Вчерашний "бульдозерный" теракт в Иерусалиме свидетельствует, что уровне гнева и напряжение в палестинской среде на Западном берегу так и не снизились.

И в этой кипящей атмосфере мэр Иерусалима объявляет о намерении снести 88 домов в квартале Аль-Бустан возле деревни Силуан. В результате палестинская администрация объявила о забастовке всех торговых учреждений на Западном берегу.

Муниципалитет настаивает на том, что строительство и проживание является нарушением закона. И в прошлом мэрия пыталась разрушить эти дома под тем же предлогом, однако была вынуждена отступить под международным давлением.

Сейчас, похоже, столичные власти решили использовать период формирования правительства для реализации давних планов.

Утверждения о незаконном характере строительства в аль-Бустан выглядят на первый взгляд обоснованными. Однако, когда мэрия не дает разрешения на строительство из-за отсутствия генплана застройки, или же препятствует получению подобного соображения по политическим причинам, она заставляет палестинцев, владеющих земельными участками десятки лет, идти на нарушение закона.

Похоже, мэрия также понимает, что разрушение домов будет иметь далеко идущие последствия, поэтому и предложила владельцам строений земельные участки на замену (предложение было отвергнуто). Отметим одно - если муниципальные власти уверены, что речь идет о нарушителях закона, то почему им были предложены другие земли?

Между тем разрушение палестинских домов принесет нам гигантский ущерб и на внешнеполитическом уровне – скажем, Клинтон во время нынешнего визита жестко заявила, что подобный шаг "будет противоречить обязательствам, четко указанным в Дорожной карте".

Израиль мог бы и не подставлять себя под град критики со стороны госсекретаря США, если бы наше правительство заблаговременно сообщило, что оно выступает против разрушения домов. Ведь этот кабинета министров и так воздерживается от нарушения незаконных строений – скажем, в поселенческих форпостах, построенных в нарушения закона.

Понемногу в обществе появляется чувство большого упущения. К примеру, если бы Ольмерта не заподозрили в коррупции и не вынудили бы уйти в отставку, мы бы успешно продвигались по пути переговоров с Сирией. Или если бы Ливни чуть раньше пришла бы в себя, мы бы уже все вместе танцевали бы на дискотеках в Рамалле. Потому что новый американский президент не только готов, но уже начал "размораживать" отношения с Сирией.

Его госсекретарь звучит решительно настроенной, когда она говорит о "двух государствах для двух народов". Мы же, похоже, точно также как и палестинцы, знаем, когда именно нужно упустить представившуюся возможность. Когда США наконец-то созрели, мы выставляем перед ними Нетаниягу и Либермана – в качестве "защитной стены" перед любой мирной инициативой.

Между тем у нас в регионе идет рождение нового стратегического блока: Иран-Сирия-Турция-Иран.

Россия обладает мощными козырями в этом союзе, и США, которые при Буше предпочитали наблюдать со стороны, сейчас стремятся занять место за столом участников. Удобное разделение арабских стран на "умеренных" и "экстремистских" больше не в ходу.

Катар стал стратегическим союзником Сирии, Саудовская Аравия отправляет в Дамаск своего министра иностранных дел. Сирия планирует создать единую энергосистему – вместе с Ираном, Ираком и Турцией, и это в то время, когда Тегеран провозглашен "врагом арабов". "Плохие" и "хорошие" в нашем регионе начинают меняться местами, и участники вовлекают в этот процесс страны Запада.

Кто слеп в этой ситуации: США, которые пытаются найти новые пути противоборства иранской угрозе, и предлагающие союз России - или же Израиль, до сих пор предпочитающий заниматься поисками "ключей" к Газе и количеством сахара и цемента, которые нужно поставить в сектор?

Что произойдет, если в автономии процесс примирения, ФАТХ и ХАМАС создадут правительство национального единства, с которыми европейские правительства начнут вести диалог, подписывать соглашения и чьих представителей они будут принимать в своих столицах? Великобритания уже сейчас готова разговаривать с "Хизбаллой", ХАМАС тоже, скорее всего, скоро обзаведется партнером по диалогу с европейской стороны.

У Израиля есть возможность продемонстрировать понимание нынешних региональных процессов – накануне открывающейся через три недели в Катаре саммите ЛАГ. Обычно это пустое мероприятие, однако дважды эта конференция изменила положение дел в реальности.

Первый раз – в Хартуме в 1967 году, когда были провозглашены три арабских "нет" по отношению к Израилю. Второй раз – на саммите в Бейруте в 2002 году, когда была принята арабская инициатива с предложением мира и дружбы Израилю. За 35 лет изменилось арабское стратегическое видение. Оно может поменяться в этом месяце – если еврейское государство не продемонстрирует, что и оно способно взглянуть на проблемы по-новому.

Решение военной прокуратуры начать следствие по поводу заявлений нескольких военнослужащих о нарушениях законов ведения войны в ходе операции "Литой свинец" в Газе вызвало неоднозначную реакцию.

Публикация в леволиберальной газете "Гаарец", после которой и было начато расследование, была с энтузиазмом подхвачена арабскими СМИ, но впоследствии оказалось, что рассказы о якобы совершенных ЦАХАЛом военных преступлениях, стрельбе по безоружным людям и пр. были основаны на слухах.

На встрече выпускников подготовительных курсов имени Ицхака Рабина несколько участников боевых действий в Газе рассказали об эпизодах, которые якобы происходили во время боев в Газе, но признали позднее, что сами не были их свидетелями, а только слышали о них.

С другой стороны, публикация в "Гаарец" вызвала взрыв возмущения со стороны тех, кто действительно воевал в Газе и свидетельствовал вчера и сегодня в прессе и на радио о безукоризненном поведении солдат ЦАХАЛа по отношению к мирным жителям.

