Furthermore, the number of these accidents is so minute compared to the overall activities of the IDF. Their record is beyond commendable, a handful of accidents out of tens of thousands of incidents is a record unachieved by any other military in the world.

You always have to look at the percent of accidents relative to the overall activities, and if done you will find the IDF's positive record second to none.

Unlike For-Profit blogs where the author would receive stupid sums of money from visits to their sites - Charles receives a meager stipend for writing - not dependant on traffic (at least that's what I assume after looking at the small benefits package of blogging here) and change.org is a non-profit networking site. The point of publishing these atrocities is to get the word out and whether Charles had that in mind when he titled this is irrelevant. Titles are supposed to be hooks.

If you're worried that he did it to make more money or boost his ego - don't - welcome to the non-profit world. If you came expecting to see a decapitated protester from sniper fire but was disappointed to discover he was merely knocked out by a smoke can - hospitalizing him for who-knows how long... God Damn... be glad the man is still alive.

Their would be no wall if those villages did not let suicide bombers go through their villages to Israel.

Their would be no walls or fences, period if the Palestinians did not support terror activities, you keep replacing cause with effect. The terror is the cause of the fences and walls not the opposite as you try to imply.

This is a defensive act on behalf of Israel to stop the close to 2,000 deaths from suicide bombers since the year 2000. Stop the terror and the walls come down, simple.

Hopefully you understand cyclical affects. Israelis may have put up a wall/fence because of terrorists, but it's just inciting more people and breeding even more terrorists. A better tactic than "stopping" them would be to prevent their descent into hate and terror in the first place.
Also - you can't blame and punish these villagers for "letting" terrorists through. Where is it proven that all these people are active supporters of the attacks? They can't be held guilty soley by association. There were no trials for these people. No proof of involvement. You can't hold ALL these people accountable for the actions of a few militants!

Call it misleading... call it a hook... what's important is it's helping to get the word out. 

I think the term misleading implies detrimental consequences (trivial or not) and I can't imagine the title hurting anyone except the unfortunate few (emphasis on few) who fail to read the entire article and embarrass themselves when basing an opinion or argument on what they merely surmised from just a title. Someone judging life from covers and titles and faces alone has a lot more problems than thinking that this individual didn't die from a bullet (esp. considering IDF has killed other protesters before.)

I don't think titles ever convey what "actually happened" - that's not their role...especially in an opinion peace or blog (this isn't a newspaper) and that's why you read the article and follow its links to more journalistic publications... to find out what actually happened. 

Please don't take my post above personal - my use of the 2nd person pronoun was to direct the comment at any reader who doubted the motives behind titling it the way Charles has. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and first assume that your comment was objective criticism - despite how rare it is in these threads - and not motivated by judgments about the author or the article. I just wanted to nip doubt in the bud - not accuse you of insensitivity - but I failed and I am genuinely sorry.

Right as you are about all that, I place great value on accurate use of language, a thing that the title of this post does not exhibit. When one reads the title, one does not surmise the correct meaning (unless of course the incorrect interpretation was the author's intention... hence my criticism.) Call me pedantic, call me obsessed with language, both are probably true and I just had to make my comment about this. :)

Fair enough.

I'm sorry, have the Gazans lost their minds? Doesn't this fall under the catagory of war crime, or is it going to be "shot" (sorry for the terrible pun) through a loophole that will let the soldiers get away with it?

What's equally shocking are the arrogant and insensitive comments by readers below the article. 

Jeremy, I hope, for your sake, that you never learn to read Hebrew. Some of the talkback on Israeli websites make me wish I couldn't. ;)

(FYI, under Israeli law the sniper described in that article could have, indeed should have, refused to shoot those people; it's an "obviously illegal command" - he would be court-martialled and win. There are precedents, but unfortunatley they aren't used quite as often as they should.)

This is the strength of Israeli democracy, you don't see any of this in the Palestinian news regarding misbehavior of Hamas.

The guilty will be punished, because Israel is governed by law, and not by Kalashnikov.

Unfortunately, Michael, that's grossly innacurate. IDF soldiers are court-martialled over this kind of thing very rarely (many Israelis find the very thought of it offensive!) and even more rarely do they suffer serious consequences. Even for major historical incidents, IDF soldiers involved have mostly done less than a year in prison for this kind of thing.

