functions. The report’s long section on the attack on the prison in Gaza also seems to me a mistaken accusation. The commission notes that only one guard was killed in the bombing, but it blames Israel for endangering the prisoners in attacking a target that has no military use. It did not occur to the commission that Israel attacked the prison to allow Fatah prisoners to escape harsh treatment at the hands of Hamas. (The commission is well-aware that this was the population of the prison.) Some of them did escape, and some were subsequently shot by Hamas militants.

The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair. It offers no help in sorting out the real issues. What methods can Israel--and other countries in similar situations--legitimately apply in the defense of their citizens? To create standards of morality in war that leave a state without the means of legitimate self-protection is politically foolish and morally problematic; but real answers to these real problems cannot be found in the Goldstone Report. What should Israel do when Hezbollah’s more lethal and accurate missiles strike the center of Tel Aviv, causing hundreds of civilian deaths? It is a well-known fact that these missiles are in Hezbollah’s possession, and, when they are fired, it will be from populated villages in Lebanon.

It is important, for this reason, that Israel respond to the U.N. report by clarifying the principles that it operated upon in Gaza, thus exposing the limits and the prejudices of the report. A mere denunciation of the report will not suffice. Israel must establish an independent investigation into the concrete allegations that the report makes. By clearing up these issues, by refuting what can be refuted, and by admitting wrongs when wrongs were done, Israel can establish the legitimacy of its self-defense in the next round, as well as honestly deal with its own failures."

Yes, this was written by an Israeli, and yes he has a bias, as everyone invariably does, but I don't think you can read this and conclude that it was written by a person who has not made a serious effort to look at the situation as impartially as he could. I'm not sure the same can be said for a Chomsky or a Finkelstein, who are biased to the point of predictability. I already know what they will say before they say it, which suggests that they are incapable of seeing a situation in any way other than through their preexisting prejudices. This is what I call a significant bias, and it is these sorts of opinions that I don't much respect.

yosi

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

That doesn't mean you (or I) know everything.

It would be proposterous for anyone to claim they know everything, though one can have expert knowledge without this ultimate knowlege.

yosi wrote:

..(As a side note, since I studied history in school, this is the same reason why historians favor primary sources, because they come closer to be first-hand accounts of events, and are therefore more reliable (though of course not entirely so) than secondary or tertiary sources.)

So it is perfectly acceptable for a historian to study events in the past and be 'experts' in the field? Primary sources for such past events are obviously written - they may be biaised, they may be written by someone not 'having the full story'. Accounts of the Israel-Palestinian issue which we all have now will eventually become the 'first hand' accounts of the event for future historians, whether they have been written by politicians, journalists, palestinians or israelis. Historians will also decide which 'first hand' accounts they wish to study.
From country to country, historical recounting of the same event/person differs.

yosi wrote:

but I do not doubt that having spoken to people with first hand experience has increased your knowledge. )

The world is such now that I, personally, do not have to speak to people first hand to understand or increase my knowledge. One can see interviews and images on TV, read papers, blogs, etc. What my friend from MSF can tell me is the same as what any MSF would tell a journalist who would then publish or interview shown on TV, etc. So many ways to be kept informed - not only from official channels but very unofficial ones as well.

I'm sorry but that is bunk. All media comes to you through a filter. It can never replace actual experience. I think you are manifesting a greatly distorted view of the utility of technology for increasing understanding. More information does not amount to more understanding.

redrock

yosi wrote:

redrock wrote:

yosi wrote:

That doesn't mean you (or I) know everything.

It would be proposterous for anyone to claim they know everything, though one can have expert knowledge without this ultimate knowlege.

yosi wrote:

..(As a side note, since I studied history in school, this is the same reason why historians favor primary sources, because they come closer to be first-hand accounts of events, and are therefore more reliable (though of course not entirely so) than secondary or tertiary sources.)

So it is perfectly acceptable for a historian to study events in the past and be 'experts' in the field? Primary sources for such past events are obviously written - they may be biaised, they may be written by someone not 'having the full story'. Accounts of the Israel-Palestinian issue which we all have now will eventually become the 'first hand' accounts of the event for future historians, whether they have been written by politicians, journalists, palestinians or israelis. Historians will also decide which 'first hand' accounts they wish to study.
From country to country, historical recounting of the same event/person differs.

yosi wrote:

but I do not doubt that having spoken to people with first hand experience has increased your knowledge. )

The world is such now that I, personally, do not have to speak to people first hand to understand or increase my knowledge. One can see interviews and images on TV, read papers, blogs, etc. What my friend from MSF can tell me is the same as what any MSF would tell a journalist who would then publish or interview shown on TV, etc. So many ways to be kept informed - not only from official channels but very unofficial ones as well.

