by Alex Safian
Less than a month after
The only reason this is notable is because the transcript released by Zamir also included allegations of two specific atrocities, the killing by snipers of an elderly woman, and of a woman and her two children. These allegations have gotten huge coverage around the world, including in the New York Times (see below), the Washington Post, the BBC, the Guardian, and the Financial Times.
While in Israel initial doubts were raised about these claims because they were actually hearsay rather than eyewitness accounts, now the charges have been further debunked. The brigade commander of the unit linked to the supposed killings launched his own investigation, speaking with actual eyewitnesses, all of whom said that the alleged incidents did not took place.
In the discussion that included the atrocity stories, Danny Zamir also declared to the soldiers:
I think it would be important for parents to sit here and hear this discussion. I think it would be an instructive discussion, and also very dismaying and depressing. You are describing an army with very low value norms, that's the truth.
Since, as Ha'aretz put it, Zamir "does not hide his political opinions," it seems likely that his former students at the left-leaning Kibbutz-affiliated school knew what Zamir wanted to hear at the meeting, and that only a self-selected group attended. In any event, some of the attendees certainly did not disappoint Zamir, who had been imprisoned by the IDF in 1990 for refusing to serve in the
Zamir wrote an article about the discussion for the academy's newsletter, which he then provided to the Israeli newspapers Ha'aretz and Maariv, triggering in Ha'aretz alone multiple stories extremely critical of the Israeli army's alleged conduct (here, here, here, here and here), as well as numerous stories in the foreign press, such as the New York Times, which put its initial report on page one above the fold (here and here). Both the Ha'aretz and the New York Times reports ignored detailed testimony by soldiers of exemplary conduct by the IDF, such as soldiers leaving an envelope of cash for the Palestinian homeowner whose house they had occupied.
While the Israeli government has promised a full and even a criminal investigation, serious doubts were quickly raised about some of the charges.
For example, on
I didn't see it myself. There were stories like this. I wasn't in that house and everything I said was only on the basis of hearsay. At the gathering it was a friendly talk, and that's how I related to it.
Daniel raised similar questions about the killing of the old woman by a sniper, and concluded that "The credibility of these two stories is very doubtful."
In the wake of Daniel's broadcast, even Ha'aretz reported that the soldier recounting the tale of a mother and children being killed had been called in by his brigade commander, at which time he admitted he was relying solely on "rumors" within his unit:
By the afternoon, the army could report that the investigation into the testimony regarding the shooting of a mother and two children had reached preliminary conclusions. Givati brigade commander Ilan Malkha summoned the squad leader who recounted the story, who admitted he had relied solely on rumors in the company.
And now there has been an even more definitive debunking, after an investigation by the brigade commander of the units in question. The brigade commander's findings were reported in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, in a story titled IDF Investigation Refutes the Testimonies About Gaza Killings. According to the story:
Two central incidents that came up in the testimony, which Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin pre-military academy presented to Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi, focus on one infantry brigade. The brigade's commander today will present to Brigadier General Eyal Eisenberg, commander of the
Regarding the incident in which it was claimed that a sniper fired at a Palestinian woman and her two daughters, the brigade commander's investigation cites the sniper: "I saw the woman and her daughters and I shot warning shots. The section commander came up to the roof and shouted at me, ?Why did you shoot at them.' I explained that I did not shoot at them, but I fired warning shots."
Officers from the brigade surmise that fighters that stayed in the bottom floor of the Palestinian house thought that he hit them, and from here the rumor that a sniper killed a mother and her two daughters spread.
The other alleged incident, the killing by a sniper of an elderly woman, also seems not to have taken place:
Regarding the second incident, in which it was claimed that soldiers went up to the roof to entertain themselves with firing and killed an elderly Palestinian woman, the brigade commander investigation found that there was no such incident.
It seems the Ha'aretz, the New York Times, and other outlets which reported the charges at face value and gave these stories great play despite a clear lack of evidence, should be composing forthright corrections – preferably to be run on the front page.
Counter Evidence Ignored
Ha'aretz, the New York Times, and most other outlets covering this controversy have also ignored detailed statements by other soldiers of the strict rules of engagement that they followed, and of their acts of kindness towards Palestinians. (The Times devoted all of one sentence to a soldier who said that Israeli soldiers put their own lives at risk to avoid harming Palestinians. And the lone sentence was buried towards the end of the article.)
The Israeli newspaper Yediot recounted some of these in reaction to the Ha'aretz stories:
"I don't believe there were soldiers who were looking to kill (Palestinians) for no reason," said 21-year-old Givati Brigade soldier Assaf Danziger, who was lightly injured three days before the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead.
"What happened there was not enjoyable to anyone; we wanted it to end as soon as possible and tried to avoid contact with innocent civilians," he said.
According to Danziger, soldiers were given specific orders to open fire only at armed terrorists or people who posed a threat. "There were no incidents of vandalism at any of the buildings we occupied. We did only what was justified and acted out of necessity. No one shot at civilians. People walked by us freely," he recounted.
In the same article Yediot also quoted other soldiers:
A Paratroopers Brigade soldier who also participated in the war called the claims "nonsense". Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said "It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the soldiers represented
"For instance, on three separate occasions my company commander checked soldiers' bags for stolen goods. Those who stole the smallest things, like candy, were severely punished," he said.
"We were forbidden from sleeping in Palestinians' beds even when we had no alternate accommodations, and we didn't touch any of their food even after we hadn't had enough to eat for two days."
"During one incident, we were informed that a female suicide bomber was heading in our direction, but even when women approached us and crossed a certain point we made do with firing in the air, or near the women," the soldier recalled. "Even when we came across deserted stores, we didn't even think of taking anything. One soldier took a can of food, but he immediately returned it after everyone yelled at him."
Major (res.) Idan Zuaretz of Givati said "in every war there is a small percentage of problematic soldiers, but we must look at it from a broad perspective and not focus on isolated incidents."
Zuaretz, a company commander, also questioned the integrity of the soldiers who made the controversial claims, saying "if this was such a burning issue for them, why have they remained silent until now? On an ethical and moral level, they were obligated to stop what they claimed had occurred and not wait two months to be heard at some esoteric debate."
According to the officer, the IDF went to great lengths and employed the most advanced technology to avoid harming civilian population.
"I've seen a few things in my time, but even I was blown away by the level of professionalism displayed by the army," Zuaretz said. "I personally gave my soldiers an order on the day we withdrew from
Another soldier who had fought in
I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English-language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.
I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and laid them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth.
I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me -- us -- and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places. I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home...
It's unfortunate that readers of the New York Times and Haaretz and viewers of the BBC are fed constant doses of the anti-Israel story-of-the-day, while these outlets ignore the stories of typical Israeli soldiers like Yishai Goldflam. Times editors and their counterparts elsewhere should explain why Danny Zamir is fit to print, and Yishai Goldflam is not fit to print.
Through such tendentious choices is news made rather than reported.
Associate director CAMERA
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.