I really don't know which Israel it is you are looking at sometimes, Michael. It doesn't sound much like the one I grew up in.

"The Israeli Military Advocate General has for the first time called for criminal inquiries into the conduct of Israeli troops in Gaza. The request came in response to soldiers' testimonies that described loose rules of engagement, troops firing on unarmed civilians, and troops intentionally vandalizing property during the three-week assault on Gaza. We speak to Gaza-based journalist Amira Hass of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz."

OC Home Front Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan also spoke at the conference, and addressed allegations that soldiers did not live up to the army's ethical standards during the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

Golan said he visited the forces during the fighting and was impressed that the war was being waged in a moral manner. He said that testimonies to the contrary were exaggerated.

"The moral standards of the army are high," he said. "There were clear directives to maintain the distinction between civilians and fighters.

"We are not the ones who chose this battlefield," he said. "We know who cynically exploits the [civilian] population."

He would say that. 

The military pyche is very different from the rest of society - while fundamentally the same - the motivations and methods they subscribe to and utilize are alien. After boot camp and years of training and combat operations - they're broken down and rebuilt into something completely different (this goes for every soldier in the military complex of the advanced western world and most other "well"-trained and "disciplined" soldiers.) - They live for the other soldiers. They live for the military life. They live for the polished, nationalistic view of their country.

Considering the need of a general to maintain the cohesion of his army - it would be in his and their best interest not to betray those troops by publically condemning them and losing their trust. He has to be able to command them and know that soldiers will follow his orders. If not, his career is essentially over. It may not even be a sense of self preservation either - the level of camaraderie in the military is through the roof. You live and die together - protecting eachother - celebrating together - kill together. That creates an iron bound level of trust and loyalty - not often broken by the toughest of lawyers in the highest courts.

I admit this is a generalization (no pun) - but it's an entirely possible scenario and not likely far from reality for this general and any other. People lie... in every nation, society, neighborhood, group - there are liars. To throw up the statements (opinions) of probably the most biased people in this conflict - means very little. 

Actually... what you write about breaking down soldiers in basic training....
I don't think that is true as much today as a few decades ago, and not as true in Israel as in the US.

Which is to say - in a militarized society, there is a less urgent need to 'convert' civilians to thinking like soldiers.

Part of the real story here is that there is a rift in the army, in the officer corps. Some folks think that abuses are an awful sign, a symptom of a danger that must be addressed. Others think that bad PR is the problem, not the behavior. To Israel's credit, large portions of society take ethics seriously - in a way. As an example, looting is punished severely, much more than say, destroying property for no reason. Damaging the enemy is cool; displaying venality is not.

A statement by an anonymous source reported by a newspaper...


This is no more convincing than stories claiming the opposite.

Because I read into more than anonymous, biased newspaper articles.

Maybe so, but you are still missing a big part of the picture, something that only first hand knowledge can bring.

FYI I read over 25 different news publications daily from the London Times to the Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, online and on-paper.

You must be the largest driver of Israeli propoganda. I hope they pay you. 

Yes, Michael, exactly, the IDF forgoes indoctrination and basic training to keep its troops civilian, and this is what makes it such an effective fighting force.

Your efforts to make Israel look good would probably be much more useful if they were, you know, remotely realistic, in the sense of being related to actual reality.

(Just to be clear, it's not like I think Hamas, Fatah, etc. are good honest folk... They're not, they're criminals, liars, petty thieves, generally unsavory people, and corrupt to the bone... This doesn't, however, automatically make the IDF a paragon of moral democratic transparency. There are good and bad people on both sides, and bad people generally have a tendency to gather where weapons, power and money are available, and unsurprisingly all of these tend to be found in especially high concentrations within the organizations responsible for killing the other side. Israel generally has the means and aspiration to oversee what its army does, but the army is equally interested in maintaining independence and opacity... The IDF may be better than Hamas, but *not* being better than Hamas generally requires conscious effort to be really awful, so that's not saying much.)

Jeremy, saying something is propaganda does not take away from the truth, it is an invalid argument, and you know it.

Michael, The IDF is not perfect but compared to any other military in the world it is second to none in its moral standards, on any scale you care to compare it.