I'm sorry but that is bunk. All media comes to you through a filter. It can never replace actual experience. I think you are manifesting a greatly distorted view of the utility of technology for increasing understanding. More information does not amount to more understanding.

Of course media is filtered & biaised. That's why I also mention unofficial sources. But media is still a source of information. If you read my post correctly, I am not talking about actual experience but speaking to someone to did (ie speaking to people with first hand experience). Nothing my friends can tell me about Gaza, nothing that I see on TV or read in papers or blogs can even come close to describing the pain and despair these people are in. Even people with first hand experience recount events as they see them/feel them. Two people standing next to each other, seeing the same thing, will recount differently. Exactly the same as with historical documents.

yosi

Ok, I agree entirely. What I don't understand though, is that if you accept the limitations of your knowledge how can you be so adamant in your condemnation of ONLY Israel? Notice that I am not criticizing your condemnation of Israel, I am criticizing the fact that you ignore the misdeeds of the other side. How can you be so sure that everything said by people like me isn't just as valid as all the points you yourself have been making. It seems much more plausible to me that there is truth in the arguments of both sides, that both sides are at fault, and to lay the blame for this mess solely at the feet of one party is simply ludicrous.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair..."

And what about the testimonies of the IDF soldiers themselves? Are they also biased?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... ields-gaza
Israeli soldiers admit 'shoot first' policy in Gaza offensive

Ian Black - Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 July 2009

Anonymous testimonies collated by human rights group also contain allegations that Palestinians were used as human shields


'Israeli soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip during the offensive of December and January have spoken out about being ordered to shoot without hesitation, destroying houses and mosques with a general disregard for Palestinian lives.

In testimony that will fuel international and Arab demands for war crime investigations, 30 combat soldiers report that the army's priority was to minimise its own casualties to maintain Israeli public support for the three-week Operation Cast Lead.

One specific allegation is that Palestinians were used by the army as "human shields" despite a 2005 Israeli high court ruling outlawing the practice. "Not much was said about the issue of innocent civilians," a soldier said. "There was no need to use weapons like mortars or phosphorous," said another. "I have the feeling that the army was looking for the opportunity to show off its strength."

The 54 anonymous testimonies were collated by Breaking the Silence, a group that collects information on human rights abuses by the Israeli military. Many of the soldiers are still doing their compulsory national service...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel


Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity

Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005

Whistleblowers' testimony shows desire for revenge on Palestinians

From a distance of 70 metres and through the sight of his machine gun, Assaf could tell that the Palestinian man was aged between 20 and 30, unarmed and trying to get away from an Israeli tank. But the details didn't matter much, because Assaf's orders were to "fire at anything that moved".

Assaf, a soldier in the Israeli army, pressed the trigger, firing scores of bullets as the body fell to the ground. "He ran and I started shooting for a few seconds. He fell. I was a machine. I fire. I leave and that's that. We never spoke about it afterwards."

It was the summer of 2002, and Assaf and his armoured unit had been ordered to enter the Gaza town of Dir al Balah following the firing of mortars into nearby Jewish settlements. His orders were, he told the Guardian, "'Every person you see on the street, kill him'. And we would just do it."

It was not the first time that Assaf had killed an innocent person in Gaza while following orders, but after his discharge he began to think about the things he did.

"The reason why I am telling you this is that I want the army to think about what they are asking us to do, shooting unarmed people. I don't think it's legal."

Assaf is not alone. In recent months dozens of soldiers, including the son of an an Israeli general, all recently discharged, have come forward to share their stories of how they were ordered in briefings to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel1

Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order

The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005
Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv


Israeli military prosecutors have opened criminal investigations following allegations by soldiers that they carried out illegal shoot-to-kill orders against unarmed Palestinians.

The 17 separate investigations were prompted by the testimony of dozens of troops collected by Breaking the Silence, a pressure group of former Israeli soldiers committed to exposing human rights abuses by the military in suppressing the Palestinian intifada. The investigations cover a range of allegations, including misuse of weapons and other misuses of power.

Some of the soldiers, who also spoke to the Guardian, say they acted on standing orders in some parts of the Palestinian territories to open fire on people regardless of whether they were armed or not, or posed any physical threat.

The soldiers say that in some situations they were ordered to shoot anyone who appeared on a roof or a balcony, anyone who appeared to be kneeling to the ground or anyone who appeared on the street at a designated time. Among those killed by soldiers acting on the orders were young children.

