We're not trashing the IDF for fun, we're saving her soul
Let’s take a step back: neither I nor Breaking the Silence are in a battle to tarnish the IDF wantonly. It may feel that way. But I’m not. Because I’ve worked so closely with the Breaking the Silence staff, their patriotism is irrefutable for me, and I’d stand with them against any naysayer. I realize not everyone has that benefit.
The reasons you, distant reader, should be concerned with anonymous, unattributed whistleblowers from inside the IDF is because purity of arms is the only value that makes an army civilized. Anything else, even in national defense, is just organized killing. The alleged deterioration of the IDF’s principles should be worrying to all for many reasons:
Israel’s conduct in conflict powerfully sets the tone of Israeli-Arab relations. It can make not only Palestinians unwilling to negotiate with Israel, but unite the other Arab states behind even the most appalling of Hamas’ activities.
Understanding the substance and truth behind misconduct claims not only allows us to bridge to Palestinians’ grievances, but limits the disconnect of Jews themselves believing two hugely disparate versions of history. Polls and media indicate Israelis are mostly convinced that zero abuses happened, not that such abuses were unavoidable. Breaking the Silence has helped rectify the gap.
Human rights abuses are a call to reform the system, both at the foreign policy level and the military’s field strategy. Operation Cast Lead was a failure for Israel’s strategic concerns in the region, achieving little deterance at great cost. High civilian casualities may not have been intended for such a short-term excursion (albeit unsurprising to some of us) means this approach cannot be repeated.
A failure by the IDF to fully account and be transparent will encourage an attitude of permissibility. Even if no abuses occurred this time, a swift and thorough investigation reinforces the awareness that such conduct is STILL unacceptable. It proves that rhetoric is actually belief. The IDF’s record-quick and closed-doored investigation is a disservice to that end.
The occupation has a corrosive effect on societal attitudes towards the sanctity of life. That the military killed less civilians “compared to other armies” corodes the very value of life. Military action itself is a last resort only and that hundreds of civilians died to accomplish a stalemate is itself an affront to the purity of arms, a waste of it. Its meaning is slowly creeping towards a legal definition with little spirit.
The IDF is not a magical, impervious force for good; it not only can do wrong, but it has. Facing its limitations and shortcomings forces us to recognize that it cannot solve our problems. The conflict itself cannot be solved militarily, and only a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of trustbuilding can accomplish an ending, be it a warm friendship or a cold peace.
Allowing this deep level of intransparency permits other countries to do the same. Every country engaging in military actions should be forced to prove to the world their concern for civilians. Particularly in an age of urban terrorism where these incidents will (God forbid) become more common, telling the truthful from the liars is exceedingly important. Villains the world over will eagerly use these same reasons to bomb and demolish civilian centers. Proof must be laid before the world court.
To raise these red flags, it is necessary to put this uncomfortable information in your face — in the world’s face — in order to force everyday Jews to consider it seriously. Prophets are hardly welcome in their own homes, and Jews will avoid this information at all costs. Particularly when they lose face to the world as a result.
So for those of you who read or watched the testimonies, thank you. It takes a deep breath and resilient heart to do so. Thanks. For those who haven’t but are participating in the conversation, please do. It will make a world of difference in what we’re talking about: not saving someone’s credibility but saving a country’s soul.
Operation Cast Lead was a failure for Israel’s strategic concerns in the region, achieving little deterance at great cost.
Little deterance?
The conflict itself cannot be solved militarily,
Isn’t it more accurate to say the conflict cannot be solved militarily, within the parameters that Israel has set for itself . . . history books are overflowing with examples of conflicts that were solved militarily. From a purely military perspective, how could this conflict not be solved?
Prophets are hardly welcome in their own homes, and Jews will avoid this information at all costs
KFJ, I’m reading the comments on your previous blog, and who is avoiding what these men say? Are you calling yourself a prophet?
Jonathan, not that I don’t have things to say about your three points, but I’d rather reply to something critiquing the major substance of the post instead.
Fair enough.
I’m sorry to hear that you’re getting flack for spreading the word about the Breaking the Silence reports. It’s painful to acknowledge that the country we love has behaved wrongly, but from where I sit, my love of Israel is exactly what obligates me to refrain from keeping silent.
The major substance indicated by the title was, Kung Fu: “We’re not trashing the IDF for fun, we’re saving her soul” The reaction to the title by Rachel: “I’m sorry to hear that you’re getting flack for spreading the word about the Breaking the Silence reports.”
who said you where doing this for fun? who was giving you flack for speaking about it?