Michael I challenge you to come up with a single military force on the planet that has a higher moral standard, less incidents of civilian casualties relative to combatants in similar operations or any other metric you care to pick.

What's your point? You started out saying "the Israeli military is 80% civilians, people just like you and me, therefore [...] breaking down the soldier does not apply. The Israel military has a 60 plus year reputation of telling the truth, correcting mistakes and moving on, that's why they always win."

Now the point is that regardless of the IDF's flaws, everybody else is worse?

Make up your mind.

Indeed. It may be the "best" military out there - that doesn't make it a good thing. 

Michael (Sappir) said it best: "There are good and bad people on both sides, and bad people generally have a tendency to gather where weapons, power and money are available."

Having told the truth (if you call it that) and having expressed concern about innocents' deaths, and being what you describe as the most moral army in the world may indeed be true but it does not justify what it has actually done - which is kill (innocent) people and oppress others based soley on association.

I don't think the military leaders of any army in the world - even the most corrupt - would say less about their own. In fact Nazis claimed to be a moral model for other armies. No military is going to admit to being less than moral, they all have to play a tough PR game to maintain public support - because it's not easy to convince people that killing is ok - now who's using worthless "evidence?"
There is no absolute good? What does that even mean? There are no absolutely good actions? I'd say love is pretty good and at least close to pure. There are no absolutely good people? Of course there aren't. Good and evil resides in all of us. There are no absolutely good armies? Absolutely correct - it's an oxymoron.
I'm not denouncing Israel's army as bad relative to other armies... I don't care... you can compare it to other militaries all you want.... I denounce warfare at large and as long as the Israeli army continues to wage warfare - no matter how they justify it - I'm going to be critical. It's not because of who they are - or how bad or good I think their type of warfare is - or whether I support the opposite side - or any other reason... it's warfare itself that is inherently evil - not those who commit it. 

You can attempt to play logic games with me by attacking my "evidence," but no matter how "good" you say the IDF is, and no matter how good it REALLY is - it doesn't matter how good they are relative to other armies because it will never be good to me as long as bombs are dropped and bullets fly.

Not to mention criticism isn's necessarily a bad thing... When I criticize Israel, personally, it's because I know Israel can do better and I wish things over there weren't so f***ed up. This probably has to do with my whole family living there and me growing up there etc, but when I see reasoned criticism about Israel from non-Israelis I'm happy at that... And another point of criticism about Israel and the IDF is that they don't deal well with criticism from within or from without...

Jeremy,

I understand your philosophy, but its a fantasy, in the real world, on planet earth its a dog eat dog, animal eat animal world.

Just look at the natural world, man is at the top of the food scale, and the animals below us kill to survive, its in our genes that have evolved over millions of years, nothing your ideals can do about it, and criticizing a nation for defending itself as part of the natural order of life on this planet is absurd in the least.

This planet is run by power of force, every country on the map was acquired by force, the US rules by force, one has to accept it to survive, its the law of nature.

Michael,

I agree with your part on criticism, the IDF would not be that good if it did not listen to its critics.

 What I find objectionable is all this c____p I read that people invent, not based on any facts, then they voice an opinion based on these lies, its absurd.

"This planet is run by power of force" - excellent, a position that wouldn't shame a fascist! Great point of view!

The only animals on Earth who wage war on a societal scale are humans and insects. Occupation is NOT comparable with subsistence predation no matter what way you stretch it. So you're saying if it's good enough for ants, it's good enough for us too, basically, huh?

I think Michael (Ross) has pointed out something very true - this sort of natural, instinctive order we live in... but there more that drives us than this. It is a sort of duality at work here. Some call it yin and yang. Some Thanatos and Eros. It has many names and is recognized in countless cultures. There is even evidence of it in psychology. Philosophers debate about it. Biology finds the opposing forces in our DNA. 

Love. The human spirit. This force - whatever you want to call it opposes that competitives, instinctual desire and death drive. (or course in dualities twisting ways - each drive isn't absolutely good and evil either) 

There's a reason why we're capable of loving those we would most likely hate. There's a reason why we trust people. This is not the work of evil. 

