Israeli soldiers admit to shooting unarmed civilians

dmytryp said:

so, here is something for you (general you, not specific you) to think about.
I represent the right wing thinking of Israeli society. So do many of the bloggers I quote, though some of them are disillusioned lefties (certainly Landes and Lozowick are). On the other side you have BoP, Bravo and the likes, who in reality represent the most benign of the Palestinian pov. Juan Cole, Chomsky, Fisk etc, for all their venom and bullshit towards Israel are really really mild compared to even mainstream of palestinian and arab society in general. We are talking about society that above 50% believ it is ok to target israeli civillians. We are talking about societies where Holocaust denial in its different incarnations is abundant. We are talking about societies where Protocols of the Elders of Zion are accepted in the mainstream as either the truth or at least rperesentative of reality. We are talking about societies where every blood libel ever conjured about Jews in Europe or in the world spreads like wildfire.

Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

Given Israeli treatment of them, it's not a surprise Palestinians hold views like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying support polls for Hamas are justified, but they are understandable. I'm also not saying the dialectic you help provide is not important. But too often these debates basically come down to "who started it?" and "who is keeping it going?" when the question that should be asked is "how do we end it peacefully?"

It reminds me of a part in a book, I think it was Finnegans Wake. There's this conflict between "The Offenders" and "The Defenders" that goes on so long, they forget which side is which, and they're known by simply one name, "The Fenders." This sandbox shit really needs to stop.

Jerry Cornelius said:

Given Israeli treatment of them, it's not a surprise Palestinians hold views like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying support polls for Hamas are justified, but they are understandable. I'm also not saying the dialectic you help provide is not important. But too often these debates basically come down to "who started it?" and "who is keeping it going?" when the question that should be asked is "how do we end it peacefully?"

It reminds me of a part in a book, I think it was Finnegans Wake. There's this conflict between "The Offenders" and "The Defenders" that goes on so long, they forget which side is which, and they're known by simply one name, "The Fenders." This sandbox shit really needs to stop.

Click to expand...

Isn't the question "how to end this peacefully?" intimately connected to the question "who is keeping it going?".
I am not exactly clear as to what you meant by the bolded part.
I also disagree with the basic premise of your first paragraph, because it is not supported by historical facts or by comparisons to other places in the ME and the world. I stated repeatedly, that this has much more to do, imo, with the culture of demonisation and other cutural aspects of the arab world.

Further updates vis-a-vis the original story and the reprints in the world media
http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2009/03/22/when_page_a6_says_something.html

dmytryp said:

The point was that there ar few people more hawkish than me.


????
I posted a youtube interview with Richard Kemo and an op-ed from israeli biggest newspaper and that'd what you reply?


I think I stated my opinion in case this is true more than one time here. Anad again, did you draw from Abu Gralib that this is standard US military protocol? Why would you do the same for a draft army that represents our society from the extreme left to the extreme right?


Please, do tell, what you mean by that.

You are kidding, right? "The israeli propaganda machine" is the one who broke this story. Everything you've read in western papers is retelling from Haaretz and YNET. As I mentioned in the first post in this thread, we are our own worst critics. You don't believe me, go to Haaretz website and read Gideon Levi. The guy is off the rocker. So much so, that even such and ardent peacenick like A.B.Yehoshua rebuked him during the op (I posted the letter in the original Gaza thread. Read it. Very insightful.).


Gee, what a surprise. I came up with a similar conclusion abour you.


Actually, I carry on about history only when people try to twist it. I am pretty much concerned with present day, and I stated so many, many times.


Let me ask you a question. You went here on a diatribe against Israeli military etc. I'll ask you -- for what purpose? Your whole line of thinking doesn't pass the logic test, because there is no purpose for this as far as Israel is concerned.
Here is a great post from Lozowick on exactly this subject. Yes, this is a blog. You can disregard it, but the guy is a historian and a very smart man.
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2009/01/colonialism-what-for.html


I'll ask you another question. Let's say we agree and Israel does everything you suggest. What happens if we are wrong and Palestinians don't turn suddenly into a peace loving nation after Israel withdraws? What then? What happens if instead of peace we get rockets on our population centers? What is your exit strategy then?