Как уже сообщал "Курсор", специальный следователь по правам палестинцев от Совета ООН по правам человека Ричард А. Фальк заявил вчера, что операция "Литой свинец", которую проводил ЦХАЛ в Газе, - "военное преступление".

"Если в ходе боевых действий невозможно отличить комбатантов от мирных жителей, - сказал он, - то вся операция – противозаконна". Еще в ходе операции Фальк заявлял, что имеются свидетельства военных преступлений, совершенных Израилем в Газе.

The whole world is against us, goes an old Jewish joke, and now we've joined in.

That witticism came to mind while reading headlines in the Hebrew press Thursday about the testimony that soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead in January gave at the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Kiryat Tivon in February. Dani Zamir, the head of the program, published the conversations in a newsletter sent to the course's graduates.

According to the testimony of a number of soldiers who took part in what appears to have been a group therapy session getting the war experiences off their chest, three soldiers told of cases in which civilians were killed by sniper fire, and of the wanton destruction of property.

The IDF military advocate general instructed the Criminal Investigation Division of the Military Police on Thursday to investigate the claims, and while some may dismiss the investigation as a fig leaf for the rest of the world, it isn't.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak's response to the story was telling. He said Israel is the most moral army in the world. While the country's detractors around the world would mock at that moniker, we Israelis believe it, and it is extremely important that we continue to do so.

The country fights not because it wants to, but because it has to. And since it has to, it is crucial that Israelis believe in the morality of their cause. The idea of a moral army is not important because of how we are perceived abroad, but rather for how we perceive ourselves.

This country demands a lot of sacrifice from its citizens, and people will only sacrifice if they feel that what they are sacrificing for is just and right. If the army would act in an immoral manner, it would pull the rug from under our feet, and would also deter good, decent people from either going into the army, or sending their children to fight there.

Thursday's headlines, picked up immediately by the wire services and getting wide play abroad, were "IDF killed civilians in Gaza under loose rules of engagement," and, "Testimony of soldiers who fought in Gaza: 'Cold blooded murder.'"

Obviously, everyone abroad who wants to accuse Israel of war crimes in Gaza will jump at these stories; every anti-Israel NGO will disseminate them as further proof of our evil.

What is lacking is context.

First of all, this type of testimony is legendary in Israel - there is even a phrase to describe it: yorim ve'bochim (shoot and weep). The most famous book of this genre, Siach Lochamim, came out immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, and was translated into English a few years latter under the title The Seventh Day.

The testimonials from the Rabin preparatory course have a similar feel: soldiers talking about their war experiences - what they saw, what they heard, what they felt good about, what they didn't feel good about.

It is important to note that none of the testimony was about what the soldiers did themselves, but rather of what they heard or saw other soldiers do. It is also important that what was reported seems to fall within the realm of aberrations by individuals during war against a cruel enemy hiding behind civilians, not a systematic loss by the army of its moral compass.

The second piece of context is Dani Zamir, the head of the program, who had the soldiers‚ words transcribed and published. A story in Haaretz on Thursday said that in 1990 Zamir, then a parachute company commander in the reserves, was tried and sentenced to prison for refusing to guard a ceremony where "right-wingers" brought Torah scrolls to Joseph's tomb in Nablus.

Zamir, in an interview on Israel Radio on Thursday, said that the soldiers from Operation Cast Lead who spoke at the meeting reflected an atmosphere inside the army of "contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians."

Zamir himself appears in a 2004 book titled Refusnik, Israel's Soldiers of Conscience, compiled and edited by Peretz Kidron, with a forward by Susan Sontag. The book, which earned commendation from no less a personage than Noam Chomsky, includes a section by Zamir, described as "an officer in the reserves from Kibbutz Ayelet Hashahar who was sentenced to 28 days for refusal to serve in Nablus and now heads the Kibbutz Movement's preparatory seminary for youngsters ahead of their induction in the army."

"With stupid resolve and the smugness of the all-knowing, primitive preachers and unbridled nationalists are leading and misleading us to calamity, while Pompeii is preoccupied with watching boxing matches and with banquets in advance of the disaster," he wrote.

"I see a volcano in the land where one-third of the inhabitants are banned, by dint of their national and ethnic origins and geographical location, from voting as equals, where they don't have basic civic rights and where thousands are detained under administrative decree - under a military justice system that is farcical.

"A land, a third of whose inhabitants have been subjected to extended military occupation for over 20 years - which means restrictions of rights and a different code of law for Jewish and Arab residents in the selfsame land - is not a democratic country.

"Accordingly, collaboration with a regime or government that forces or orders me to be part of an anti-democratic apparatus that leads to self-destruction, disintegration and national decay, along with the utter denial of its own foundations, is illegitimate, unjust and immoral, and will remain so as long as the state does not take one of only two feasible actions: annexation of all or most of the territories conquered in 1967 and granting full civil rights to those residing there; or withdrawal from densely populated areas and a settlement that will release us of responsibility for the residents of those areas, who will chose for themselves whatever regime they desire (of course with security arrangements included)."

That was what Zamir wrote in 1990, reprinted in 2004. The testimonies of the soldiers that he brought to the public's attention seem to corroborate - what a coincidence - his thesis.

By any sane definition of armed conflict, Israel's counter terror operation in Gaza against Hamas in December and January was a fully justified, lawful and moral undertaking. The IDF abided by the laws of war. It took every possible precaution to protect civilians in Gaza. The operation was conducted for the sole purpose of protecting the one million Israeli citizens in the country's south under assault from Palestinian missiles launched by terror operatives in Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Then too, by any sane definition of armed conflict, the missile war that Hamas and its sister terror organizations in Gaza launched against Israel was unjustified, illegal and immoral. The expressed purpose of those projectiles was to kill, maim and terrorize as many Israeli citizens as possible in order to effect a disintegration and collapse of Israeli society. Schools, nurseries, and synagogues were purposely and repeatedly targeted.