I have looked at the "natural world" - but I see something very different from what you see. I see a species that gave up cannibalism for the hunt and progressed. I see a race that has replaced nomadic hunting with agriculture. I see more civilizations surviving through time in peace with their neighbors. I see more countries trading than going to war. I see the near end of slavery. I see the vote for women. I see a black man as President of Anglo-America. Is this progress consistent around the world? No. Of course not. But rarely.. RARELY... do you see a group of people go backwards. Sure you can cite the events.... history is full of them... but that's what history is.... a record of events humanity strayed too far from the normal, natural path of humanity which is... progress. 

More neighbors live side by side without dispute than those that quarrel. More people settle conflict peacefully than those who do not. THIS is the natural way. It is THE way. The more you resist it - the more you'll be hurt. 

Call it a fantasy - but it's all over the place. I have no corny delusions that we'll have peace tomorrow. I don't believe that in the next century and beyond that peace as a means we'll always succeed - people will die - but it's a step in the right direction and people die just as much with your alternative. 

I'm sorry for you. I really am. To see someone so wrapped up in fear and warped by anger is disturbing. I pray that someday you'll wake up and realize that you have a choice - you can embrace peace - or continue to perpetuate violence. Neither can guarantee your survival - but one can guarantee your soul.

Jeremy, read this website and see who we are up against, then come back and tell me how peace is possible with such a group.

http://www.pmw.org.il/home.htm

From their own about section: "Palestinian Media Watch prepared the material for the Israeli delegation that was submitted at these negotiations."

This is hardly a self-portrait as they would have you believe from the heading of their website. Not only that but it is a compilation of evidence AGAINST Palestinians used to bargain with. The motives behind it are skewed. I'm not saying the materials they've provided are false - further I don't deny a negative picture of Palestinians - but it's not the whole picture. No large, inter-generational group of human beings is beyond reason.

As for telling you how peace is possible - I've done that enough for you.

Jeremy, you are missing the fundamental issue, this is not about hate at all, its about oil.

The Arab world do not want Western influence in the ME, Israel is just that, they are using the Palestinians to get rid of Israel, now its Iran earlier it was Egypt and Jordan, unless we stop the Iranians they will be no peace, all the rest is BS.

Way to completely avoid what I'm talking about. First - I never said it wasn't about oil. Second - I'm not saying it's "about hate" - whatever that means. 
Michael Ross - Master of Red Herrings.

"Objectively, they have all the land they will ever need and all the money, so why not leave Israel alone?"
Who, the Palestinians? Excuse me while I laugh myself to death. The Arab world may make a show of "supporting their bretheren in Palestine" but the fact is nobody has killed more Palestinians than...King Hussein of Jordan, who slaughtered some ten thousand of them in his country a few decades ago. The Palestinians, for the most part, have nowhere else to go. They are not truly welcome anywhere in the Arab world, despite the use by many anti-Western governments of pro-Palestinian rhetoric.

And as for "You can not occupy territory that was once yours," the State of Israel is occupying land that has never belonged to the State of Israel. We cannot base land ownership on maps dated 200 A.D. (or earlier) By that logic, states representing the Native American nations would have every right to conquer and occupy the entirety of the Americas... But of course, the colonists did a much better job at slaughtering and subduing them than was done with the Jews, so I guess the peoples of the Americas don't have to worry about losing the lands where they were born... The Palestinians just aren't quite as lucky, I guess.

Michael you are evading the main issue, the Palestinians were given equal land to the Jews in 1947 (proportional to their population), they went to war against Israel with the rest of the Arab world, and Israel built a state, there is the crux of the problem.

So Michael what you are saying is that because Hussein killed 10,000 Palestinians then we should not pressure Jordan, than maybe Israel should kill 20,000 Palestinians, according to your logic, then the world would believe Israel does not want them.

The fact is that Palestinians are Jordanians and if Jordan was a democracy and not a monarchy we would not have a Palestinian problem, they would all be Jordanians.

