IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:17 pm

“We did not do everything we could to avoid civilian casualties," said Breaking the Silence founder Yehudal Shaul.

The left-wing group Breaking the Silence on Monday accused the IDF of indiscriminate fire at Palestinians during last summer’s war with Gaza, a practice it said was contrary to the army’s past policy of minimal force.

To support its claims, the group complied testimonies from 60 Israeli soldiers who fought Hamas during Operation Cast Lead into a 237-page report titled, “This is how we fought in Gaza.”

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-had-policy-of-indiscriminate-fire-during-Gaza-war-Israeli-NGO-says-402048

The actual report is available on line. It's a harrowing tale.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:20 pm

Irn Bru wrote:“We did not do everything we could to avoid civilian casualties," said Breaking the Silence founder Yehudal Shaul.

The left-wing group Breaking the Silence on Monday accused the IDF of indiscriminate fire at Palestinians during last summer’s war with Gaza, a practice it said was contrary to the army’s past policy of minimal force.

To support its claims, the group complied testimonies from 60 Israeli soldiers who fought Hamas during Operation Cast Lead into a 237-page report titled, “This is how we fought in Gaza.”

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-had-policy-of-indiscriminate-fire-during-Gaza-war-Israeli-NGO-says-402048

The actual report is available on line. It's a harrowing tale.

Too often, when it comes to reporting on Israel and the Palestinians, unverified “eyewitnesses” or unnamed sources are a feature of media stories, especially those that impact negatively on Israel.
And so it is with a story concerning the Breaking the Silence organization, which has published a collection of soldiers’ testimonies about last year’s Gaza war. It is covered widely by international media outlets, including CNN, BBC, NPR, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, The Independent (links one and two), Financial Times(click via Google News), and the London Review of Books (by radical left-wing Israeli Professor Neve Gordon). Reuters, for example, writes:

Israel inflicted “massive and unprecedented harm” to Palestinian civilians in the 2014 Gaza war with indiscriminate fire and lax rules of engagement, a report said on Monday, citing testimony given anonymously by dozens of troops.

The 237-page report by the Israeli advocacy group Breaking the Silence described how Israel Defence Forces (IDF) left swathes of devastation after they invaded Gaza last July with the stated aim of halting Hamas rocket fire out of the enclave.

“We were firing purposelessly all day long. Hamas was nowhere to be seen,” one tank sergeant was quoted as saying.

The group said its finding cast “grave doubt on the IDF’s ethics”.

IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says Breakingthesilence

But what about the warped journalistic ethics behind the reporting of this story? Clearly the Breaking the Silence story is based entirely on anonymous testimonies. In essence, the media are using Breaking the Silence as a middleman to avoid due diligence on the sources.
Breaking the Silence’s report doesn’t meet the accepted standards that journalists themselves apply to their own reports.
And what about questioning the motivations behind Breaking the Silence? As journalist Jake Wallis Simons recounted back in 2013 when he conducted interviews with BtS staff:

It was only a hunch at first. But later, the bias of the organisation became clearer. During a break between interviews, I asked Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of the organisation, how the group is funded. It was with some surprise that I learned that 45 per cent of it is donated by European countries, including Norway and Spain, and the European Union. Other donors include UNICEF, Christian Aid and Oxfam GB. To me this seemed potentially problematic.

As is the case in all democracies, the IDF is an organ of the state, not a political decision-maker. If the goal of Breaking the Silence was simply to clean up the Israeli military, it wouldn’t be such a problem. Instead, the aim is to “end the occupation”, and on this basis it secured its funding.

It appeared, therefore, that these former soldiers, some of whom draw salaries from Breaking the Silence, were motivated by financial and political concerns to further a pro-Palestinian agenda. They weren’t merely telling the truth about their experiences. They were under pressure to perform.

Indeed, I later discovered that there have been many allegations in the past that members of the organisation either fabricated or exaggerated their testimonies.

NGO Monitor also notes the foreign government and NGO donations that funded Breaking the Silence’s latest publication and exposes:

Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

You can read NGO Monitor’s initial analysis of the Breaking the Silence publication here, which highlights some serious flaws.
But this hasn’t stopped the media from relying on anonymous testimonies to affirm Israeli guilt. As HonestReporting has previously noted concerning anonymous sources, a lack of transparency raises doubts about the quality of the journalism and trust in the reporter. It’s a leap of faith.
In this latest case, journalistic ethics appear to be secondary.

http://honestreporting.com/breaking-the-silence-a-middleman-for-anonymous-sources/

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:21 pm

I've read it, it's heartbreaking and no wonder the soldiers feel so much guilt.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:22 pm

I will say there was certainly one incident of indiscriminate fire:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10212-operation-hannibal

Laters

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:25 pm

Cuchulain wrote:I will say there was certainly one incident of indiscriminate fire:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10212-operation-hannibal

Laters

You haven't read the soldiers testomonies then.....correct?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:27 pm

Of course he hasn't. He'll be back later claiming he 'owns us' and we're 'his puppets' etc etc ad nauseum.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:28 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:I will say there was certainly one incident of indiscriminate fire:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10212-operation-hannibal

Laters

You haven't read the soldiers testomonies then.....correct?