The only unjust aspect of Operation Cast Lead was the outgoing Kadima-Labor government's failure to finish what it started. By pulling IDF forces out of Gaza without first overthrowing Hamas's terror regime, the government did two things which are both wholly unjust. It allowed Hamas to survive to fight another day. And by leaving the Hamas regime in place, it indirectly legitimized it.

For Israel's foes - particularly in the West - Hamas's survival has expanded its credibility. Today anti-Israel political activists no longer blink when they equate Israel with Hamas. Every day violent demonstrations are held in one Western city or another where Israel's flag is burned and torn, and the flag of Hamas - a genocidal terror group - is waved proudly. The IDF is daily castigated as a terrorist organization and Hamas upheld as a "resistance movement." Calls are made by political activists and self-declared "human rights" organizations for war crimes charges to be brought against IDF soldiers and commanders as more and more European governments consider following Britain's lead and openly advocate recognizing Hamas.

Until last week, the IDF and the outgoing government were able to minimize the significance of the post-Operation Cast Lead campaign against Israel because the operation enjoyed the support of the Israeli Left - and particularly of the media. So long as the Left remained loyal, both the outgoing government and the IDF could reasonably assume that the impact of the manufactured allegations against Israel would not harm the IDF's ability to function.

But now the media are beginning to switch sides.

OPERATION CAST LEAD was an unpleasant event for the Israeli Left and particularly for the national media which it controls. There were two main reasons for this.

First, the media were the primary supporter of then prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan to remove all Israeli military personnel and civilians from Gaza in 2005. In the lead-up to the withdrawal, the media demonized all who questioned the wisdom of the plan and who warned that its implementation would expose southern Israel to Palestinian rockets, mortars and missiles.

The Palestinians' missile onslaught against the south was incontrovertible proof of their profound stupidity.

Second, Operation Cast Lead was carried out by a leftist government on the eve of the election. Had the media even thought about criticizing it, they would have shown that Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's claim that only a war fought by the Left will be supported was a lie. To shore up votes for Kadima and Labor, the media had to swallow their pacifist pride and rally around the flag.

For their efforts, the media found themselves ridiculed by the popular leftist satire program Eretz Nehederet which portrayed them as warmongers.

It is hard to know whether the media would have kept up their vigilant support for Operation Cast Lead if Kadima had won the elections, but now that Kadima has lost, and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu is forming the government, it is clear that the media no longer feel it is necessary to support the IDF. After all, the next battle will be led by Likud.

THE FIRST SIGN that the media were turning on the IDF came last month. It followed the well-known pattern: A far left political activist made unsubstantiated allegations against an IDF commander. The media treated the allegations as credible and demanded an investigation. In the event, Tel Aviv University Prof. Haim Ganz, who heads the Minerva Center for Human Rights, informed Ha'aretz that he wrote a letter to Prof. Hanoch Dagan, the dean of Tel Aviv University Law School, protesting his decision to hire retiring IDF Col. Pnina Baruch-Sharvit as an international law lecturer. Baruch-Sharvit was just ending her tour of duty as the commander of the IDF's International Law Division.

Ganz charged that Baruch-Sharvit had committed war crimes by giving legal authorization to IDF forces to carry out missions in Gaza, and that her presence on the law faculty was an insult to the humanitarian values of the university.

Ganz's allegations were patently absurd and libelous. But Ha'aretz was only too happy to give them credence and publish an editorial calling for her contract to be cancelled. In the end, after Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defended her, Dagan stood by his decision to bring her onto the faculty.

The damage, however, was done. First, Ganz and Ha'aretz gave an Israeli face to the anti-Israel activists claiming that our soldiers and officers are war criminals. And second, their assault on Baruch-Sharvit will be in the minds of other IDF lawyers planning a post-military career. They will now think twice before giving legal approval to clearly legal military missions knowing they are liable to be blacklisted for defending the country.

If the storm over Baruch-Sharvit was the opening salvo, the first major media assault on the IDF came on Thursday. Here too, the campaign was a coproduction of a far-left political activist and far-left reporters.

The Yitzhak Rabin pre-military academy in Jaffa is run by the kibbutz movement. It is the only pre-military academy that is openly and avowedly leftist. Its founder and director Danny Zamir was jailed in 1990 for refusing to serve in Nablus during the height of the Palestinian uprising. In 2004 he allowed his 1990 manifesto calling for soldiers to refuse orders to be reprinted in a book Refusnik: Israel's Soldiers of Conscience which was published with a forward by Susan Sontag and a recommendation by Noam Chomsky.

In its year-long program, Rabin academy cadets are subjected to post-Zionist political philosophy that according to sources familiar with the institution indoctrinates them to believe that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. In a recent conference the academy co-hosted with the Druse pre-army military academy, the Druse soldiers expressed their amazement that while they identified themselves with Israel and Zionism, their Jewish counterparts at the Rabin academy were avowedly anti-Israel.

Last month Zamir organized a conference of his former cadets who are now serving in IDF combat units. There, he encouraged these young soldiers to tell him and their war stories. In what can only be compared to a Communist group confessional, Zamir told Channel 10 that young soldiers were encouraged to view their actions in Gaza as immoral. A number of them accepted the terms of debate and described purportedly immoral acts they alleged were carried out in Gaza. In most cases, Zamir's soldiers acknowledged that they were not present on the scenes in the events they described. These included killing Palestinian women and children who entered fire zones and behaving in an unfriendly manner to Palestinian civilians whose homes the soldiers commandeered during the operation. Others characterized ethical, legal standing orders - such as the requirement for soldiers to value their lives and the lives of their comrades more highly than the lives of terror suspects - as immoral or illegal.

