I was asked by a Facebook friend for my opinion on the Israeli organization of “Shovrim Shtika” or “Breaking the Silence“. For those who don’t know, this is a relatively new organization which aims at collecting testimonials from Israeli soldiers who have served in the Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza, during the second Intifada. They also collect testimonials about Operation Cast Lead (the Israeli Campaign against Gaza in January 2009).
What they’re doing is quite upsetting for some Israelis. On some level it’s a natural reaction, as people see these testimonials as providing ammunition for anti-Israeli propaganda. The sentiment along the lines of “don’t wash our dirty laundry in public”.
For myself, as an Israeli, I think their work is extremely important. The only way to clean laundry is by washing it and airing it in public. Yes, that means “others” are looking too, and yes, some of them are bound to take things out of context occasionally and twist things for their own needs, but I still prefer that over walking around with filthy clothes.
One observation I’d like to make about some of the horrible things reported by Breaking the Silence.
There is a difference between war crimes and the simple ugliness of the daily routine of the occupation.
War crimes are illegal, and should be investigated in full and those responsible brought to trial. I read today that the IDF’s Military Police is carrying out over 100 investigations of alleged war crimes in operation Cast Lead. As an Israeli citizen and a former IDF officer, I expect these to be carried out to the full. When there is evidence, those guilty, as well as the officers in charge, should be brought to trial and punished. No if’s and but’s.
In the context of this post, I expect Breaking the Silence to report any testimonials that indicate actual war crimes to the IDF. I realize it’s a delicate issue. If they want ex-combatant soldiers to openly tell of their experiences, they can’t very well report them for things they’ve confessed to. However, I feel that these incidents should be handled properly and those found guilty should be put on trial.
As for the ugliness of the daily interaction with civilians in the awful routine of the occupation, this is where I think we need the people of Breaking the Silence the most. I think it’s the Israeli public that needs to hear these stories, and for those who still don’t get it – it’s time to realize just how bad the occupation, not just for the Palestinians, but for the soldiers who are faced with carrying out these missions.
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Except that the majority of the ‘testimonials’ that Breaking the Silence publishes are not from soldiers who actually witnessed any wrong doings.
Yet, were based on second-hand evidence and hearsay.
An IDF commander even that one of the soldiers who testified in the report was not even in the field at the time: “He told his commander about a week [during] which he wasn’t even in the field. He reported about what he heard happened.”
NGO Monitor’s Dan Kosky points to the Breaking the Silence report’s central problems – flawed methodology and absence of any reasonable research standards:
By Breaking the Silence’s own admission, the allegations are comprised of “the testimony of around 30 combatants” – a fraction of the thousands of Israeli combat troops deployed during the Gaza conflict. This extremely narrow and presumably hand-picked sample is an absurd basis on which to pass judgment, and even these limited testimonies were entirely unverifiable.
All statements are anonymous, and so-called “evidence” is further compromised by the absence of any details of where and when alleged incidents occurred. Consequently, were the report intended to prompt the IDF to investigate individual allegations, Breaking the Silence has made this impossible.
Check out HonestReporting’s FULL report on ‘Breaking the Silence” here: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Breaking_the_Silence_More_Rumor__Hearsay.asp
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I didn’t think they were “sampling”. I figured they were approached by those who witnessed or took part in bad stuff.
To me, it’s clear that they are the minority and that most soldiers are not involved in such things, but it still needs to be heard and investigated.
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Oh, as for it being “rumors” – I think these should be investigated as well. It’s like, if you hear a rumor about a child being abused – you still need to bring it up and look into it. It doesn’t make it true – but it’s bad enough to require looking into.
You’re not saying that all is well and all IDF soldiers are well behaved? Come on… everyone who’s been there and knows people who’ve been there knows it’s not a rosy picture.
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Yes but it is very deceiving to report on ‘Soldier’s Testimonies’ about issues said soldiers didn’t actually take part in.
I agree that any incident needs to be investigated. However, the organization sent their reports only to the media, not to the IDF for a full investigation. By refusing to give details,and soldiers names, it makes it impossible for the IDF to investigate and take further action.
The only objective this organization has is to bring negative press to Israel, the IDF, and the so-called ‘Occupation’.
The IDF, like any army that is made up of young men and woman, includes many whom do not act with the strict sense of discipline and integrity it instills.
However, I have never witnessed a single incident that was reported not dealt with severely and responsibly by commanding officers, and when necessary, the military police.
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Good points there. I agree, and as I said in the post, I expect them to report things to the IDF. I have no problem with it being public but reports should go first and foremost to the IDF with enough details to allow them to handle them.
on Sep 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Josh – all the testimony gathered by Shovrim Shtika is first-hand, eyewitness testimony. Each incident was verified by at least 5 witnesses. You can read the entire report, including a full description of the NGO’s methodology, on the Shovrim Shtika website.
The second-hand testimony to which you are referring is from another report – the one compiled by Danny Zamir, several months previous to the publication of the Shovrim Shtika report.
on Sep 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Frankly, I wish the US would take the same approach. It is refreshing, if true, as well as completely depressing, of course. This is the nature of bad news and of the world in general. We gain nothing from hiding even our worst traits. The world admires the man who asks forgiveness. His honesty is a ray of light in an increasingly dark room.
on Sep 10th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Wrong Lisa,
You can read for yourself here at http://www.shovrimshtika.org/testimonies_e.asp?cat=22
These ‘testimonies’ are often not first hand, and always lacking names and details.
Here is just one example for you:
In the ‘Testimony’ entitled ‘Tampons’ (in the link I just presented). An unidentified soldier with the rank of ‘first sergeant’ in this testimony states:
‘There was an incident with our battalion commander when it was said that he shot a single bullet and killed a child at a demonstration.’
Wow – amazing firsthand, eye-witness account right there!
on Sep 10th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Another example:
Rank: First Sergeant
Unit: “Sting”
Place of incident: Nablus
Description: This is the thing; sometimes people would shoot at televisions for fun. My paratroops friends used to tell me that they lay on roofs in Nablus and shoot the water tanks in order to see how they explode, or that people would steal mini-discs and dollars.
REALLY? This is first-hand eyewitness testimony?
on Sep 10th, 2009 at 4:39 am
And specifically regarding the report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, please refer to page ’95′
‘Looting?
I think there was, according to what I heard.’
(page 96)
Did the commanders care that people took stuff?
I don’t know. The company commander didn’t want to deal with it and confront
the soldiers.
(He doesn’t even know if there WAS looting, wasn’t even there – but now commented on what the company commander was thinking)
page 102
There was this paratrooper platoon commander I heard talking in retrospect
about an incident they had, “How we took them apart, trashed their house, didn’t
leave one stone in place.” Okay, why did you do it, were they firing from that
house? “No, not from that house, from nearby. We killed the terrorist and went
in to trash the house.”
HEARSAY and rumors.
I would go on, but I must go food shopping