First of all, way to completely miss my point. You argued the Palestinians could go anywhere, I argued they can't. The scope of what I stated was rebuttal. Of course it would be nice if the whole world were comprised of enlightened democracies and the Palestinains could go to Jordan or wherever else they want, but that's immaterial. Your argument that "the arabs" are pestering Israel "even though they have all the land and money" is bunk if you base it on the claim that the Palestinians are part of this group with the means and lands to go anywhere. The fact is there are a few million people between the Jordan and the sea who are refugees, without a state to protect them, and Israel is the dominant force occupying them and the lands they live on. You claim that Israel is a highly moral state, and as an Israel I concur that this is part of the very concept of the State of Israel from its conception - but to fulfill that part of the beautiful vision behind Israel, Israel has to treat the human beings under its power in an *ethical and humane manner*, regardless of the fact that some of these people hate Israel and murderously try to kill its citizens. Israel cannot escape this responsibility by claiming that the Palestinians could go anywhere, because they simply can't.

As for 1947/8, I can't say I disagree entirely - the UN decision was a relatively fair one, compared to most of what has come since. Nonetheless, it was a pretty inconsiderate kind of colonial mindset that ignored the fact that there was a people in that region that already laid claim to the land and that many people would be displaced by the founding of the new state. It was basically a plan forced on the people later known as Palestinians, by international powers, without so much of planning to cooperate with them in the creation of the new state... War was inevitable. What's done is done, but I wouldn't call the Arab attack following the UN Resolution completely unprovoked (even if it wasn't *justified*)... And that is all largely irrelevant now, when the vast majority of people identifying themselves as Palestinians weren't born at the time. It is not fair to suffer for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers, no matter what they did. These are human beings being treated inhumanely, and that is something unnaceptable, period.

Well said, Michael (Sappir.)

1. The fact that the Palestinians can not go anywhere is not Israels fault or responsibility, Israel is not the size of the US that can take in the worlds refugees. Following your logic Israel should also allow the rest of the so called Palestinian refugees, over 3 million into Israel.

2. The treatment of the Palestinians is deserved, based on their behavior, they have murdered over the years thousands of innocent Israelis. The Bedouin are treated with respect, because they treat Israel with respect and serve in the IDF. In fact close to a million Israeli Arabs are an active part of Israel's democracy.

1. Astute observation. I've made no secret of the fact I think a single state for Israelis and Palestinians may be a very good solution, and naturally that means not having a border between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Or do you mean the right of return? That's probably a good idea but I haven't given much thought to it.

2. Okay, now I am actually convinced that you are paid by Israel to write this stuff... I knew they astroturf, but you've made it painfully obvious you are part of that. Let's break your point 2 into three parts:
a) by that logic, the German people should all be executed for the Holocaust, or should have all been directly after the war... What's done is done. You can't hold a people collectively responsible for the crimes of terrorist organizations, even in such a case where there really is broad popular support for the murderers. That's simply an inhumane policy and quite precisely one of the biggest issues I have with Israel's handling of the conflict.

b) The Bedoin are NOT treated with respect, and you are either being ignorant or deceitful here. Israel has been herding Bedouins into town against their will for decades, and moreover, most of the Bedouin settlements, including those created by Israel, are sorely lacking in the infrastructure Israeli settlements and towns enjoy. The Bedouins are citizens whom Israel categorically neglects and against whom Israel displays categorical prejudice. Check your facts.

c) The voting rates amongst Israeli Arabs are low and they have always been underrepresented in Knesset compared to their population. Israeli Arab towns/villages categorically receive less funding and attention from the authorities (

(my laptop sent that prematurely, here's the rest:)
Israeli Arab towns/villages categorically receive less funding and attention from the authorities (though generally more than their Bedouin counterparts) and Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the freedom of movement and other liberties that Israeli Jews enjoy quite to the same degree (they are routinely pestered by the authorities and denied many of their rights.) They have basically grown accustomed to being treated as second-class citizens, but they are still rather moderate politically and do identify themselves, for the most part, with Israel nonethless.

You do Israel no great service by making ridiculous claims, Michael. Be realistic and stop embellishing, it will make your support of Israel more convinving and effective.

Enough with the Hitler Mussolini BS, James you sound like a broken record. NOT RELEVANT! Enough with the labeling, talk about the issues.

You keep talking in paraphrases and generalities, and still have not come up with a better solution to attacks from terrorists, than the one Israel is pursuing, be constructive, to criticize is easy, come up with a better way, if you can!