Zamir claims that he took these non-eyewitness accounts to the IDF and asked that they be investigated. Since he refused to provide the names of the soldiers involved in the alleged incidents and his eyewitness accounts were from soldiers who had not witnessed the accounts, the IDF officers he spoke with said they would have a hard time investigating.

UNHAPPY WITH THIS response, Zamir published the unsubstantiated accounts in his school's bulletin and gave the bulletin to two far-left reporters - Ofer Shelach from Channel 10 and Amos Harel from Ha'aretz.

In an act of unmitigated journalistic malpractice, on Friday night Shelach presented the unattributed testimonials as first-person accounts. He used actors to read out the soldiers' statements as if they were the soldiers themselves, and never told his audience that the voices they were hearing were not the voices of the actual soldiers. Then, he attacked the IDF for refusing to take these accounts seriously and for having the nerve to note that the Rabin pre-military academy is a known leftist institution. He of course didn't mention that Zamir himself served a prison sentence for refusing orders or that as recently as 2004 he contributed to a book explaining why the IDF is an immoral army.



As for Harel, he published the soldiers' statements in Ha'aretz. He then wrote an "analysis" arguing that the IDF cannot discount the statements by these anonymous voices because, in his view, the soldiers have "no reason" to lie. The fact that they present no evidence of their claims is apparently of no importance.

Now by presenting these second hand accounts of battles as fact; by presenting Zamir as a credible and objective observer; and by instructing the IDF to be ashamed of itself and mend its ways, Shelach and Harel are certainly atoning for their "sin" of supporting the army in Operation Cast Lead. Perhaps for them, that was all this was about.

But the consequences of their actions will be devastating for both the IDF and for the country. Just as Ha'aretz's campaign against Baruch-Sharvit will frighten other military lawyers called upon to assess the legality of proposed operations into refusing to make decisions, so incidents like this will make commanders in the field think twice before they tell their soldiers to protect themselves. That is, they will make the IDF a far less effective fighting force.

Internationally, Shelach's and Harel's unattributed and unsubstantiated reports will serve to legitimize the West's move towards Hamas. Already, thousands of news reports parroting theirs have been published throughout the world. And why not? What could be more damning than Israeli press reports citing Israeli soldiers? If these are the people Hamas is fighting, no wonder it wishes to destroy Israel.

Aside from the aid and comfort their reports provide to Western politicians keen to have their pictures taken with Khaled Mashaal, Shelach's and Harel's reports also place every IDF soldier and commander travelling to Europe at risk of arrest and indictment and trial on imaginary war crimes charges before the kangaroo courts springing up all over the continent. No doubt, for their efforts, Shelach and Harel can count on receiving front row tickets to the first star chamber. Lucky them.
caroline@carolineglick.com

Утверждения, будто солдаты ЦАХАЛа намеренно убивали гражданское население сектора Газы во время операции «Литой свинец», абсолютно ложны. Это подтвердила официальная комиссия ЦАХАЛа.

Источник в министерстве обороны сказал корреспонденту «Джерузалем Пост», что отчет близок к завершению. Военные следователи проверили утверждения выпускников школы предармейской подготовки им. Рабина. Эти обвинения были подхвачены израильской прессой и заголовки обошли весь мир.

Во время конференции один солдат утверждал, что некто открыл огонь по женщине с детьми, когда они вошли в запретную зону.

«Всех солдат, участвовавших в конференции, опросили, но не с целью наказания, а для выяснения, видели ли они описываемые эпизоды собственными глазами. Собрав все показания, мы можем сделать вывод, что солдаты не видели своими глазами события, которые они описывали».

«Все утверждения основаны на слухах. В инциденте со стрельбой по матери с детьми, на самом деле, стрелок сделал предупредительный выстрел, чтобы они поняли, что входят в запретную зону. Выстрел был сделан даже не в их направлении», - сказал источник.

«Командир стрелка взбежал по лестнице арабского дома, взобрался на крышу и спросил стрелка, почему он выстрелил в гражданских. Стрелок сказал, что он в гражданских не стрелял. Но солдаты на первом этаже слышали вопрос командира, и вот с этой точки поползли слухи, - сказал источник. – Мы можем сказать с абсолютной уверенностью, что никто по женщине с детьми не стрелял. Потом ротный командир поговорил со стрелком и его командиром. Мы точно знаем, что этого инцидента никогда не было».

Второе утверждение об убийстве гражданских лиц также было ложным. «Мы проверяем каждое утверждение, чтобы понять, имели ли место эти происшествия вообще, и сделать необходимые выводы».

«К сожалению, из-за конкуренции некоторые газеты подхватили эту историю. Стыд и позор, что пресса подхватила эту утку», - сказал источник. Ущерб, нанесенный имиджу Израиля во всем мире из-за этих публикаций, непоправим, даже если будут опубликованы результаты работы следственной комиссии.

«Позор, что пресса допустила распространение палестинской манипуляции, - сказал источник. – Посмотрите на утверждения, что мы убили в школе ООН в Газе 48 мирных граждан. На самом деле, было убито всего семь человек, и из них четверо или пятеро – террористы. ООН извинилась, но ущерб уже был нанесен».

I thought there is little more to add on the Guardian videos accusing the IDF of war crimes during the Gaza operation, given what has already been written in ZioNation, in the Jerusalem Post by the indispensable Melanie Philips and more, and more. And more as these lines are been written, but apparently, there is more to add.