I read it a while back when it first came out.
As seen there is questions over the validity of their testimony.
Espically when they are being paid in many case

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:28 pm

Paid?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:30 pm

Washington Post Falls for Breaking the Silence 'Report'

If the source is tainted, can the news be reliable? Not in the case of a foreign funded Israeli group called “Breaking the Silence,” as reported by The Washington Post in “Israeli soldiers allege ‘ethical failure' in Gaza” (May 5, 2015).
The Post treats this “organization of active and reserve duty soldiers” as a legitimate news source. This is a mistake, since “Breaking the Silence's” sloppy methods, unfounded allegations and anti-Israel foreign funding have been exposed repeatedly, including on the day what The Post called “Breaking the Silence's” “sobering testimony” was released.
Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief William Booth acknowledges that “the testimonies in the report are anonymous and impossible to independently verify.” He writes that the Israel Defense Forces “said that Breaking the Silence ‘does not provide IDF with any proof of their claims.'” And he concedes that “members of Breaking the Silence are viewed by many Israelis as ‘anti-military.'”

Nevertheless, he and The Post present the group's allegations as credible and newsworthy. Booth and Jerusalem bureau correspondent Ruth Eglash do so while failing to report Breaking the Silence's anti-Israel, overseas support. And the newspaper uses the group's latest “report” as an excuse to repeat false Palestinian propaganda claims from last summer's Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, notably that Israel inflicted “mass destruction” on the region and “high numbers of civilian casualties.”
The article's lead paragraph is erroneous to the point of being corrupt. The Post asserts “the war last summer between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead and reduced vast areas to rubble. On Monday [May 4], a group of Israeli veterans released sobering testimony from fellow soldiers that suggests permissive rules of engagement couple with indiscriminate artillery fire contributed to the mass destruction and high numbers of civilian causalities in the costal enclave.”
Except the number of civilian casualties was comparatively low, not high, and neighborhoods destroyed in the fighting—usually areas used by Hamas and other terrorist groups as bases, shelters, arsenals, rocket launch pads and entry points for infiltration tunnels—often were within a few kilometers of Israel and constituted approximately five percent of the Strip.
Lessons learned, but not by The Post
U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that the IDF went out of its way to minimize civilian casualties during the 2014 fighting (“Where's the Coverage? Joint Chiefs Chairman Declares Israel Went to Extraordinary Lengths to Protect Gaza Civilians,” Nov. 13, 2014 CAMERA). The Pentagon sent a “lessons-learned” mission to Israel to study such urban warfare operations, including attempts to minimize non-combatant casualties.
U.N. figures have estimated the ratio of non-combatant to combatant casualties inflicted by U.S. and other coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq at from 3:1 to 4:1 while Israeli analyses of Palestinian figures put the proportion in Gaza last summer at approximately 1:1, with the number of fatalities among males of fighting age “disproportionately high” (“The Mulish Media and Civilian Casualties,” May 1, 2015 CAMERA). So why does The Post recycle, in its own words, without attribution, the “mass destruction” and “high civilian casualties” canards?
The day The Post put “Israeli soldiers allege ‘ethical failure' in Gaza” online (May 4), NGO-Monitor posted an analysis of “Breaking the Silence's” latest smear, headlined “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us as Many Incriminating Testimonies as Possible.” According to NGO-Monitor, “As with many other BtS [Breaking the Silence] publications, this report lacks all credibilityand objectivity. Likewise, the extensive foreign funding that Breaking the Silence receives, as well as its international political activities, highlight the problems with this publication.” NGO-Monitor charges that some grants, from Danish, British, Irish, Swedish and Swiss sources to Breaking the Silence have been contingent on the group gathering negative “testimonies.”
“Despite the NGO's claim that its mission is to address Israeli society, BtS lobbying, media campaigns, and frequent appearances in Europe and the United States target international audiences. Next month (June 4-14), BtS activists will appear in Switzerland to present their political agenda at an event organized by supporters of pro-BDS [boycott, divestment, sanction] groups.”
So it's not just that “many Israelis” view Breaking the Silence as anti-military,” they have good reason to view the group as anti-Israel.
IDF video versus Breaking the Silence's allegations
The Post says Breaking the Silence's “This is How We Fought in Gaza 2014” is a 240-page report accompanied by videotaped testimony. Maybe so, but what the paper reports are vague generalities that conflict with IDF combat video released during and shortly after the 2014 fighting.
The paper quotes an infantry sergeant as saying “If we don't see someone waving a white flag, screaming, ‘I give up' or something—then he's a threat and there's authorization to open fire.” Perhaps. But an anecdote short on specifics, even if eventually verified, does not make a pattern.
Meanwhile, has The Post seen IDF video of terrorist gunmen dragging Palestinian children alongside them as shields against Israeli snipers? Has it watched gun sight images of rocket attacks being aborted as a suspected terrorist truck ducks into an apartment building garage for shelter? (See, for example, “The price of Israeli restraint,” by this writer, Times of Israel blog, Dec. 22, 2014).
Which is representative of how Israel fought in the Gaza Strip last year—restraint as policy, or Breaking the Silence's unsubstantiated claims of “needless death and destruction”? Does The Post conduct journalist due diligence, or allow itself to be used as a platform for “he said, she said” allegations?
“Israel charges that Palestinian militants brought most of the damage and casualties on themselves and other Gazans by firing thousands of unguided rockets at Israeli cities, employing human shields and hiding weapons in schools, hospitals, mosques and other public buildings.” Exactly. But The Post adds that the Breaking the Silence report “alleges that the IDF reduced whole neighborhoods of densely populated Gaza to ruins without any clear operational justification but instead to ‘demonstrate presence in the area.'”
Given that more than 4,500 mortars and rockets were fired from the Strip at Israel during the 50-day war and several dozen terrorist infiltration tunnels meant to facilitate mass kidnappings and murder were discovered, “demonstrating presence” was not likely to have been an objective, however it might have seemed to an individual soldier narrowly focused on one sector of the fighting. Does Breaking the Silence verify “the reduction of whole neighborhoods to ruins without any clear justification?” No? Then why report its insinuations?
Other outlets, including Defense News, gave Breaking the Silence's “report” unwarranted, uncritical coverage. And The Washington Post's Arab-Israeli reporting is far from the consistently abysmal coverage turned in by The New York Times. But articles like “Israeli soldiers allege ‘ethical failure' in Gaza” begin to blur the difference.