Click to expand...

Let me start here:

Dm, you saw the recent spike in Palestinian deaths. I'm saying something's up with the Israeli military. Now, maybe it's a select few, but I think as with most problems that go unchecked, it's more pervasive than you'd like to think. For example, I witnessed a canister shot for what appeared to be no reason - I didn't see any crowds massing, no rock throwing, just a few people ambling up a path - that resulted in an unarmed American being severely injured. For militant Zionists, it was all Anderson's fault. He put himself in harm's way. After seeing the film clip, I find that argument not only irrational, but well, ugly, especially when it comes out of the mouths of Americans. But thankfully, there are fewer people thinking that way these days.

Regarding your "Israeli propaganda machine," yes of course it was the Israeli media that broke the story. I told you, I believe there are plenty of Israelis that would enjoy peace, see the situation from a world view, and report as honestly as the facts allow. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a very militant faction in power in the country that attempts to manipulate or squelch any unfavorable reporting. The Bush administration did the same thing, cherrypicked facts and manipulated emotion to justify an unjustifiable war.

Regarding your delving into the history of the region: it's quite interesting at times. I'm not refuting you, other than I got the impression that you'd argue it more or less to establish Israel's right to be there. So you know, I'm past that. She's there; that's a good enough reason for me that she exist. All the rest of it is water over the dam.

There's plenty of reason for the Israeli military to keep Palestinians in a constant state of anxiety. It's a psychological weapon called demoralization. And I already told you, I don't think that's the agenda for all Israelis, but is a perfectly acceptable tactic for expansionists, particularly if it swells the ranks of Hamas, which it does. There are certain militant Israelis that want war. It's that simple. But justifying it is another matter. If it's all out aggression, there goes international support, and the US would be hard pressed to keep coughing up billions every year to an Israeli war machine perceived as ruthless.

Lastly, you asked me what would happen if a deal was brokered so to speak; I assume Israel would return to her legally recognized borders and the Palestinians given autonomy and remuneration for what they have lost. Barring an occasional psycho - which can happen anywhere - I think Israel would enjoy infinitely better security and ultimately peace. But if it is clear that after all that has been devoted to a recognition and rebuilding of Palestine and Palestinians are paid for what they have lost, that violence toward Israel is a popular policy, then all bets are off. Israel would have my support in defending herself as need be.

Bird of Prey said:

Let me start here:

Dm, you saw the recent spike in Palestinian deaths.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, your link didn't work. But I am aware of the statistics. they don't differentiate well enough (if at all) between militants and civillians. They don't take into account escalations from the other side as well.

Bird of Prey said:

I'm saying something's up with the Israeli military. Now, maybe it's a select few, but I think as with most problems that go unchecked, it's more pervasive than you'd like to think. For example,

Click to expand...

And I am saying that statistics of casualties alone are not enough to make such a statement. Not by a long shot.

Bird of Prey said:

I witnessed a canister shot for what appeared to be no reason - I didn't see any crowds massing, no rock throwing, just a few people ambling up a path - that resulted in an unarmed American being severely injured.

Click to expand...

I posted a lonk in this thread, look for it. there were people throwing rocks with slingshots at the soldiers on the same occasions (as it happens every Friday). And again, you are not a military expert to make such an assesment as you did. Let me clue you in -- to shoot a head-sized target from an M-16 from 200 feet is not very easy when you're lying down and calm. To do it from a hip while you are moving is probably possible, but extremely difficult. To do it with the weapon used here -- which is very impercise, is damn nigh impossible. This isn't some movie where James bond shoots someone with a hand gun from a hundred feet.

Bird of Prey said:

For militant Zionists, it was all Anderson's fault. He put himself in harm's way. After seeing the film clip, I find that argument not only irrational, but well, ugly, especially when it comes out of the mouths of Americans. But thankfully, there are fewer people thinking that way these days.

Click to expand...

You mean those same people who said they hope he gets well? Or from those people who rushed him to an israeli hospital?

Bird of Prey said:

Regarding your "Israeli propaganda machine," yes of course it was the Israeli media that broke the story. I told you, I believe there are plenty of Israelis that would enjoy peace, see the situation from a world view, and report as honestly as the facts allow. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a very militant faction in power in the country that attempts to manipulate or squelch any unfavorable reporting. The Bush administration did the same thing, cherrypicked facts and manipulated emotion to justify an unjustifiable war.