Both of these statements stage the discussion in such an unreasonable way. Now commenters who disagreed with your interpretation of the substance within the testimonials, and the reality of the situation will have to waste their time defending themselves against suposedly giving you flack for speaking about something, and accusing you of trashing the IDF for fun. NOBODY said that.
I had the radio (WNYC) on the other day, and Breaking the Silence was totally taking a ton of flack. They had someone from BtS, and someone from the Israeli Government (I think–I wasn’t paying full attention, the radio was on while I was doing other things) just *slamming* the BtS fellow for both the substance of the testimonies as well as protecting the anonymity of the participants. It was brutal, as well as surprising, that the critic seemed so unable to admit that the stories were real.
“purity of arms”
Did you perhaps mean “purity of aims“? Because otherwise I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean.
Joey:
“Purity of Arms” (Morality in Warfare) – The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.
— IDF guidebook
I think it’s very important we have people from within the IDF attempting to hold the Israeli forces to their core values and humanitarian intent…I’m just wondering where the equivalent Palestinian voices are….
Oh wait, we aren’t actually fighting an army which holds to the Geneva conventions or any other organized laws of combat, so they don’t need a moral compass. It is left to Israel to somehow quell the terrorists with limited civilian casualties and completely moral actions so that we can “save face” and protect our citizens.
I’m by no means saying the IDF should have completely open reign or that soldiers shouldn’t speak about what they saw go wrong…I’m just lamenting what seems to me horribly unjust…that there’s no accountability stepping forward from our “opponents”.
we’re saving her soul
Wow, soulsaving in action! This must be how right wing evangelicals feel.
It may feel that way.
Who is talking about feelings? You’re not saving anyone’s soul, you are campaigning to delegitimize the ability of Jews to wage defensive war. You seem not to believe in the legitimacy of war, no matter the cause, no matter the price – certainly not in Jewish hands. You wave the mantle of Jewish moral standing to implore our accepting the wanton murder of our people.
I encourage everyone reading this to actually go to the BtS post in question and read the comments. I and others have welcomed the testimonies by these soldiers as epitomizing “purity of arms”. Watch the videos yourself.
Prophets are hardly welcome in their own homes
Maybe Jonathan will give this up, but who are you to be speaking of prophets? Imagine if the right was speaking of “prophets” and “saving souls”. I’d like an answer for why you’ve adopted evangelical rhetoric in what is supposed to be a reasoned discussion.
I wish you were just “trashing the IDF for fun”. I don’t think you’re just having fun – I wish you were – I think you’re deadly serious. Despite the banner you wave, I think your contribution, I won’t speak for your intent, is to weaken the morale of Jews to defend our nation and our people. This is not Jewish morality.
Finally, there is ALWAYS a military solution. Sri Lanka recently demonstrated this by militarily ending a 40 year old war with the Tamil Tigers – they killed 60,000 civilians in 6 months, without any apologies, and they got it done. Now their people, and their nation, can move on in peace.
Meanwhile, we languish in an amoral morass of self-inflicted flagellation, with no end in sight, if anything our enemies growing bolder.
You – the plural “you” – are not having fun.
You’re serious. And those of us who disagree must speak up now.
Finally, there is ALWAYS a military solution. Sri Lanka recently demonstrated this by militarily ending a 40 year old war with the Tamil Tigers – they killed 60,000 civilians in 6 months, without any apologies, and they got it done. Now their people, and their nation, can move on in peace.
Wow. I mean, wow. You think 60,000 dead is peace?
Now commenters who disagreed with your interpretation of the substance within the testimonials, and the reality of the situation will have to waste their time defending themselves against suposedly giving you flack for speaking about something, and accusing you of trashing the IDF for fun
I too never understood why he does that stuff. But, at least he cares.
PurpleMan, if the solution was to slaughter all the Jews (a veritable minority in the mideast), would that be acceptable to you, too?
“Delegitimize the ability of Jews to wage defensive war.”
I love that phrase. Because it asserts that defensive war includes the kinds of human rights violations and atrocities that BtS is talking about. Policies preventing them would also prevent effective conduct of military operations.
Hmm. If that’s true, then either defensive, moral war is an oxymoron, or supporters of Israeli militarism are comfortable sacrificing officially endorsed values for a set of values that are dominant, but not ‘officially’ endorsed.
What would those values be? Why aren’t they the official ones?
