Recently I wrote a piece which was a riff on Ali Abunimah’s attack on the blatent lies the Israeli army uses in defending its wanton killing of Palestinian civilians. In trying to defend itself, the Israeli army uses one of its favorite tactics – taking Israeli “war correspondents” (i.e. propagandists) for a tour in the territories, and feeding them the appropriate response to the critics.
This piece is an instructive example of how this tactic works. But even more instructive is how the attempt at propaganda actually reinforces the arguments of those who say the army is lying when it says civilians are killed only when soldiers lives are in danger.
I’m not going to spend much time empahsizing the propaganda. That’s incredibly obvious when you read the piece. It start’s with the headline. This is not the way a news article should be headlined. This is the way one headlines a marketing piece, so already we know where we stand.
Rather, reading between the lines we learn some interesting tidbits, which totally contradict the “official” story the army trys to sell us:
“In the final analysis, the Palestinian attacks against the specially fortified jeeps appeared somewhat pathetic. The jeeps’ mirrors were shattered some time ago; but apart from these cracks, the Israel Defense Forces soldiers felt rather well protected.”
Important point number one: Because of the protective nature of the jeeps, the soldiers are in no immediate danger from rocks, molotov cocktails, or even homemade bombs that might be lobbed at them. This is a critical admission, because in all cases of civilian deaths, the army argues that the killing is justified because the soldier is in danger (e.g. the eight year old lobbing bombs). So even this propaganda piece indicates the army position is a lie.
“Two weeks into the IDF’s operation in Nablus, the city is supposed to be under a tight curfew. The curfew, however, exists mostly in radio reports. The IDF has reduced its troops in downtown Nablus; forces which try to track down terror suspects and explosives laboratories have little manpower and time to worry about enforcing the curfew.”
Important point number two: The army’s enforcement of curfews is sporadic and chaotic. In fact, many civilians are killed when the army attempts to crack down on curfew violations and does so with excessive force. The excuse given is that “soldiers were enforcing the curfew.” But confused Palestinian shoppers don’t know when the curfew is really in effect or not. Shoot to kill is not an appropriate response (of course, the curfews shouldn’t be there in the first place, but that is another issue).
“…the IDF does need to reevaluate some of its rules of engagement. For instance, procedures governing gunfire responses to Molotov cocktail throwers who are surrounded by groups of children need to be reconsidered.”
Important point number three: The army’s rules of engagement, by its own admission, are not appropriate for dealing with violence in densely populated civilian areas. We already noted that the Molotov cocktails are no real threat to heavily protected jeeps (and certainly tanks). Shoot to kill is not appropriate for someone “surrounded by children.” It is even less appropriate when the thrower (of rock or whatever) is a child.
“…Hence, lack of knowledge about local custom and observances cause…unnecessary death[s]. This …reinforces the need to reinstitute the old rules of engagement guiding principle: Soldiers should open fire only when they face mortal threats.
Most important point of all: Reinstitute??? After every civilian death we are told that this is the rule of engagement, and the death was unavoidable. This line also contradicts the headline. If the army was trying to protect civilians it would strictly enforce this principle. The admission that it doesn’t is essentially an admission by the army itself that it is engaged in war crimes with every civilian death.
Footnote: Today a 95 year old Palestinian woman was killed. Even the army couldn’t think up a good excuse for this one, so instead it announced the soldier would face “disciplinary procedures” (whatever that means). But why should the soldier be blamed? Obviously his instructions aren’t clear and he is not properly trained. Those who placed him in this situation, namely those who run the army, are to blame for the death of that woman and the hundreds of other Palestinian civilians killed for no good reason in this useless war.
Tags: Feature, Israeli Army, Media