While the background to the soldiers' experience is the armed conflict that has been going on in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since October 2000, many of the shootings occurred in periods of calm when there was no immediate risk to the soldiers involved.

yosi wrote:

Yes, this was written by an Israeli, and yes he has a bias, as everyone invariably does, but I don't think you can read this and conclude that it was written by a person who has not made a serious effort to look at the situation as impartially as he could. I'm not sure the same can be said for a Chomsky or a Finkelstein, who are biased to the point of predictability. I already know what they will say before they say it, which suggests that they are incapable of seeing a situation in any way other than through their preexisting prejudices. This is what I call a significant bias, and it is these sorts of opinions that I don't much respect.

So what you're saying here is that you feel justified in dismissing everything Chomsky and Finkelstein say because you believe them both to be biased. Though this is really just an excuse on your part for choosing not to address the particular issues that they discuss.

yosi

Just as you refuse to discuss issues raised by sources you disagree with? I'm happy to discuss almost anything, just at this point not with you. It's simply too exhausting and frustrating since you rarely if ever respond thoughtfully to anything that I say. All I get back are tirades about how wrong everything I've said is, and usually these don't even include any original thoughts on your part, just a stream of quotations.

yosi

And as for those soldiers testimonies, if they are true then their commanding officers should be investigated, but this does not constitute an indictment of the IDF as a whole. And again, you are evading the issue by changing the subject, based on a response to one line from the article taken entirely out of context. How about you try responding to why he says the report is biased and unfair?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I'm sorry but that is bunk. All media comes to you through a filter. It can never replace actual experience. I think you are manifesting a greatly distorted view of the utility of technology for increasing understanding. More information does not amount to more understanding.

You think that because you lived for a time in Israel that your every word is sacrosanct. The thing is, nobody else does.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

How about you try responding to why he says the report is biased and unfair?

o.k.

'...the next issue that Israel will have to deal with is the use of what the report calls “human shields,” which seems to have been an Israeli practice on some occasions...This is a troubling testimony. Was this done, or not? If it was done, then it is in violation of Israel’s own Supreme Court ruling on the matter of human shields.

Other testimonies pertain to the destruction of civilian property...of the total number of homes that were destroyed in two of the hardest-hit neighborhoods, about half were destroyed in the last three days of the operation. If so, then such destruction cannot be justified as in the heat of the battle. It was done to leave a brutal scar as proof of the Israeli presence, as immoral and illegal instruments of deterrence. If this were the case, then reparations should be made to the families whose homes were destroyed.

Next in order of severity comes the bombing of civilian infrastructure...Israel should now provide its version of these events. If indeed these facilities were attacked as part of a premeditated policy, then this was wrong, and Israel should say so.

The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair...

It is important...that Israel respond to the U.N. report by clarifying the principles that it operated upon in Gaza, thus exposing the limits and the prejudices of the report. A mere denunciation of the report will not suffice. Israel must establish an independent investigation into the concrete allegations that the report makes. By clearing up these issues, by refuting what can be refuted, and by admitting wrongs when wrongs were done, Israel can establish the legitimacy of its self-defense in the next round, as well as honestly deal with its own failures."

You see, the thing is, this article that you've been trumpeting for the past two days is a pretty innocuous affair. It just contains a bunch of 'If's' and 'Maybes'.
It merely asks exactly what the Goldstone report itself asks for: that Israel investigate all of the charges laid against it based on all of the evidence made available to the investigating parties. The fact that the author of the article wishes to uncover limits and prejudices in the report which may or may not exist is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant that he claims Israel acted in self-defense, which as we know, it didn't. The attack on Gaza was planned 6 months before Israel broke the ceasefire on November 5th 2008.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

And as for those soldiers testimonies, if they are true then their commanding officers should be investigated, but this does not constitute an indictment of the IDF as a whole. And again, you are evading the issue by changing the subject, based on a response to one line from the article taken entirely out of context. How about you try responding to why he says the report is biased and unfair?

The subject was whether the IDF deliberately targets civilians. I provided evidence that It does, from the mouths of IDF soldiers themselves.

So how did I evade the issue and change the subject?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Ok, I agree entirely. What I don't understand though, is that if you accept the limitations of your knowledge how can you be so adamant in your condemnation of ONLY Israel? Notice that I am not criticizing your condemnation of Israel, I am criticizing the fact that you ignore the misdeeds of the other side. How can you be so sure that everything said by people like me isn't just as valid as all the points you yourself have been making. It seems much more plausible to me that there is truth in the arguments of both sides, that both sides are at fault, and to lay the blame for this mess solely at the feet of one party is simply ludicrous.