Click to expand...

Bull and you know it. No israeli supporter ever tried to revent anybody from criticising Israel. On the other hand, the opposite did happen, more than once. Israelis and the israeli gov are just as entitled to present their case as those who criticise them.

Bird of Prey said:

Regarding your delving into the history of the region: it's quite interesting at times. I'm not refuting you, other than I got the impression that you'd argue it more or less to establish Israel's right to be there. So you know, I'm past that. She's there; that's a good enough reason for me that she exist. All the rest of it is water over the dam.

Click to expand...

I share this view, but I won't let people distort history in order to delegitimise Israeli existence.

Bird of Prey said:

There's plenty of reason for the Israeli military to keep Palestinians in a constant state of anxiety. It's a psychological weapon called demoralization. And I already told you, I don't think that's the agenda for all Israelis, but is a perfectly acceptable tactic for expansionists, particularly if it swells the ranks of Hamas, which it does. There are certain militant Israelis that want war. It's that simple. But justifying it is another matter. If it's all out aggression, there goes international support, and the US would be hard pressed to keep coughing up billions every year to an Israeli war machine perceived as ruthless.

Click to expand...

You are not answering the question. What is the purpose for Israeli "expansionism"/"colonialism"/whatever? Why do we even need to demoralize the Palestinians?
You obviously haven't read the link I gave you (so I'll give it again). It recounts the reasons for colonialism throughout the history and how they apply (or don't) to the israeli situation.

Bird of Prey said:

Lastly, you asked me what would happen if a deal was brokered so to speak; I assume Israel would return to her legally recognized borders and the Palestinians given autonomy and remuneration for what they have lost. Barring an occasional psycho - which can happen anywhere - I think Israel would enjoy infinitely better security and ultimately peace. But if it is clear that after all that has been devoted to a recognition and rebuilding of Palestine and Palestinians are paid for what they have lost, that violence toward Israel is a popular policy, then all bets are off. Israel would have my support in defending herself as need be.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask you what you think would happen. I asked you what if you were wrong? What if I am right about the underlying problems and you are wrong? What if Israel did everything you suggested and this wouldn't ahve brought peace? What is your exit strategy for Israel in this case?

You try to answer this in your last sentence, and yet here we are, after Israel made the first trust building steps by withdrawing from Gaza (and we were told exactly what you say), and yet it didn't bring peace and reciprocity, but exacebrated an already difficult situation. do you have any demands from the Palestinian side, or is Israel is the only one who should give?

dmytryp said:

Actually, no, your link didn't work. But I am aware of the statistics. they don't differentiate well enough (if at all) between militants and civillians. They don't take into account escalations from the other side as well.


And I am saying that statistics of casualties alone are not enough to make such a statement. Not by a long shot.


I posted a lonk in this thread, look for it. there were people throwing rocks with slingshots at the soldiers on the same occasions (as it happens every Friday). And again, you are not a military expert to make such an assesment as you did. Let me clue you in -- to shoot a head-sized target from an M-16 from 200 feet is not very easy when you're lying down and calm. To do it from a hip while you are moving is probably possible, but extremely difficult. To do it with the weapon used here -- which is very impercise, is damn nigh impossible. This isn't some movie where James bond shoots someone with a hand gun from a hundred feet.


You mean those same people who said they hope he gets well? Or from those people who rushed him to an israeli hospital?


Bull and you know it. No israeli supporter ever tried to revent anybody from criticising Israel. On the other hand, the opposite did happen, more than once. Israelis and the israeli gov are just as entitled to present their case as those who criticise them.


I share this view, but I won't let people distort history in order to delegitimise Israeli existence.


You are not answering the question. What is the purpose for Israeli "expansionism"/"colonialism"/whatever? Why do we even need to demoralize the Palestinians?
You obviously haven't read the link I gave you (so I'll give it again). It recounts the reasons for colonialism throughout the history and how they apply (or don't) to the israeli situation.


