It never ceases to amaze me how the New York Times allows itself to serve as a mouth piece for Israeli propaganda. Considering the outcry, the paper couldn’t help to cover this story about Israeli soldiers admitting to happily participating in war crimes. Instead of focusing on the soldier’s testimonies, most of the article is devoted to interviews with Israeli spokespeople who try to mitigate the seriousness of the reported crimes. Even Ha’aretz reports the story straight up (with a more detailed transcript here), although the English version is a truncated, partially censored version of the original Hebrew report (with the fuller Hebrew transcript here), leaving out many of the more sensational details. As Ran Ha’cohen points out this is by design, as Ha’retz sees itself in the forfront of Israel’s propaganda war. But Ha’aretz’ efforts to put on the best face for Israel, pales in comparison to the Times.
So let’s take a closer look at the propaganda. First, Ehud pipes in:
Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio that he believed such incidents to be exceptions, adding, “The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world, and I know what I’m talking about because I know what took place in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq.”
Of course, Ehud knows what he is talking about, so we just have to believe him, and the facts be damned. He obviously knew what he was talking about when he promised to lead Labor in the opposition after its stunning electoral defeat. [For more on Ehud's upright character, read this article by Yoel Marcus. The money quote:
If Barak joins Bibi's government as defense minister, in the process splitting or rupturing Labor, he will become a professional minister, an under-minister or a senior Bibi official, not to say a mercenary. Since his unsuccessful term as prime minister, I have not heard as many denunciations of his conduct as right now. Usually, says the Laborite, Barak thinks he's God's gift to the human race. When he's having a modesty attack he sees himself as Ben-Gurion.]
Israel is most definitely not the least moral army in the world. I can understand why many Israelis find it annoying when the failings of its army are pointed out when many armies around the world act in a far more egregiously cruel fashion in dealing with civilians. But it is precisely such ridiculous statements as Barak’s, that set Israel up for criticism. If you make claim to such a high standard, then live up to it! Although war crimes were committed from even before the founding of the State by Israeli nationalists (who the British labeled as “terrorists”), starting with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, accelerating with the Lebanon War and the two intifadas, the Israeli army’s standards for dealing with civilians have gotten lower and lower. Israeli soldiers commit war crimes with greater and greater frequency and with the full cognizance and support of the entire command structure. There is a reason why the “War Crimes” category on this blog has one of the largest number of entries, and the tag of the same name is one of the largest in the tag cloud. Moreoever, reading the soldier’s testimony, it is clear that in this war the standards of the army were broadly lowered even further. As Minister of Defense and the man in charge of setting down the rules of combat, Barak, much more than the soldiers, bears full responsibility for the war crimes committed during this war.
Politicians are not always seen as the most credible of spokes people, so the Times quickly brings us the words of a learned professor:
“According to the code, a soldier has to do his utmost to avoid civilian casualties and that involves taking some risk,” said Moshe Halbertal, a Jewish philosophy professor at Hebrew University who, along with three others, rewrote the military ethics code eight years ago. “That is the question we have to struggle with. From the testimonies of these soldiers, it sounds like they didn’t practice this norm.”
I’ve heard about this code many times, mostly in articles in the New York Times. I have racked my brains but I cannot in all honestly recall this code being discussed once with me when I was a soldier. Certainly not in my basic training, even though we did have many training classes (and even a field trip!) with young girls from the army’s education corps. I don’t remember the classes too well, although as far as I can recall they were mostly about various armaments, how to use them, take them apart, put them together and the like. The dangers of these armaments was banged into our heads, and we were told many times never to point a weapon at one of our fellow soldiers. A good part of our education was about our gun, which we were told ad nauseum to treat like a lover (i.e. sleep with it) so that we never lose it or have it get stolen (the consequences of which would mean jail time). We also had some fun first aid classes. But discussions about civilians, nope, nada, certainly none that I remember. This was during the first intifada, so you might think it would be a hot topic, but apparently the army didn’t think it important to discuss with us.
It is true when I got the reserves we would have some discussions about when we would be allowed to shoot at civilians (remember this was during the first Intifada, and I often served in the territories among civilian populations). We would always have a unit meeting at the beginning of reserves where we would be told about the area we were taking control of and given an overview of our main tasks. After an hour or more of interminable lectures, maybe sixty seconds or so were spent on our “shooting” orders, which usually were something along the lines of “shoot for the bottom half of the body first.” Invariably someone would make a comment like “fuck the orders, if I think I am in trouble I’ll shoot whomever and straight for the heart.” Everyone would laugh and murmur agreement of one sort or another. My own experiences then are in sharp contrast to these words from a reservist quoted next in the Times article:
Amir Marmor, a 33-year-old history graduate student in Jerusalem and a military reservist, said in an interview with The New York Times that he was stunned to discover the way civilian casualties were discussed in training discussions before his tank unit entered Gaza in January. “Shoot and don’t worry about the consequences,” was the message from the top commanders, he said. Speaking of a lieutenant colonel who briefed the troops, Mr. Marmor said, “His whole demeanor was extremely gung ho. This is very, very different from my usual experience. I have been doing reserve duty for 12 years, and it was always an issue how to avoid causing civilian injuries. He said in this operation we are not taking any chances. Morality aside, we have to do our job. We will cry about it later.”
I have previously cited my own experience in my first reserve assignment where the lieutenant colonel who led our troops happened to have been a family “friend.” In the officers’ briefing (which is given to the various units’ commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and which I would attend later in my reserves when I became a corporal) this commander said that the best way to maintain “quiet” for the 30 days of our reserve rotation, was to go out and kill a couple of trouble makers the first day we were there. Which is exactly what he proceeded to do. He made no comments about “crying about it later.”
The NY Times article goes on and on, but no need to hammer the point more. Just one last comment. The expression “we shoot and cry” became popular after the ‘67 war, when Israeli most felt justified in their claim to be “the most moral army in the world.” Tiny Israel, surrounded by enemies on all sides, fought bravely but with the highest moral standards. We shot our enemies, but cried that we were forced to kill. I’ll end with a quote from Yesh Gvul – There is a Border, one of the oldest Israeli CO movements:
Yesh Gvul is a small group with limited resources, human and financial. But the unique thrust of its campaign has galvanized the broader peace movement, inspiring it with the moral example set by individuals prepared to suffer for their convictions. Some peace movements confine themselves to verbal protest, balking at refusal and its direct challenge to authority. But Yesh Gvul rejects the “shoot-and-cry” syndrome; its own slogan advocates action: “We don’t shoot, we don’t cry, and we don’t serve in the occupied territories !” – setting the group in the vanguard of the Israeli peace movement.
Tags: Feature, Propaganda, War Crimes