http://www.camera.org/

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:32 pm

risingsun wrote:Paid?

As journalist Jake Wallis Simons recounted back in 2013 when he conducted interviews with BtS staff:

[size=14]It was only a hunch at first. But later, the bias of the organisation became clearer. During a break between interviews, I asked Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of the organisation, how the group is funded. It was with some surprise that I learned that 45 per cent of it is donated by European countries, including Norway and Spain, and the European Union. Other donors include UNICEF, Christian Aid and Oxfam GB. To me this seemed potentially problematic.

As is the case in all democracies, the IDF is an organ of the state, not a political decision-maker. If the goal of Breaking the Silence was simply to clean up the Israeli military, it wouldn’t be such a problem. Instead, the aim is to “end the occupation”, and on this basis it secured its funding.

It appeared, therefore, that these former soldiers, some of whom draw salaries from Breaking the Silence, were motivated by financial and political concerns to further a pro-Palestinian agenda. They weren’t merely telling the truth about their experiences. They were under pressure to perform.

Indeed, I later discovered that there have been many allegations in the past that members of the organisation either fabricated or exaggerated their testimonies.[/size]

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:33 pm

A previous post on May 6 observed that Breaking the Silence, the Israeli group that uses alleged soldier testimonials to accuse the Israeli defense forces of misconduct toward Palestinian civilians, is amply funded by European "humanitarian" organizations.
This raises the question as to why these European donors dedicate so much funding to exposing alleged misconduct by a few Israeli soldiers when the money would have greater humanitarian impact if it were used to sustain the countless victims of Islamic extremism and societal breakdown in the surrounding region. What makes the European fixation on Israel so baffling is that Israel already has in-place institutions to deal with such misconduct. The Israel Defense Forces enshrined a rigorous moral code to which its soldiers and officers are accountable. After every significant military operation, as a matter of routine, investigations into allegations of misconduct are pursued.
The largest donors to Breaking the Silence include European religious-based organizations and governmental groups who justify their support for Breaking the Silence, and other groups that seek to undermine Israel's standing, on humanitarian grounds. But are these groups fully forthcoming about their motivations? Is there more to this than just empathy for Palestinians, who are already at the top of the list as beneficiaries of financial and political support from western governments and non-governmental organizations and who enjoy the unique privilege of having a UN organization, UNRWA, solely dedicated to their needs?
One of the largest donors to Breaking the Silence is a Catholic organization from the Flemish portion of Belgium. A little history here is revelatory.
The Israeli newspaper, Arutz Sheva, published on May 7, 2015 an article,"Flemish Leader Disowns WWII Nazi Collaboration." The article describes how the current leader of the right-wing nationalist Flemish party, the New Flemish Alliance, expressed contrition over the role his forebearers played in collaborating with the Nazis. In recent years, a number of nationalist parties in Europe have gone down this same road, disavowing the historic associations with virulent anti-Semitic movements.
Many of these parties, including the New Flemish Alliance's precursor, the Flemish National League (VNV), were a fusion of Fascist ideology and reactionary elements within the Catholic Church.
This ideological amalgam has been pushed to the margins in European society since World War II. The nationalist and western cultural components increasingly find common ground with the Jewish national state that came into existence in 1948. Post-war leadership of the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to reject elements that perpetuate hatred of Jews. But that doesn't mean that the beliefs that formed the building blocks of that political fusion have dissipated.