I didn't ask you what you think would happen. I asked you what if you were wrong? What if I am right about the underlying problems and you are wrong? What if Israel did everything you suggested and this wouldn't ahve brought peace? What is your exit strategy for Israel in this case?

You try to answer this in your last sentence, and yet here we are, after Israel made the first trust building steps by withdrawing from Gaza (and we were told exactly what you say), and yet it didn't bring peace and reciprocity, but exacebrated an already difficult situation. do you have any demands from the Palestinian side, or is Israel is the only one who should give?

Click to expand...

Methinks you're being deliberately obtuse. It's very obvious that the demand from the Palestinian side is peace, and arrest and prosecution of people that would harm Israelis. If you want everybody in Palestine to cease all resentment overnight, that's impossible and any smart person knows it, which is another manipulative tactic of a militant Israel: to expect the impossible.

But the argument now is circular. If Israel continues to oppress, Hamas continues to swell in ranks. Re. the stupid signes: the Israeli versus Jew identification is deliberately muddled by militant Palestinians, but then I see people do that on the militant Israeli side all the time. That's just convenient blather.

Hatred takes a generation or two to subside, so I have no doubt that peace in the region would be a rocky road, but it starts with deeds, not rhetoric. And that's on both sides. And it also starts by not trying to control everything that comes out of people's mouths. People will stop teaching kids to hate Israel when dignity is restored and they have something at stake, like a future.

And I have something to say regarding Tristan Anderson. When Daniel Pearlman was brutally killed, no sane or decent person rationalized it by saying he had put himself in harm's way so what a shame but oh well. Perhaps he DID put himself in harm's way. That doesn't at all justify what happened to him. Likewise, Tristan Anderson.

And for the record, Dm, all your the technicalities regarding the accuracy, etc of a canister being shot for no reason doesn't excuse the fact that it was shot for no reason. These people weren't armed. The film doesn't lie, and trying to manufacture some mitigating circumstance is ridiculous.

Bird of Prey said:

Methinks you're being deliberately obtuse. It's very obvious that the demand from the Palestinian side is peace, and arrest and prosecution of people that would harm Israelis. If you want everybody in Palestine to cease all resentment overnight, that's impossible and any smart person knows it, which is another manipulative tactic of a militant Israel: to expect the impossible.

Click to expand...

I don't think resentment will subside overnight, but I do expect from our "peace partners" to make concrete steps for it to happen, not just wait a generation or two.

Bird of Prey said:

But the argument now is circular. If Israel continues to oppress, Hamas continues to swell in ranks. Re. the stupid signes: the Israeli versus Jew identification is deliberately muddled by militant Palestinians, but then I see people do that on the militant Israeli side all the time. That's just convenient blather.

Click to expand...

Its circular only because you make it so. Israel tried to make trust building steps. The other side didn't reciprocate. So, now is the turn of the Palestinians to show they actually want to co-exist in order for the israelis to believe them.
You'll excuse me if I won't agree vis-a-vis jews vs israelis. When Hamas called for every jewish child around the world to be a target, it was jewish not israeli. When people deny the Holocaust, spread The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, claim Jews make matzos out of arab blood or call Jews "children of apes and pigs", it has nothing to do with Israel.

Bird of Prey said:

Hatred takes a generation or two to subside, so I have no doubt that peace in the region would be a rocky road, but it starts with deeds, not rhetoric. And that's on both sides. And it also starts by not trying to control everything that comes out of people's mouths. People will stop teaching kids to hate Israel when dignity is restored and they have something at stake, like a future.

Click to expand...

Give me a break. When a state controlled TV preaches hate, when school books deny the existence of Israel, when imams in mosques teach that shahada is good and good muslims should kills jews, I damn sure want our "peace partners" to put an effort to stop this. They don't do it, because it is convinient.

Bird of Prey said:

And I have something to say regarding Tristan Anderson. When Daniel Pearlman was brutally killed, no sane or decent person rationalized it by saying he had put himself in harm's way so what a shame but oh well. Nevertheless, he DID put himself in harm's way. That doesn't at all justify what happened to him. Likewise, Tristan Anderson.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you bring Daniel Pearl here, where you claim that there is no underlying anti-semitic motives to this conflict. He was killed because he was a jew. So were the Habbad rebby in Mombay.