Just saw this on YNET –
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3750232,00.html
Through Yaacov Lozowick:
The following is from an Economist article about the British deployment in Afghanistan:
The American overall commander, General Stanley McChrystal, has urged his troops to minimise civilian deaths, even at risk to themselves. It is easier said than done, as Major Giles Harris, a company commander, explained. “When we meet the bad guys, we win,” he said. But protecting civilians was “a continual challenge”. “It is the discipline required not to take the gloves off. You are asking my guardsman not to empty the magazine of his weapon into the compound wall from which he is being shot at.”
Sounds familiar, eh?
Yaakov continues… (I won’t put it in italics, but this is him writing…)
Now try to imagine what would happen if an IDF unit was facing similar conditions. This is not a hypothetical question. On January 18th earlier this year I linked to an article that had just appeared in the Economist in which the editors asked themselves if Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. The grudging answer was that maybe, but then again maybe not, it would depend on the specifics. And at the time I added:
Of course you might ask if the Economist regularly poses this question whenever anyone else (the UK included) goes to war, and the answer is probably no.
Actually, the answer, it appears, is a resounding No. The Economist doesn’t dream of talking about its own soldiers, or their American or Nato allies, as they do about Israel. And the Economist, I remind you, isn’t the Guardian.
—————————————
I believe the kids call it pwnd. Pwnd indeed.
I think 60,000 dead is peace with respect to the total population saved. I think the hundreds of thousands of dead in Dresden and Hiroshima is also peace with regards to the population of those saved.
War and death is terrible. The alternative is worse. The only way to make peace with a mortal enemy is by killing them. Failure to ever admitt that is so Chamberlin.
When toward the end of his life Moses tried to stave off death, God said to him: “Did I tell you to slay the Egyptian?” Moses answered: “You slew all the first-born of Egypt.” Then God silenced him by saying: “Can you liken yourself to me? I cause death, but I also revive the dead.”
“Saving souls”, huh? And no doubt bringin’ the Good News to share with all the fallen souls. Rejoice for your Light has come! Hear now the Word–or perish forever as lost sinners…
In the breaks between the soul-saving and redemption exercises, I think a few points bear comment.
>>“Israel’s conduct in conflict powerfully sets the tone of Israeli-Arab relations.”
That is untrue. Arab/Muslim animus against Jewish sovereignty has never been a response to actual Jewish conduct. The dozens and dozens of Arab/Muslim massacres of Jews in the decades prior to Israeli sovereignty, and the dozens and dozens of terrorist and military attacks against Israelis before and after the Six-Day War put the lie to this claim.
To imagine that Jews can control, or have ever controlled, the attitudes of Muslim societies towards them is ahistorical, not to mention fatuous and patronizing.
>>“Understanding the substance and truth behind misconduct claims not only allows us to bridge to Palestinians’ grievances, but limits the disconnect of Jews themselves believing two hugely disparate versions of history.”
Uh OK. I would think that the point of a military conduct investigation would be to get to the truth about military conduct. If the point is to determine the truth, then “bridging grievances” is irrelevant. One is a task for detectives, the other for professors of linguistics and psychology.
>>“Human rights abuses are a call to reform the system, both at the foreign policy level and the military’s field strategy.”
That is a meaningless truism but it probably gets closer to the heart of BtS’s goal: not to conduct a forensic investigation of military performance and conduct but rather to change Israeli foreign policy.
>>”Operation Cast Lead was a failure for Israel’s strategic concerns in the region, achieving little deterance at great cost.”
On what grounds do you conclude this? The sharp reduction in the number of missile attacks on Israeli villages and cities near Gaza suggests that deterrence has substantially increased.
Because Israel left the Hamas leadership and infrastructure intact those security gains are likely to erode within the medium-term as Hamas recruits, rearms and retrains. Hamas’s tactics will evolve.
In that respect it is true that Israeli gains from OCL are impermanent. But that is a result of the Israeli political echelon choosing to use limited force and avoid changing Gaza’s status quo. If you want to argue that as long as the IDF was being sent into Gaza it should have been utilized with full force to effect a regime change and strategic shift, well that’s a good issue to argue out.
>>”Even if no abuses occurred this time, a swift and thorough investigation reinforces the awareness that such conduct is STILL unacceptable.”
The IDF and Israeli investigators did conduct a “swift and thorough” investigation. You are just angry with the findings: no serious violation of rules of war, no violations of the operaional goals laid down by the political echelon, no breaches of the Geneva Conventions, no violation of international/Western protocols of urban and counterinsurgency combat.