Has the anti-Jewish core simply undergone a metamorphosis to be more congruent with the leftist-orientation that dominates European culture today? Do residual elements of the Catholic-Fascist amalgam continue to pursue their enmity towards the Jews under the deceptive guise of pursuing "justice" for the Palestinians by incriminating Israel?
More investigation is warranted to reveal what lies under the surface of the expansive support in Europe for groups like Breaking the Silence, that empower disaffected Israelis to undertake the task of undermining the moral and legal standing of the only state in the Middle East whose actions are guided and constrained by a full-fledged embrace of western values.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/05/a_closer_look_at_who_funds_bre.html

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:36 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:I will say there was certainly one incident of indiscriminate fire:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10212-operation-hannibal

Laters

You haven't read the soldiers testomonies then.....correct?

I read it a while back when it first came out.
As seen there is questions over the validity of their testimony.
Espically when they are being paid in many case

Did you? When was that then and where did you here that they were paid? That suggests that IDF soldiers tell lies for money wouldn't it?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:38 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
risingsun wrote:Paid?

As journalist Jake Wallis Simons recounted back in 2013 when he conducted interviews with BtS staff:
[size=14]It was only a hunch at first. But later, the bias of the organisation became clearer. During a break between interviews, I asked Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of the organisation, how the group is funded. It was with some surprise that I learned that 45 per cent of it is donated by European countries, including Norway and Spain, and the European Union. Other donors include UNICEF, Christian Aid and Oxfam GB. To me this seemed potentially problematic.

As is the case in all democracies, the IDF is an organ of the state, not a political decision-maker. If the goal of Breaking the Silence was simply to clean up the Israeli military, it wouldn’t be such a problem. Instead, the aim is to “end the occupation”, and on this basis it secured its funding.

It appeared, therefore, that these former soldiers, some of whom draw salaries from Breaking the Silence, were motivated by financial and political concerns to further a pro-Palestinian agenda. They weren’t merely telling the truth about their experiences. They were under pressure to perform.

Indeed, I later discovered that there have been many allegations in the past that members of the organisation either fabricated or exaggerated their testimonies.[/size]

The fact that he find that problematic shows his bias.

And you believe unquestioningly that Breaking the Silence pays soldiers, just because he says so.

Odd that!

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:38 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I read it a while back when it first came out.
As seen there is questions over the validity of their testimony.
Espically when they are being paid in many case

Did you? When was that then and where did you here that they were paid? That suggests that IDF soldiers tell lies for money wouldn't it?

Again already posted twice now on this thread about pay, please read what is posted to save asking me redundant questions.
All I am saying, and have said, is that the testimony of these soldiers is questionable.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:39 pm

risingsun wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

As journalist Jake Wallis Simons recounted back in 2013 when he conducted interviews with BtS staff:

The fact that he find that problematic shows his bias.

And you believe unquestioningly that Breaking the Silence pays soldiers, just because he says so.

Odd that!

Read more:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100248886/why-are-european-powers-and-oxfam-funding-a-radical-israeli-group/

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:40 pm

And Richard Kemp's isn't, a nut Christian Zionist who thinks he holds conversations with the dead.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:41 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
risingsun wrote:

The fact that he find that problematic shows his bias.

And you believe unquestioningly that Breaking the Silence pays soldiers, just because he says so.

Odd that!