P.S. And you stil haven't fully answered my question. Untill you have a clear exit strategy in case you're wrong, you have no business to tell israel what to do.

Bird of Prey said:

And for the record, Dm, all your the technicalities regarding the accuracy, etc of a canister being shot for no reason doesn't excuse the fact that it was shot for no reason. These people weren't armed. The film doesn't lie, and trying to manufacture some mitigating circumstance is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

My "techicalities" were to show the absurdity of your claim he was purposefully shot.
As for people being unarmed -- I already told you. Go to the thread, find my link to a hebrew article with a moovie from that day and then talk to me.

Bird of Prey said:

Lastly, you asked me what would happen if a deal was brokered so to speak; I assume Israel would return to her legally recognized borders and the Palestinians given autonomy and remuneration for what they have lost. Barring an occasional psycho - which can happen anywhere - I think Israel would enjoy infinitely better security and ultimately peace. But if it is clear that after all that has been devoted to a recognition and rebuilding of Palestine and Palestinians are paid for what they have lost, that violence toward Israel is a popular policy, then all bets are off. Israel would have my support in defending herself as need be.

Click to expand...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that last line. In any case, I think if a deal were put in place, you'll see very quickly that Hamas won't let up. They,. like the factions of Israeli militants, don't want peace (since, as always, you neglected to mention that Hamas side of things, conveniently, I figured I'd do it for you. Guess you just forgot during your "non-biased speech")

Next time there is a Hamas rally televised, pay close attention. Look how many Palestinian flags are being waved. Then look how many green Hamas flags there are. Hamas has huge numbers. They're not fighting for Palestine, they're fighting for Hamas. Hamas must be erradicated. The only way for this to happen is internally from the Palestinians, which COULD happen if Israel gives Palestinians a state as you said. BUT, it will also mean that the rest of the world will have to stop being one-sided and finally grow a pair and stand up to Hamas instead of justifying every damn thing they do. The UN will have to finally condemn them, as will most other governments that have cowered in fear at that idea for fear of enraging their Muslim populations (mainly in Europe).

dmytryp said:

I don't think resentment will subside overnight, but I do expect from our "peace partners" to make concrete steps for it to happen, not just wait a generation or two.


Its circular only because you make it so. Israel tried to make trust building steps. The other side didn't reciprocate. So, now is the turn of the Palestinians to show they actually want to co-exist in order for the israelis to believe them.
You'll excuse me if I won't agree vis-a-vis jews vs israelis. When Hamas called for every jewish child around the world to be a target, it was jewish not israeli. When people deny the Holocaust, spread The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, claim Jews make matzos out of arab blood or call Jews "children of apes and pigs", it has nothing to do with Israel.


Give me a break. When a state controlled TV preaches hate, when school books deny the existence of Israel, when imams in mosques teach that shahada is good and good muslims should kills jews, I damn sure want our "peace partners" to put an effort to stop this. They don't do it, because it is convinient.


It is interesting that you bring Daniel Pearl here, where you claim that there is no underlying anti-semitic motives to this conflict. He was killed because he was a jew. So were the Habbad rebby in Mombay.

P.S. And you stil haven't fully answered my question. Untill you have a clear exit strategy in case you're wrong, you have no business to tell israel what to do.

Click to expand...

What on earth do you mean: exit strategy?? If Israel is not occupying, there is no "exit strategy." There's simply a present day question of withdrawing, giving it a certain amount of time to let things settle down while giving the Palestinians a stake in their nation and the world at large with aid and remuneration. I already told you, given a stake, it's very unlikely that the majority of Palestinians will put with a homegrown threat to their own well-being for long.

Exit strategy?? You mean if Israel cannot achieve peace?? Please be specific.

Bird of Prey said:

What on earth do you mean: exit strategy?? If Israel is not occupying, there is no "exit strategy." There's simply a present day question of withdrawing, giving it a certain amount of time to let things settle down while giving the Palestinians a stake in their nation and the world at large with aid and remuneration. I already told you, given a stake, it's very unlikely that the majority of Palestinians will put with a homegrown threat to their own well-being for long.