In the first video I was struck by the Guardian reporter's decision to go to the Israeli website 'Shavuz' for technical information about Israel's unmanned drones capabilities. Shavuz is Hebrew slang for 'worn-out' or over worked. The site serves primarily as a service for soldiers before enlisting and before rejoining civilian lives. It gives advices on jobs, and academic courses along with social interactions in forums, exchange of war stories, and other army life experiences. IT IS NOT a supplier of professional information on Israel's technological capabilities; there are plenty of other sites and publication for that, many of them in English. Using 'Shavuz' for information on technology is the equivalent of using the 'London Employment Help Center' for information on the electronics of the London Tube. It is simply ludicrous; unfortunately there is nothing here to laugh at.

This link from 'Shavuz' would have given the Guardian part of the answer to their repeated question as to why so many civilians were hurt. In it Israeli pilots recall how Hamas operatives were dressed as women so the Israeli forces won't fire on them.

More: When ludicrousness stops being funny, the Guardian Gaza report

UPDATE – The New York Times has now published a follow-up story, Israel Disputes Soldiers’ Accounts of Gaza Abuses, which corrects some of the errors in its earlier reports, including the claim an Israeli sniper killed a mother and her two children. The Times admits that this charge was an “urban myth” based on nothing more than hearsay, and the story also directly quotes Israeli soldiers, including Yishai Goldflam, on the efforts they made to safeguard the lives and property of innocent Palestinian civilians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE March 23 – The brigade commander of the unit linked to alleged “wanton killings” in Gaza launched his own investigation after hearing of the charges, speaking with actual eyewitnesses, all of whom said that the alleged killings did not took place. The original charges, based only on hearsay and rumors, have therefore been refuted and should be retracted.

The brigade commander’s findings were reported in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, in a story titled IDF Investigation Refutes the Testimonies About Gaza Killings. According to the story (translation by CAMERA):

Two central incidents that came up in the testimony, which Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin pre-military academy presented to Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi, focus on one infantry brigade. The brigade’s commander today will present to Brigadier General Eyal Eisenberg, commander of the Gaza division, the findings of his personal investigation about the matter which he undertook in the last few days, and after approval, he will present his findings to the head of the Southern Command, Major General Yoav Gallant.

Regarding the incident in which it was claimed that a sniper fired at a Palestinian woman and her two daughters, the brigade commander’s investigation cites the sniper: “I saw the woman and her daughters and I shot warning shots. The section commander came up to the roof and shouted at me, 'Why did you shoot at them?’ I explained that I did not shoot at them, but I fired warning shots.”

Officers from the brigade surmise that fighters that stayed in the bottom floor of the Palestinian house thought that he hit them, and from here the rumor that a sniper killed a mother and her two daughters spread.

The other alleged incident, the killing by a sniper of an elderly woman, also seems not to have taken place:

Regarding the second incident, in which it was claimed that soldiers went up to the roof to entertain themselves with firing and killed an elderly Palestinian woman, the brigade commander investigation found that there was no such incident.

It seems the both Ha’aretz and the New York Times, which gave these stories great play despite a clear lack of evidence, should be composing forthright corrections – preferably to be run on the front page.

CAMERA’s first report on this subject, which includes full details of the charges and links to the initial reports in Ha’aretz and the New York Times, follows below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 22, 2009

Questions Raised about Charges of “Wanton Killing” in Gaza

Less than a month after Israel concluded operations in Gaza, some of the soldiers who served there met at the pre-military academy they had attended to discuss their experiences in the fighting. As the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz has reported, the head of the academy, Danny Zamir, arranged the gathering, and at the outset he condemned the Israeli operation for setting “new limits for the army’s ethical code and that of the State of Israel” and for sowing “massive destruction among civilians.”

Later in the discussion Zamir went further, stating:

I think it would be important for parents to sit here and hear this discussion. I think it would be an instructive discussion, and also very dismaying and depressing. You are describing an army with very low value norms, that's the truth.

Since, as Ha’aretz put it, Zamir “does not hide his political opinions,” it seems likely that his former students at the left-leaning Kibbutz-affiliated school knew what Zamir wanted to hear at the meeting, and that only a self-selected group attended. In any event, some of the attendees certainly did not disappoint Zamir, who had been imprisoned by the IDF in 1990 for refusing to serve in the West Bank. They recounted tales of “murder in cold blood,” including seemingly eyewitness accounts of a sniper shooting a woman and two of her children merely because they made a wrong turn, and another sniper killing an old woman.

Zamir wrote an article about the discussion for the academy’s newsletter, which he then provided to the Israeli newspapers Ha’aretz and Maariv, triggering in Ha’aretz alone multiple stories extremely critical of the Israeli army’s alleged conduct (here, here, here, here and here), as well as numerous stories in the foreign press, such as the New York Times, which put its initial report on page one above the fold (here and here). Both the Ha’aretz and the New York Times reports ignored detailed testimony by soldiers of exemplary conduct by the IDF, such as soldiers leaving an envelope of cash for the Palestinian homeowner whose house they had occupied.

While the Israeli government has promised a full and even a criminal investigation, serious doubts have already been raised about some of the charges.

For example, on Israel’s Channel 2, defense correspondent Roni Daniel reported that the soldier who supposedly witnessed the sniper shoot a mother and two of her children has now admitted to his brigade commander that he didn’t see any such thing:

I didn’t see it myself. There were stories like this. I wasn’t in that house and everything I said was only on the basis of rumors. At the gathering it was a friendly talk, and that's how I related to it.

Daniel raised similar questions about the killing of the old woman by a sniper, and concluded that “The credibility of these two stories is very doubtful.”