Read more:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100248886/why-are-european-powers-and-oxfam-funding-a-radical-israeli-group/

They are funding the organisation, not the soldiers, to allow them to get the testimony to get the truth.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:43 pm

Sassy as seen its questionable their testimony:

NGO Monitor also notes the foreign government and NGO donations that funded Breaking the Silence’s latest publication and exposes:

[size=14]Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.[/size]

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/europe_to_breaking_the_silence_bring_us_as_many_incriminating_testimonies_as_possible

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:47 pm

NGO Monitor - Office: 1 Ben Maimon Blvd.
Jerusalem 92262
Israel

Bless 'em, they spend a fortune on publications like these to twist the truth.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:49 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I read it a while back when it first came out.
As seen there is questions over the validity of their testimony.
Espically when they are being paid in many case

Did you? When was that then and where did you here that they were paid? That suggests that IDF soldiers tell lies for money wouldn't it?

Again already posted twice now on this thread about pay, please read what is posted to save asking me redundant questions.
All I am saying, and have said, is that the testimony of these soldiers is questionable.

No, I'm looking for evidence that the soldiers themselves were paid not from some article by a newspaper hack. Try and read what is being asked for more clearly please

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:02 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Again already posted twice now on this thread about pay, please read what is posted to save asking me redundant questions.
All I am saying, and have said, is that the testimony of these soldiers is questionable.

No, I'm looking for evidence that the soldiers themselves were paid not from some article by a newspaper hack. Try and read what is being asked for more clearly please

I did read and offered you evidence Irn
Its up to you to either dismiss that evidence based on hearsay, but its still evidence.
Again my view is and more so based on the purpose of this organisation, that the testimonies are questionable.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:05 pm

No you didn't, you offered evidence the organisation was paid, not the soldiers.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:09 pm

Cuchulain wrote:A previous post on May 6 observed that Breaking the Silence, the Israeli group that uses alleged soldier testimonials to accuse the Israeli defense forces of misconduct toward Palestinian civilians, is amply funded by European "humanitarian" organizations.
This raises the question as to why these European donors dedicate so much funding to exposing alleged misconduct by a few Israeli soldiers when the money would have greater humanitarian impact if it were used to sustain the countless victims of Islamic extremism and societal breakdown in the surrounding region. What makes the European fixation on Israel so baffling is that Israel already has in-place institutions to deal with such misconduct. The Israel Defense Forces enshrined a rigorous moral code to which its soldiers and officers are accountable. After every significant military operation, as a matter of routine, investigations into allegations of misconduct are pursued.
The largest donors to Breaking the Silence include European religious-based organizations and governmental groups who justify their support for Breaking the Silence, and other groups that seek to undermine Israel's standing, on humanitarian grounds. But are these groups fully forthcoming about their motivations? Is there more to this than just empathy for Palestinians, who are already at the top of the list as beneficiaries of financial and political support from western governments and non-governmental organizations and who enjoy the unique privilege of having a UN organization, UNRWA, solely dedicated to their needs?
One of the largest donors to Breaking the Silence is a Catholic organization from the Flemish portion of Belgium. A little history here is revelatory.
The Israeli newspaper, Arutz Sheva, published on May 7, 2015 an article,"Flemish Leader Disowns WWII Nazi Collaboration." The article describes how the current leader of the right-wing nationalist Flemish party, the New Flemish Alliance, expressed contrition over the role his forebearers played in collaborating with the Nazis. In recent years, a number of nationalist parties in Europe have gone down this same road, disavowing the historic associations with virulent anti-Semitic movements.
Many of these parties, including the New Flemish Alliance's precursor, the Flemish National League (VNV), were a fusion of Fascist ideology and reactionary elements within the Catholic Church.
This ideological amalgam has been pushed to the margins in European society since World War II. The nationalist and western cultural components increasingly find common ground with the Jewish national state that came into existence in 1948. Post-war leadership of the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to reject elements that perpetuate hatred of Jews. But that doesn't mean that the beliefs that formed the building blocks of that political fusion have dissipated.
Has the anti-Jewish core simply undergone a metamorphosis to be more congruent with the leftist-orientation that dominates European culture today? Do residual elements of the Catholic-Fascist amalgam continue to pursue their enmity towards the Jews under the deceptive guise of pursuing "justice" for the Palestinians by incriminating Israel?
More investigation is warranted to reveal what lies under the surface of the expansive support in Europe for groups like Breaking the Silence, that empower disaffected Israelis to undertake the task of undermining the moral and legal standing of the only state in the Middle East whose actions are guided and constrained by a full-fledged embrace of western values.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/05/a_closer_look_at_who_funds_bre.html

No I said the organisation pays some of the ex IDF sassy

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:12 pm

But have only given proof of the organisation being paid.

And Israeli in house investigations have been proved worthless over and over again.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:17 pm

That is your opinion they are useless.
I disagree.
I just gave you evidence, best you do some more research yourself.