Exit strategy?? You mean if Israel cannot achieve peace?? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

Exit strategy -- what should israel do if it does everything you suggest and it is not reciprocated by the other side, but met with violence. How long should israel just sit and take it?

dmytryp said:

Exit strategy -- what should israel do if it does everything you suggest and it is not reciprocated by the other side, but met with violence. How long should israel just sit and take it?

Click to expand...

No. That's simple enough. I answered that question. I said all bets are off, meaning that Israel has a right to defend herself.

dmytryp said:

I don't think resentment will subside overnight, but I do expect from our "peace partners" to make concrete steps for it to happen, not just wait a generation or two.


Its circular only because you make it so. Israel tried to make trust building steps. The other side didn't reciprocate. So, now is the turn of the Palestinians to show they actually want to co-exist in order for the israelis to believe them.
It is interesting that you bring Daniel Pearl here, where you claim that there is no underlying anti-semitic motives to this conflict. He was killed because he was a jew. So were the Habbad rebby in Mombay.

P.S. And you stil haven't fully answered my question. Untill you have a clear exit strategy in case you're wrong, you have no business to tell israel what to do.

Click to expand...

I want to make a point here, and then I'll have to leave. I'll be back later.

Daniel Pearl - sorry about his name - was killed - first and foremost - as an American journalist. The reason for his execution as some hideous demonstration of religious hatred is STILL secondary to the fact that first and foremost, he was an American journalist. American. I am an American, so that's a good enough reason for me to be outraged. That's why all these caveats about Anderson really annoy me.

Bird of Prey said:

No. That's simple enough. I answered that question. I said all bets are off, meaning that Israel has a right to defend herself.

Click to expand...

Then why isn't it true for Gaza?

Bird of Prey said:

I want to make a point here, and then I'll have to leave. I'll be back later.

Daniel Pearl - sorry about his name - was killed - first and foremost - as an American journalist. The reason for his execution as some hideous demonstration of religious hatred is STILL secondary to the fact that first and foremost, he was an American journalist. American. I am an American, so that's a good enough reason for me to be outraged. That's why all these caveats about Anderson really annoy me.

Click to expand...

You get the award of moral equivalence of the day. You compare a protestor (in violent protests) accidentally hurt by a crowd dispersing weaponry to the deliberately kidnapped and beheaded journalist.

Back to the op.
Here is a detailed piece from Lozowick. Since all the western media reports are retelling from israeli newspapers, they miss a lot of background. So, i think it is very interesting and insightful. I certainly didn't know all that he talks about here.
It is a follow up. His original post on the subject was the following

War Crimes in Gaza?


As anyone who knows me will tell, I'm not one to shy away from allegations of Israeli wrong-doing. When we do things wrong we need to recognize, understand, own up, learn for the future and move on. This in one of the most important ways to ensure our overall morality at war, since we're going to be at war for a long time yet.

Haaretz has just launched a series (so they say) of articles in which soldiers who fought in Gaza tell of wrongdoings. I'm linking to the first article here, and may link to the next. As war crimes go, these stories published so far are not particularly horrendous; they tell of lax orders and lack of care, not of an intention to kill civilians, but let's see what the next installments tell. I expect Haaretz will publish the whammies in their weekend (=Friday) edition.

Click to expand...

dmytryp said:

You get the award of moral equivalence of the day. You compare a protestor (in violent protests) accidentally hurt by a crowd dispersing weaponry to the deliberately kidnapped and beheaded journalist.

Click to expand...

And you are deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting my point.

dmytryp said:

Back to the op.
Here is a detailed piece from Lozowick. Since all the western media reports are retelling from israeli newspapers, they miss a lot of background. So, i think it is very interesting and insightful. I certainly didn't know all that he talks about here.
It is a follow up. His original post on the subject was the following

Click to expand...

That's quite some convoluted story from Lozowick. Wow. That's your context, I guess. Come on, Dm.

Bird of Prey said:

That's quite some convoluted story from Lozowick. Wow. That's your context, I guess. Come on, Dm.

Click to expand...

In what way it is convoluted?

dmytryp said:

In what way it is convoluted?

Click to expand...