Here is Daniel’s report in Hebrew (English subtitles by CAMERA):
http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/stcasx/ca25win25213/channel2_gaza.wmv/play.asx

In the wake of Daniel’s broadcast, even Ha’aretz reported that the soldier recounting the tale of a mother and children being killed had been called in by his brigade commander, at which time he admitted he was relying solely on “rumors” within his unit:

By the afternoon, the army could report that the investigation into the testimony regarding the shooting of a mother and two children had reached preliminary conclusions. Givati brigade commander Ilan Malkha summoned the squad leader who recounted the story, who admitted he had relied solely on rumors in the company.

Counter Evidence Ignored

Ha’aretz, the New York Times, and most other outlets covering this controversy have ignored detailed statements by other soldiers of the strict rules of engagement that they followed, and of their acts of kindness towards Palestinians. (The Times devoted all of one sentence to a soldier who said that Israeli soldiers put their own lives at risk to avoid harming Palestinians. And the lone sentence was buried towards the end of the article.)

The Israeli newspaper Yediot recounted some of these in reaction to the Ha’aretz stories:

"I don’t believe there were soldiers who were looking to kill (Palestinians) for no reason," said 21-year-old Givati Brigade soldier Assaf Danziger, who was lightly injured three days before the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead.

"What happened there was not enjoyable to anyone; we wanted it to end as soon as possible and tried to avoid contact with innocent civilians," he said.

According to Danziger, soldiers were given specific orders to open fire only at armed terrorists or people who posed a threat. "There were no incidents of vandalism at any of the buildings we occupied. We did only what was justified and acted out of necessity. No one shot at civilians. People walked by us freely," he recounted.

In the same article Yediot also quoted other soldiers:

A Paratroopers Brigade soldier who also participated in the war called the claims "nonsense". Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said "It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the soldiers represented Israel honorably and with a high degree of morality.

"For instance, on three separate occasions my company commander checked soldiers' bags for stolen goods. Those who stole the smallest things, like candy, were severely punished," he said.

"We were forbidden from sleeping in Palestinians' beds even when we had no alternate accommodations, and we didn’t touch any of their food even after we hadn't had enough to eat for two days."

"During one incident, we were informed that a female suicide bomber was heading in our direction, but even when women approached us and crossed a certain point we made do with firing in the air, or near the women," the soldier recalled. "Even when we came across deserted stores, we didn’t even think of taking anything. One soldier took a can of food, but he immediately returned it after everyone yelled at him."

Major (res.) Idan Zuaretz of Givati said "in every war there is a small percentage of problematic soldiers, but we must look at it from a broad perspective and not focus on isolated incidents."

Zuaretz, a company commander, also questioned the integrity of the soldiers who made the controversial claims, saying "if this was such a burning issue for them, why have they remained silent until now? On an ethical and moral level, they were obligated to stop what they claimed had occurred and not wait two months to be heard at some esoteric debate."

According to the officer, the IDF went to great lengths and employed the most advanced technology to avoid harming civilian population.

"I've seen a few things in my time, but even I was blown away by the level of professionalism displayed by the army," Zuaretz said. "I personally gave my soldiers an order on the day we withdrew from Gaza to leave all of our goodies in the last house we occupied. Some reservists even left an envelope full of money to one Palestinian family."

Another soldier who had fought in Gaza, Yishai Goldflam, circulated an open letter to the Palestinian family whose home his unit had temporarily occupied during the fighting. His letter, titled “I am the soldier who slept in your home,” was published in Maariv, and then translated and published in Canada’s National Post. Goldflam too spoke of the care he and his fellow soldiers had taken to minimize damage to the home:

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English-language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and laid them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me -- us -- and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places. I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home...

It’s unfortunate that New York Times and Haaretz readers are fed constant doses of the anti-Israel story-of-the-day, while the papers ignore the stories of typical Israeli soldiers like Yishai Goldflam. Times editors (and their counterparts at Haaretz) should explain why Danny Zamir is fit to print, and Yishai Goldflam is not fit to print.

Through such tendentious choices is news made rather than reported.

Главный военный прокурор Авихай Менедельблит распорядился прекратить расследование по поводу незаконных действий, якобы, совершенных военнослужащими ЦАХАЛа во время операции "Литой свинец" в секторе Газы.

Генерал Мендельблит принял это решение после того, как в результате расследования выяснилось, что солдаты, на свидетельства которых опиралось расследование, не были свидетелями событий, о которых шла речь. "Военная прокуратура пришла к заключению, что упомянутые правонарушения не происходили".

Напомним, что расследование военной прокуратуры началось после того, как военнослужащие рассказали на собрании в предармейской школе имени Ицхака Рабина "свидетельства", согласно которым в ходе операции "Литой свинец" имели место преступные действия, такие как стрельба по безоружным и не представлявшим опасности людям, мародерства, обстрелы колонн с гуманитарной помощью. В результате расследования, проведенного армейской прокуратурой и полицией выяснилось, что, по меньшей мере, двое солдат сознательно преувеличили и утрировали происходившее в Газе. По их словам, "это было сделано, чтобы привлечь внимание остальных военнослужащих к нарушению Израилем закона в секторе Газы".

Двое "драматургов", Авив и Рам (имена вымышленные) рассказали, что "видели, как солдаты ЦАХАЛа стреляли в пожилую женщину, а также в стороны женщины с детьми". В ходе расследования они сознались, что о происшествиях узнали исключительно из слухов, и не видели ничего подобного сами.

"Я рассказал об этом на собрании, чтобы выразить свои чувства и эмоции, сознательно драматизировав ситуацию", - сознался один из солдат.