The Palestinians can not be blamed for Israel's criminal occupation. Period.

redrock

yosi wrote:

...how can you be so adamant in your condemnation of ONLY Israel? .

I don't see Palestinians occupying Israeli land, building illegal settlements on Israeli soil, bulldozing their homes, denying them water, food, shelter, medicines and oppressing them (or, as the title of this thread says - opening dams to flood israeli homes). Therefore, yes - I only condemn Israel for the above.

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair..."

And what about the testimonies of the IDF soldiers themselves? Are they also biased?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... ields-gaza
Israeli soldiers admit 'shoot first' policy in Gaza offensive

Ian Black - Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 July 2009

Anonymous testimonies collated by human rights group also contain allegations that Palestinians were used as human shields


'Israeli soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip during the offensive of December and January have spoken out about being ordered to shoot without hesitation, destroying houses and mosques with a general disregard for Palestinian lives.

In testimony that will fuel international and Arab demands for war crime investigations, 30 combat soldiers report that the army's priority was to minimise its own casualties to maintain Israeli public support for the three-week Operation Cast Lead.

One specific allegation is that Palestinians were used by the army as "human shields" despite a 2005 Israeli high court ruling outlawing the practice. "Not much was said about the issue of innocent civilians," a soldier said. "There was no need to use weapons like mortars or phosphorous," said another. "I have the feeling that the army was looking for the opportunity to show off its strength."

The 54 anonymous testimonies were collated by Breaking the Silence, a group that collects information on human rights abuses by the Israeli military. Many of the soldiers are still doing their compulsory national service...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel


Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity

Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005

Whistleblowers' testimony shows desire for revenge on Palestinians

From a distance of 70 metres and through the sight of his machine gun, Assaf could tell that the Palestinian man was aged between 20 and 30, unarmed and trying to get away from an Israeli tank. But the details didn't matter much, because Assaf's orders were to "fire at anything that moved".

Assaf, a soldier in the Israeli army, pressed the trigger, firing scores of bullets as the body fell to the ground. "He ran and I started shooting for a few seconds. He fell. I was a machine. I fire. I leave and that's that. We never spoke about it afterwards."

It was the summer of 2002, and Assaf and his armoured unit had been ordered to enter the Gaza town of Dir al Balah following the firing of mortars into nearby Jewish settlements. His orders were, he told the Guardian, "'Every person you see on the street, kill him'. And we would just do it."

It was not the first time that Assaf had killed an innocent person in Gaza while following orders, but after his discharge he began to think about the things he did.

"The reason why I am telling you this is that I want the army to think about what they are asking us to do, shooting unarmed people. I don't think it's legal."

Assaf is not alone. In recent months dozens of soldiers, including the son of an an Israeli general, all recently discharged, have come forward to share their stories of how they were ordered in briefings to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel1

Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order

The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005
Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv


Israeli military prosecutors have opened criminal investigations following allegations by soldiers that they carried out illegal shoot-to-kill orders against unarmed Palestinians.

The 17 separate investigations were prompted by the testimony of dozens of troops collected by Breaking the Silence, a pressure group of former Israeli soldiers committed to exposing human rights abuses by the military in suppressing the Palestinian intifada. The investigations cover a range of allegations, including misuse of weapons and other misuses of power.

Some of the soldiers, who also spoke to the Guardian, say they acted on standing orders in some parts of the Palestinian territories to open fire on people regardless of whether they were armed or not, or posed any physical threat.

The soldiers say that in some situations they were ordered to shoot anyone who appeared on a roof or a balcony, anyone who appeared to be kneeling to the ground or anyone who appeared on the street at a designated time. Among those killed by soldiers acting on the orders were young children.

While the background to the soldiers' experience is the armed conflict that has been going on in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since October 2000, many of the shootings occurred in periods of calm when there was no immediate risk to the soldiers involved.

yosi wrote:

Yes, this was written by an Israeli, and yes he has a bias, as everyone invariably does, but I don't think you can read this and conclude that it was written by a person who has not made a serious effort to look at the situation as impartially as he could. I'm not sure the same can be said for a Chomsky or a Finkelstein, who are biased to the point of predictability. I already know what they will say before they say it, which suggests that they are incapable of seeing a situation in any way other than through their preexisting prejudices. This is what I call a significant bias, and it is these sorts of opinions that I don't much respect.

So what you're saying here is that you feel justified in dismissing everything Chomsky and Finkelstein say because you believe them both to be biased. Though this is really just an excuse on your part for choosing not to address the particular issues that they discuss.

when i asked about this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... ory-byline

An IDF squad leader is quoted in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz as saying his soldiers interpreted the rules to mean "we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."

he told me the IDF squad leader was mad and made it all up