Funding: 2013 income of NIS 3,077,662 million (latest available; accessed March 15, 2015).
2013/4 donors include the European Union,Misereor (Germany), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium),Norway, AECID (Spain), Dan Church Aid(Denmark), ICCO (Netherlands), CCFD (France),Human Rights and International Law Secretariat(joint funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), SIVMO (Netherlands), Rockefeller Brothers Fund,Open Society Institute, New Israel Fund, and others. (See table below for detailed funding information).
Based on financial information submitted to the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits, in accordance with the Israeli NGO transparency law, BtS received 992,901 NIS from foreign governmental bodies in 2014 and 1,271,368 NIS in 2013 (accessed March 15, 2014).
In 2008-2013, the New Israel Fund (NIF) authorized grants worth $560,428 to Breaking the Silence (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013).
Received two grants from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund totaling $145,000 (2012-2015).
Political Advocacy: Active in promoting “war crimes” charges against Israel. These charges were based on anonymous and unverifiable hearsay “testimonies.”
Although claiming to address Israeli society, the NGO’s lobbying and media advocacy focus on international audiences, including presentations inEurope and the United States. Yehuda Shaul, BtS co-founder, defended this practice: “Sometimes, when you want to deliver messages to the inside, you must go outside.”
NGO Monitor revealed that following the 2009 Gaza conflict, several BtS donors conditioned the transfer of money to the group on its ability to gather a minimum number of incriminating “testimonies” against the Israeli army.
The cultural center in Zurich is set to host an event, June 4 –14, 2015, featuring the BtS photo exhibition, as well as demonizing “testimonies.” The event is sponsored by the Swiss Foreign Ministry, the Municipality of Zurich, and several church groups that are active in delegitimization campaigns against Israel.
In 2010 BtS published a highly tendentious book titled Occupation of the Territories - Israeli Soldier testimonies 2000-2010, which claimed to provide a counter to the “official Israeli position” on IDF actions in the territories. NGO Monitor analysis has revealed that this book was rife with methodological problems and appeared to tailor the testimonies to predetermined “analyses” that falsely claimed that Israeli actions are not aimed at self-defense but at “terrorizing the civilian population.”
This book was later re-published under the titleOur Harsh Logic and translated into Swedish,German, and Dutch. The launching of the book in the various languages served as a platform for further demonization and delegitmization of Israel, including accusations of “racism” and alleged “political assassinations” of Palestinians, claims that Gaza is still “occupied,” and implying that Israel is ethnically cleansing “area C.”
Analysis by Amos Harel in Ha’aretz: “Breaking the Silence...has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a ‘human rights organization.’ Any organization whose website includes the claim by members to expose the ‘corruption which permeates the military system’ is not a neutral observer. The organization has a clear agenda: to expose the consequences of IDF troops serving in the West Bank and Gaza. This seems more of interest to its members than seeking justice for specific injustices.” (July 17, 2009)
BtS members and anti-Israel activists Yonatan and Itamar Shapira were on the “Jews for Justice for Palestinians” boat “Irene,” which sought to violate Israel’s security-based policies regarding naval traffic into Gaza (September 2010).
During a BtS event at a museum in Sweden (March 2011), Itamar Shapira stated that “We [Israelis] are creating the terror against us.”
Conducts tours to Hebron and the South Hebron Hills to “witness first hand the dire situation.”Criticized by Israeli police officials for “antagoniz[ing]...settlers in the hope that the settlers will attack them.”

*2014 funding based on information submitted to the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits; 2013 funding based on annual report.

Donor	2013	2014
European Union	422,566	134,959
Misereor (Germany)	333,139	105,546
Broederlijk Delen (Belgium)	270,024	150,667
Norwegian Embassy	248,823	165,150
AECID (Spain)	177,660	117,416
ICCO (Netherlands)	147,325
Dan Church Aid (Denmark)	125,594	87,941
Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands)		137,040
Medico International (Germany)	50,673
CCFD (France)		47,258
SIVMO (Netherlands)		46,924
Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK)	157,150
Foundation for Middle East Peace	36,185
Open Society Institute	135,740
Rockefeller Brothers Fund	155,980
New Israel Fund

Right really am going as you are not even debating anything yet again

Night

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:21 pm

And you are still talking about the organisation, not money given to soldiers. Don't make statements you can't back up.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:23 pm

I did, there is many links for you, you just have to click ones highlighted in blue, they take you to a new link sassy

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:24 pm

Your links are all about the funding of the organsation, not funding of the soldiers that you claimed was happening. Try again.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:27 pm

I already did the part of evidence for the soldiers being paid, the reporter, which I stated to Irn.
That is still evidence
And I posted his link, which we know you do not read

So only you have to try again, take that evidence as you will as I stated it was already hearsay once already.
Save time by reading posts, it may help

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:29 pm

The report said, that's not evidence.