Депутат Михаэль Бен-Ари ("Национальное единство") выступил с беспрецеднтной по остроте критикой явления наушничества, насаждаемого в ЦАХАЛе офицерами-резервистами, занимающими явную политическую позицию на крайнем левом фланге.
...
"Кто такой - Дани Замир? О его человеческих качествах и гражданской позиции свидетельствует тот факт, что в то время, как воспитанники его "Мехины" воевали в Газе, он опубликовал в периодическом издании организации дезертиров и пораженцев "Гуш-Шалом", под названием "С левой стороны", стихотворение, в котором подчеркнул, используя парафразу на другое стихотворение другого поэта-левака, что мы перешли от ситуации "плачем, но стреляем" к ситуации "плачем, но убиваем"...

"Дани Замир принял участие в дискуссии на страницах прессы, объясняя Дову Ханину из комуннистической партии, каким образом не допустить потери голосов левым политическим лагерем на выборах 2009 года. Дани Замир, в качестве начальника подготовительной военной школы, обратился в письменной форме к министру просвещения Юли Тамир с просьбой об увеличении государственного финансирования его "Мехины", мотивируя это тем, что около 100 его воспитанников вступили в партию "Авода".

Дани Замир является также сторонником движения "Мужество отказаться", поощряющего солдат ЦАХАЛа к отказу от выполнения боевых задач на "оккупированных" территориях Иудеи и Самарии", - добавил Бен-Ари.

"Гуш-шалом", "Мужество отказаться", "Machsom Watch" являются опаснейшими врагами ЦАХАЛа и Израиля, разлагающими армию и саботирующими выполнение ею задач по обеспечению безопасности Израиля. Воспитание солдат в этом духе Дани Замир считает своей задачей на посту начальника Мехины им. Рабина. Пора осознать исходящую из этой концепции опасность и принять меры по удалению гнилостных бактерий из тела ЦАХАЛа", - призвал Бен-Ари...

Talkbacks for this article: 106 | Avg. rating 4.84 out of 5rated 4.84 by 154 people

IDF reservists have asked Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz to launch a criminal investigation against Haaretz for publishing "testimonies" by soldiers of alleged misconduct and serious human rights violations during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

The "testimonies" were reported widely in the media. Last week, Judge Advocate General Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit exonerated the IDF and decided to close a Military Police investigation into the accounts, claiming that they were based on rumors.

The letter, signed by 65 reservists who served in Operation Cast Lead, sent the letter to Mazuz on Monday and asked that he launch an investigation against Haaretz on charges of slander for reporting on the testimonies as if they were fact and not hearsay.

"It appears to us that Haaretz did not do the minimum of checking before reporting false accusations," the letter read.

RELATED
Rabin Academy head: Isolated vandalism not war crime
Personal code of IDF soldier: 'May our camp be pure'
Ashkenazi: 'Claims of IDF war crimes unfounded'
IDF source: Charges of civilian shootings false

"We are fed up with being called murderers and war criminals," said Amit Barak, who initiated the letter. "We will not tolerate being treated this way after as reservists we contribute to the state and come to serve in the IDF. We expect the state to stand up for us, its soldiers."

Barak said that some reservists were considering requesting that an investigation also be launched against head of the Rabin Pre-Military Academy Danny Zamir, who they claimed was instrumental in promoting the false accusations by leaking them to the press.

On Thursday morning, March 19, Israelis woke to find a story on the front pages of two leading daily newspapers that either rattled their self-image as citizens of a decent, ethical, Jewish state—or gave aid and comfort to the state’s enemies, depending on your point of view. The story was about a group of combat soldiers who, at a gathering a month earlier, had described Israeli army abuses during the just-ended Gaza incursion. Israel had been fighting nonstop accusations of atrocities in Gaza since the shooting ceased January 19. The publication of the soldiers’ accounts promised to be a huge embarrassment.

Because the story was so radioactive from Israel’s point of view, examining its progress as it made its way into the international media can serve as a sort of case study—it shows in real time how America’s media differ from other countries’ in their portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it helps illuminate the frequent charge that the American press is biased in Israel’s favor. Or against it, again, depending on your point of view.

The soldiers had told their stories during a February 13 visit to the Yitzhak Rabin Pre-Military Academy, one of seventeen army-certified institutes that offer students a gap year for study, community service, and early military training before their mandatory military service. The visitors, all Rabin alumni, had been asked to talk with students about their experiences. In the course of a freewheeling presentation, according to the news accounts, one soldier after another began to relate painful memories from the Gaza combat.

The Israeli news reports quoted two infantry squad leaders describing incidents in which rooftop snipers killed obviously harmless Palestinian civilians—an elderly woman and a mother with two children—because they had wandered into closed security zones. Others spoke of wanton vandalism in Palestinian homes that had been commandeered, or of orders to shoot and kill anyone found in a house after civilians had been ordered out. One squad leader described arguing with his commander to tighten the orders of engagement—rules on when to open fire—only to hear his own troops complain that they “should kill everyone there. Everyone there is a terrorist.”

The Rabin academy’s director, a deputy battalion commander in the Israeli army reserves named Danny Zamir, transcribed the discussion and sent it to Israel’s military central command, asking for an investigation. Treated dismissively, he published the transcript in the academy’s newsletter. On March 18, copies of the newsletter were obtained by the military correspondents at two of Israel’s three main dailies, Amos Harel of the left-leaning broadsheet Haaretz, and Ofer Shelah of the larger, right-leaning tabloid Maariv. They filed their stories that evening, Harel on his newspaper’s Web site and Shelah on Israel’s Channel 10 television, where he also works. The next morning their stories appeared on their newspapers’ front pages.

