Question for Gamblor et al about an article about Israel

[spamuell]

I read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4605899.stm on the BB website a few days ago and was pretty disturbed by it. How do you justify it, is it just because the BBC (and one of their sources, the Guardian) are anti-Israel propogandists who deliberately try to make Israel look bad?

I mean, they quote soldiers in their articles, are they just making this up? Or are the soldiers lying? Or are they being deceived by people posing as soldiers to discredit Israel and they (the BBC etc) are willing to accept this because they'll jump at the chance to write anything negative about Israel?

All of the above seems pretty unlikely.

[Gamblor]

How do you justify it, is it just because the BBC (and one of their sources, the Guardian) are anti-Israel propogandists who deliberately try to make Israel look bad?

First of all, it's common knowledge that some Palestinian police are former members of terrorist groups. Some members of the Palestinian police force have been accused of allowing terrorists free movement and even distributing arms to terrorist groups.

All that aside though, what disturbs me most is the fact that in the article and to israel-bashers, the soldiers are Israel, and Israel are the soldiers. what makes an editor or newspaper specifically anti-Israeli/anti-semitic is not the fact that some travesties of ethics are made public, but that the events themselves are distorted and somehow turned into a byproduct of evil israel's genocidal policies. This specific event I don't know anything about.

Just as in every society and state and defence force, there are members that do not follow the rules. The members range from foot soldiers/privates to colonels. A commander of a small unit can decide he is above the law and order the revenge-killings of 6 arabs, but that in no way is representative of Israeli foreign policy vis-a-vis the PLO-based Arabs and can not be used to condemn the government, the army, or the people.

What can be condemned is the acts of the commander himself. Just as one terrorist doesn't make all Palestinians terrorists, one rebellious and overzealous murdering commander doesn't make all of Israeli foreign policy boycott-worthy or divestment worthy.

In times of war, the military must concern itself more with defence of the state; in peace, we can concern ourselves more with court martialling all of the soldiers who have violated our ethics and rules.

Naturally, no government is perfect; we hate our government the same way americans hate their government and british hate their government; they meddle in our affairs, they go far too slowly, there is ridiculous bureaucracy, etc. etc. But ultimately, they're the ones in charge and we are the ones who have to try to convince them to do what we want. The military is the extension of the government's use of force, and if the Israeli public - a liberal and educated public - allows the military to do nothing about this specific commander, then so be it.

While he deserves court-martialing if the facts in that article are true, perhaps decades of surprise warfare and surprise terrorism has dulled israeli desire to ensure ethical rules are followed - when we know the opponent has none whatsoever - and that is probably why revenge was on this particular commander's mind.