Anyway, finished playing with you, going to bed, and unlike you will not still be around 2 hours after saying it. Nighty poos my little puppet lol.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:31 pm

How charming.

Good night Sassy

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:41 am

Well, it appears you didn't like your own phrases used against you Didge. Perhaps you now might realise what other people think about you when you use them.

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:10 am

Sorry to burst your bubble sassy, but am not bothered in the slightest. "How Charming" was more irony because in every debate with me on Israel you are insulting. I am so used to your poor tactics in debating, it matches the BDS poor motives of hate.

Anyway, even the UN had to commend Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. There certainly has been some examples of indiscriminate fire by Israel but the vast majority are by the rules of engagement. What the UN is arguing over is if to change some rules of engagement, which if they do will spell disaster and allow an enemy to hide permanently within civilian areas and attack a neighboring country free from retaliation. If the UN are seeking to change, then clearly there is Little evidence of war crimes by Israel, except the one I pointed out. As you would not need to change rules, unless your reason was to make it then possible to find them criminally responsible. Hence why he UN is not fit for purpose.The problem with you and Irn is you rarely say anything in regards to these same rules for Hamas.

Its a conflict between two sides. Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets against Israel every single time. They use funds for reconstruction to buy weapons and materials to build tunnels. First and for most a nation has the necessary needs of the population and second protects its citizens covering as many avenues as possible. Hamas provides no bomb shelters for its people. It even demands them to stay when advised to leave by Israel. Israel is held to a much higher standard, because Hamas places women and children in harms way to ensure they become fatalities. We are talking about a group that believes in an extreme ideology, that places the needs of weapons over its own citizens.

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:36 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble sassy, but am not bothered in the slightest. "How Charming" was more irony because in every debate with me on Israel you are insulting. I am so used to your poor tactics in debating, it matches the BDS poor motives of hate.

Anyway, even the UN had to commend Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. There certainly has been some examples of indiscriminate fire by Israel but the vast majority are by the rules of engagement. What the UN is arguing over is if to change some rules of engagement, which if they do will spell disaster and allow an enemy to hide permanently within civilian areas and attack a neighboring country free from retaliation. If the UN are seeking to change, then clearly there is Little evidence of war crimes by Israel, except the one I pointed out. As you would not need to change rules, unless your reason was to make it then possible to find them criminally responsible. Hence why he UN is not fit for purpose.The problem with you and Irn is you rarely say anything in regards to these same rules for Hamas.

Its a conflict between two sides. Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets against Israel every single time. They use funds for reconstruction to buy weapons and materials to build tunnels. First and for most a nation has the necessary needs of the population and second protects its citizens covering as many avenues as possible. Hamas provides no bomb shelters for its people. It even demands them to stay when advised to leave by Israel. Israel is held to a much higher standard, because Hamas places women and children in harms way to ensure they become fatalities. We are talking about a group that believes in an extreme ideology, that places the needs of weapons over its own citizens.

Is this comendation in the UN report? If it is can you tell me the page number or the section number where it says that?

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:39 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble sassy, but am not bothered in the slightest. "How Charming" was more irony because in every debate with me on Israel you are insulting. I am so used to your poor tactics in debating, it matches the BDS poor motives of hate.

Anyway, even the UN had to commend Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. There certainly has been some examples of indiscriminate fire by Israel but the vast majority are by the rules of engagement. What the UN is arguing over is if to change some rules of engagement, which if they do will spell disaster and allow an enemy to hide permanently within civilian areas and attack a neighboring country free from retaliation. If the UN are seeking to change, then clearly there is Little evidence of war crimes by Israel, except the one I pointed out. As you would not need to change rules, unless your reason was to make it then possible to find them criminally responsible. Hence why he UN is not fit for purpose.The problem with you and Irn is you rarely say anything in regards to these same rules for Hamas.

Its a conflict between two sides. Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets against Israel every single time. They use funds for reconstruction to buy weapons and materials to build tunnels. First and for most a nation has the necessary needs of the population and second protects its citizens covering as many avenues as possible. Hamas provides no bomb shelters for its people. It even demands them to stay when advised to leave by Israel. Israel is held to a much higher standard, because Hamas places women and children in harms way to ensure they become fatalities. We are talking about a group that believes in an extreme ideology, that places the needs of weapons over its own citizens.

Is this comendation in the UN report? If it is can you tell me the page number or the section number where it says that?