Criticizing is a perfectly legitimate method of being constructive. The process of elimination is at the cornerstone of the scientific method and has been successful for thousands of years. Find a solution is a wonderful conversation I think everyone here would like to have - but it's nearly impossible to have it with someone so opposed to change. Countless times we've offered peaceful ideas and you've rejected them all simply because you have faith that the people you're up against are evil. That's not a frame of mind one can have when trying to find peaceful solutions - and if you can't change that - it's not a conversation we can have with you.

BE SPECIFIC JAMES, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE BETTER ATTACKS FROM TERRORISTS? STOP THE GENERALITIES.

End Israeli aggression, oppression and murder and end settlement expansion, land seizure, apartheid, home and farm destruction. Make clear that Palestinians are a people with human rights, and the right to select their government, have a state with declared borders, that they are to be an independent and sovereign state. Ending terrorist attacks by a severely oppressed people requires the end of military attacks and terrorist activities sponsored by the Israeli government. I believe I have repeated this many times, but some never hear it. Very specific!

James, you read history books and know that Israel has offered time and time again peace to the Palestinians only to be rejected again and again with violence and terror. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their sad state of affairs.
Israeli actions in the WB and Gaza are a measure of self defense against endless terror, you have reversed the cause and effect in the area. First came the intifada then Israel's defense measures, not the opposite as you like to present.

Prior to the intifada Palestinians had free access to all of Israel including jobs, then Arafat started the intifada, only then did the defensive measures come from Israel, not the opposite. Arafat could have continued negotiations, and by now they would have had a state of their own, but no, they wanted it all, all of Israel, so they started the intifada, so please stop reversing cause and effect.

FIRST CAME THE INTIFADA THEN THE DEFENSIVE MEASURES OF ISRAEL.

Once again the propaganda line that Arafat representing the Palestinians rejected a generous offer of peace.

 The Oslo Accords called for a five-year transitional period under which Israel would gradually withdraw its troops and administrative structure from the major Palestinian population centers in favor of the Palestinian authority, the interim Palestinian government. At the end of the transitional period there would be a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territories conquered in the Six-Day War. In return, Arafat promised to end anti-Israeli violence in the Occupied Territories and to directly cooperate with Israeli security forces.  According to Oslo, Israel would allow limited autonomy and early empowerment for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Jericho, a small West Bank town sixty miles away from Gaza. A few hundred members of the Palestine Liberation Army stationed in Jordan would be permitted to serve as a police force.  Israel would continue to control the land, water, overall security and foreign affairs in these "autonomous areas."

The Oslo process led to separation within the occupied territories under continued Israeli hegemony with no attempts of recognizing Palestinian sovereignty.

The autonomous areas were in fact controlled by Israel because they had control over the water, security, extended relations, and the veto power in everything of consequence occurring in these areas.

 The Palestinians envisioned their state, they did so with the idea and conviction that it would be a sovereign and independent state.  In strong contrast, the Israelis were only willing to grant the Palestinians autonomous rule, which simply meant they could control their own services such as police, education, parks, and tourism.  Furthermore, if there were things the Israelis did not like they could come in and change it.

The agreement allowed the IDF to maintain a military presence and to retain full responsibility for external security and control of the borders between Jordan and Egypt in an area marked for Palestinian "self-government".

To most Palestinians, the Jewish Settlements were the greatest obstacle to achieving peace with Israel.  The Oslo Accords contain no clauses that explicitly forbid the construction or expansion of settlements, confiscation of land to build roads or the demolition of houses. In fact, the only mention of construction in the Accords is one that forbids the Palestinians to build any construction close to the settlements and military locations that may harm, damage or adversely affect them or the infrastructure that serves them. In an editorial to the New York Times, Arafat expressed his frustration with Oslo and the Israeli settlement activity.  He wrote, "How can I convince my people that Israel is serious about peace while over the past decade Israel intensified the colonization of Palestinian land from which it was ostensibly negotiating a withdrawal."

If you don't agree with something, that does not make it propaganda.

"Monsters now lead......"  you are obviously to emotionally involved, the monsters are Hamas that murdered just recently their Palestinian rivals in Gaza, not a word about that from you.

Netanyahu is a pathological liar....." and you know this how?

I can't have a serious discussion with you.