Well, for reasons I can't explain, my computer lets me back into the site but won't let me reopen the article. There's no pop up blocker on so I don't get it. But besides that, Dm, he's a blogger. There are all kinds of great people blogging but they can say pretty much anything with impunity, where as a news organization has to stand - theoretically - behind its story or risk suit or readership.

Here. Here's the New York Times version:

JERUSALEM — The publication late last week of eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers alleging acute mistreatment of Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society.

A soldier, identified by the pseudonym Ram, is quoted as saying that in Gaza, “the rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles and their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war.”

Dany Zamir, the director of the one-year premilitary course who solicited the testimonies and then leaked them, leading to a promise by the military to investigate, is quoted in the transcripts as expressing anguish over the growing religious nationalist elements of the military.

“If clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren’t representative of the whole spectrum of the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population, what can we expect?” he said. “To whom do we complain?”

For the first four decades of Israel’s existence, the army — like many of the country’s institutions — was dominated by kibbutz members who saw themselves as secular, Western and educated. In the past decade or two, religious nationalists, including many from the settler movement in the West Bank, have moved into more and more positions of military responsibility. (In Israeli society, they are a growing force, distinct from, and more modern than, the black-garbed ultra-Orthodox, who are excused from military service.) . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Bird of Prey said:

Well, for reasons I can't explain, my computer lets me back into the site but won't let me reopen the article. There's no pop up blocker on so I don't get it. But besides that, Dm, he's a blogger. There are all kinds of great people blogging but they can say pretty much anything with impunity, where as a news organization has to stand - theoretically - behind its story or risk suit or readership.

Click to expand...

EDIT: you can actually make this claim with a straight face? After so many times the media was caught in a lie (or at least inaccurate reporting)? We can make a really long thread out only of the inaccuracies and bull shit peddled by the media in the Gaza op alone.

Bird of Prey said:

Here. Here's the New York Times version:

JERUSALEM — The publication late last week of eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers alleging acute mistreatment of Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society.

A soldier, identified by the pseudonym Ram, is quoted as saying that in Gaza, “the rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles and their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war.”

Dany Zamir, the director of the one-year premilitary course who solicited the testimonies and then leaked them, leading to a promise by the military to investigate, is quoted in the transcripts as expressing anguish over the growing religious nationalist elements of the military.

“If clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren’t representative of the whole spectrum of the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population, what can we expect?” he said. “To whom do we complain?”

For the first four decades of Israel’s existence, the army — like many of the country’s institutions — was dominated by kibbutz members who saw themselves as secular, Western and educated. In the past decade or two, religious nationalists, including many from the settler movement in the West Bank, have moved into more and more positions of military responsibility. (In Israeli society, they are a growing force, distinct from, and more modern than, the black-garbed ultra-Orthodox, who are excused from military service.) . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Click to expand...

NYT is retelling from Haaretz (well, from the Englis version of it). Do read the links I gave in tis thread. Post 28 deals with this exact op-ed

dmytryp said:

EDIT: you can actually make this claim with a straight face? After so many times the media was caught in a lie (or at least inaccurate reporting)? We can make a really long thread out only of the inaccuracies and bull shit peddled by the media in the Gaza op alone.

Click to expand...

Dm, blogging is worse, and you know it. You're right, we could address a very long thread on the undeserved influence of blogging, too, but credible news organizations like the Times - despite bias - have to at least base information on something and get confirmation. When they don't - as in the Rather incident - heads roll.

Bird of Prey said:

Dm, blogging is worse, and you know it. You're right, we could address a very long thread on the undeserved influence of blogging, too, but credible news organizations like the Times - despite bias - have to at least base information on something and get confirmation. When they don't - as in the Rather incident - heads roll.

Click to expand...

Really? The Times simply retold Haaretz story. It hadn't checked squat.
But you want an example? Did NYT report about Israel shelling the UN school? Did it check the story? Did someone's head roll after UN retracted the accusations?
Did Reuters check the pictures of its photographer during '06 war in Lebanon before a blogger -- LGF caught him in the lie? You know what, give me one example of anybody being fired from any news organisation in the world for misreporting on the arab/israeli conflict (I can give you plenty of examples of such misreporting).

EDIT: and vis-a-vis blogging. It depends who is blogging, and whether anybody ever caught such a blogger on innacuracies.