Look it up yourself.
I do not have the pages memorized lol to what page it was on.
Again, look it up yourself, as I am not your slave doing work for you.
They recognize that Israel took any steps to warn civilians. The interesting next part she left out speaking about in regards to this. That when Israel does warn the civilians. That Hamas has deliberately built no bomb shelters for the people. They have used aid money to purchase building materials to build tunnels to smuggle weapons and attack Israel, but are only used for protection from retaliation attacks to military and political members of Hamas. That also Hamas not only leaves the civilians without protection in the form of bomb shelters. They also instruct the citizens to ignore the warnings and stay put. Not only is Hamas basically murdering them by instructing them to stay when warned. It clearly proves they orchestrate as many Palestinians dying as possible. Even more of the casualties could have been reduced if there was bomb shelters. Even more would be saved if Hamas cared for the loss of life. As seen they do not, they use and ensure many die to be used as pin ups for martyrdom.

by Irn Bru Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:37 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble sassy, but am not bothered in the slightest. "How Charming" was more irony because in every debate with me on Israel you are insulting. I am so used to your poor tactics in debating, it matches the BDS poor motives of hate.

Anyway, even the UN had to commend Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. There certainly has been some examples of indiscriminate fire by Israel but the vast majority are by the rules of engagement. What the UN is arguing over is if to change some rules of engagement, which if they do will spell disaster and allow an enemy to hide permanently within civilian areas and attack a neighboring country free from retaliation. If the UN are seeking to change, then clearly there is Little evidence of war crimes by Israel, except the one I pointed out. As you would not need to change rules, unless your reason was to make it then possible to find them criminally responsible. Hence why he UN is not fit for purpose.The problem with you and Irn is you rarely say anything in regards to these same rules for Hamas.

Its a conflict between two sides. Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets against Israel every single time. They use funds for reconstruction to buy weapons and materials to build tunnels. First and for most a nation has the necessary needs of the population and second protects its citizens covering as many avenues as possible. Hamas provides no bomb shelters for its people. It even demands them to stay when advised to leave by Israel. Israel is held to a much higher standard, because Hamas places women and children in harms way to ensure they become fatalities. We are talking about a group that believes in an extreme ideology, that places the needs of weapons over its own citizens.

Is this comendation in the UN report? If it is can you tell me the page number or the section number where it says that?

Look it up yourself.
I do not have the pages memorized lol to what page it was on.
Again, look it up yourself, as I am not your slave doing work for you.
They recognize that Israel took any steps to warn civilians. The interesting next part she left out speaking about in regards to this. That when Israel does warn the civilians. That Hamas has deliberately built no bomb shelters for the people. They have used aid money to purchase building materials to build tunnels to smuggle weapons and attack Israel, but are only used for protection from retaliation attacks to military and political members of Hamas. That also Hamas not only leaves the civilians without protection in the form of bomb shelters. They also instruct the citizens to ignore the warnings and stay put. Not only is Hamas basically murdering them by instructing them to stay when warned. It clearly proves they orchestrate as many Palestinians dying as possible. Even more of the casualties could have been reduced if there was bomb shelters. Even more would be saved if Hamas cared for the loss of life. As seen they do not, they use and ensure many die to be used as pin ups for martyrdom.

Stop waffing Didge and throwing out chaff all over the place and just come up with the part in the report that says the EU commended Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them or just admit that you made it up.

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:45 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Look it up yourself.
I do not have the pages memorized lol to what page it was on.
Again, look it up yourself, as I am not your slave doing work for you.
They recognize that Israel took any steps to warn civilians. The interesting next part she left out speaking about in regards to this. That when Israel does warn the civilians. That Hamas has deliberately built no bomb shelters for the people. They have used aid money to purchase building materials to build tunnels to smuggle weapons and attack Israel, but are only used for protection from retaliation attacks to military and political members of Hamas. That also Hamas not only leaves the civilians without protection in the form of bomb shelters. They also instruct the citizens to ignore the warnings and stay put. Not only is Hamas basically murdering them by instructing them to stay when warned. It clearly proves they orchestrate as many Palestinians dying as possible. Even more of the casualties could have been reduced if there was bomb shelters. Even more would be saved if Hamas cared for the loss of life. As seen they do not, they use and ensure many die to be used as pin ups for martyrdom.

Stop waffing Didge and throwing out chaff all over the place and just come up with the part in the report that says the EU commended Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them or just admit that you made it up.

I never made anything up, it most certainly recognizes that Israel did this.
Why don't you stop hating and demonizing Israeli Jews and supporting Terrorists Irn.
There is nothing worse than someone supporting a group that calls for the genocide of the Jews

by Sponsored content

IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says

Re: IDF had policy of indiscriminate fire during Gaza war, Israeli NGO says