You wanted different results. Curiously, for all its hot rhetoric, BtS provided no usable information for the investigators. But if you read below I think you’ll agree that’s not an accident…
>>“That the military killed less civilians “compared to other armies” corodes the very value of life.”
Huh? What does that mean? How else is a military supposed to measure its performance in context? By the number of cucumber patches that got run over?
What you’re really saying is that nobody should ever get killed by a soldier, warfare shouldn’t happen and militaries shouldn’t exist.
>>“The conflict itself cannot be solved militarily, and only a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of trustbuilding can accomplish an ending, be it a warm friendship or a cold peace.”
Ah yes, and here’s the real issue. You hate the idea that a Jewish country would actually have a military, which uses actual guns and fires actual bullets at living breathing human beings, to defend itself against those human beings.
That’s the issue that also drives BtS and it is one that has nothing to do with the realities of an investigation into soldier conduct. And that is exactly why BtS publishes the type of reports that it does: they produce just enough material or innuendo to ensure that the IDF and Israeli military activity in general can look bad; but never provide enough information to enable the IDF or Israeli prosecutors to investigate claims of wrongdoing and put a stop to it.
That’s because BtS’s goal isn’t the protection of Palestinian human rights or the enforcement of some Standard X of military conduct in Situation Y.
BtS’s goals are: 1. “ending the occupation” and fomenting Israeli and foreign public and political opinion against Israeli counterterrorism activity and a Jewish presence in Palestinian claimed territory.
2. Ending the IDF’s role as an agent of self-defense and an instrument of Israeli foreign and security policy.
If BtS issued reports that contained the types of identifying details (e.g. names, times, locations, witnesses, officers, unit and battalion numbers, actual offenses, description of victims, etc.) that investigators could use to locate an actual offender, the supposed human rights offenses would end and BtS would then lose a powerful PR weapon to wield against the IDF. And it would therefore be shooting itself in the foot.
Intelligently, BtS avoids doing that.
Ending the IDF’s role as an agent of self-defense and an instrument of Israeli foreign and security policy.
Are you not perhaps conflating BtS’s goals with KFJ’s?
Perhaps… but considering that BtS tries to package even the most universal military conduct into an evil-looking gargoyle, and tries to cast even basic self-defense procedures in the foulest possible light it’s a natural conclusion to draw.
You’re probably right, unfortunately.
Eric and Jonathan, this is what I learned working for Breaking the Silence:
Breaking the Silence’s mission is to bring the unspoken experiences of Israeli soldiers to the public domain, where society can hold the military accountable. As soldiers, they know that no military can regulate itself and yet recognize the public has little knowledge of the trials soldiers’ encounter.
The founders served in the West Bank and Gaza before disengagement, and watched the political process, realizing that human rights abuses were “alleged” and not facts. Whether you believe such abuses are necessary or not, the fact they occur cannot be debated when soldiers come forward to admit them.
The political conversation around Israeli soldier conduct occurs in a fantasyland where one can claim ignorance or disbelief. Breaking the Silence was founded to make the conversation based on reality.
Interestingly enough, they have no stances on the occupation or Gaza. All of them are also combat soldiers. I think questioning their true love of Israel can be measured by their willingness to die for her, which is more than can be said about their critics.
And Jonathan, I’m getting really tired of your insinuations that my agenda is to undermine Israel. You may disagree with my opinions, but if you don’t have something substantial to offer than personal attacks, then get off this blog. Let’s have an intelligent conversation, not empty snarking.
Also, all of the anonymous soldiers agreed to reveal their identies of Israel were to open a civilian inquiry into Gaza.
To date, the IDF has still refused.
I’m getting really tired of your insinuations that my agenda is to undermine Israel. You may disagree with my opinions, but if you don’t have something substantial to offer than personal attacks, then get off this blog.
Really, I don’t mean this as something personal, I thought that was your intention. Duly noted.
Regarding BtS, I certainly don’t doubt their testimony, I simply am not sure what their ultimate goals are. Are they not two separate questions?
All of them are also combat soldiers. I think questioning their true love of Israel can be measured by their willingness to die for her, which is more than can be said about their critics.
Are there not combat soldiers who don’t love Israel?
I’ve been stuck in the States for about a year (unfortunately,) but I was a combat soldier too (unfortunately.) I wouldn’t, but if I were to stand up and make speeches about no abuses in the territories, would my service grant me some type of infallible legitimacy?
Again, KFJ, my apologies; Jewschool would not be the same without your impassioned writings.