It’s important to note that Israel’s largest-circulation daily, the liberal tabloid Yediot Ahronot, reported the allegations only as a next-day follow-up, deep inside the paper. Yediot’s authoritative military editor, Alex Fishman, told me the soldiers’ stories sounded to him like pure hearsay. Still, as much as Yediot dominates the Israeli newspaper market, it was Haaretz that mattered, because Haaretz dominates the world’s view of Israel.

Haaretz is sometimes called The New York Times of Israel—a high-minded, uncompromising, liberal-leaning broadsheet. Its circulation is surprisingly small given its reputation; it’s read mainly by Israel’s business and intellectual elite. Its biggest impact these days is through its English-language Web site, which features abridged translations of the paper’s daily reporting and reaches huge international audiences. Maariv has a Web site, too, but it’s largely independent of the scrappy print tabloid and it misses key stories. And none of it is in English.

Haaretz also publishes an English-language print edition that lands every morning on the doorsteps of most diplomats, tourists, and foreign correspondents, and this is the correspondents’ first window into Israel each day.

The Haaretz connection is important to understand for another reason. Because of the paper’s leftist reputation at home (not entirely deserved—its economic views are closer to those of The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages), foreign reporting that relies on Haaretz’s framing of issues is commonly dismissed by hardline, pro-Israel activists as leftist propaganda. That proved to be a key angle of counterattack against the soldiers’ stories after they were reported in the West.

Thanks to Haaretz, the soldiers’ allegations traveled around the world almost as soon as they appeared in Israel. The Associated Press correspondent Amy Teibel had her story on the wire just after 1 p.m. Israel time on Thursday, or 6 a.m. Eastern time in the U.S. The Washington Post put the AP story on its Web site before noon. The New York Times waited a few hours more to get a staff report from its Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner. In London, the left-leaning daily Guardian and the right-leaning Times also waited for staff-reported pieces.

The result was two different ways of telling the same story. The Guardian and the London Times both offered straightforward accounts that cut right to the heart of the matter. “Striking testimony has emerged from Israeli soldiers involved in the recent Gaza war,” Guardian correspondent Rory McCarthy began, “in which they describe shooting unarmed civilians, sometimes under orders from their officers.”

The London Times was harsher: “The Israeli army has been forced to open an investigation into the conduct of its troops in Gaza,” correspondent James Hider wrote, “after damning testimony from its own frontline soldiers revealed the killing of civilians and rules of engagement so lax that one combatant said that they amounted on occasion to ‘cold-blooded murder.’”

The New York Times took a far more circuitous route. “In the two months since Israel ended its military assault on Gaza,” Bronner began, “Palestinians and international rights groups have accused it of excessive force and wanton killing in that operation, but the Israeli military has said it followed high ethical standards and took great care to avoid civilian casualties. Now testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and reckless destruction of property that is sure to inflame the domestic and international debate.”

Bronner proceeded to detail the same allegations that the others had described. But he told a good deal more. He quoted two Israeli professors, one Orthodox and one secular, explaining why the alleged acts deviated from Israeli norms. He quoted a soldier who described acts of kindness by fellow soldiers. Unnamed military experts were brought in to point out that women, though seemingly harmless, might draw a soldier’s suspicions because women have served as suicide bombers in the past. And Bronner cited experts, again unnamed, who claimed that the soldiers’ behavior was partly a reaction to the experiences of the 2006 Lebanon war. “In that war,” Bronner wrote, “when Israeli soldiers took over a house, they sometimes found themselves shot at from a house next door. The result was that in Gaza, many houses next to those commandeered by troops were destroyed to avoid that risk.”

Bronner plainly worked hard to produce a deeper, more thorough story than his colleagues. He went beyond the allegations themselves to show his readers why they might have occurred, what might have been going through the soldiers’ minds, how such acts match up against the standards of a Jewish society, and how they fit within the context of recent Israeli military history. It was, in its way, a tour de force of spot-news reporting.

At the same time, it’s hard not to sense a bit of anxiety in Bronner’s writing, as though he had put the story together with one eye on the events and the other on the reactions he might get from readers back home. The story’s very thoroughness might even be seen cynically as a protective coating to ensure the harsh news goes down gently. Unlike the British reports, Bronner’s doesn’t lead with the soldiers’ allegations, but with a reminder that Israel is beset, yet it does its best. The allegations themselves, which are the point of the story—indeed, the whole story as other reporters told it—are met with just about every possible rebuttal and mitigating circumstance.

That might be reading too much into Bronner’s article. Bronner himself, in an interview shortly before the soldiers’ story broke, said he isn’t concerned about pressure from outside the paper—and he’s never felt any pressure from inside. “Readers write to complain,” he said. “Mostly I hear from people who click on my name on the Web site. I get it fairly equally from both sides, although Jews probably write to me a lot. There are a lot of Jewish readers.”

The question, Bronner said, “ is whether you as a journalist view that as pressure.

As much as journalists deny feeling pressure, though, many observers aren’t convinced. On the one hand, the argument goes, pro-Israel activists—Jewish organizations, prominent journalists, ordinary citizens—have protested repeatedly over the years against coverage of Israel that they considered unfair or unflattering. On the other hand, coverage of Israel in the American news media often seems far more sympathetic than elsewhere. Critics say the two facts can hardly be unrelated.

To some extent, of course, media messages are simply a reflection of the attitudes of the surrounding culture. Journalists are products of the society in which they live, and part of their job is to answer the questions that the public wants answered. “There is a bias in American culture, a deep bias,” said James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute. “It’s the water we swim in. We grow up in a culture shaped by books and movies like Leon Uris’s Exodus, where Israelis are people like us facing the forces of the wilderness. The inclination is to understand the people who are like us. And the press stories are colored by that.”

In a sense, pro-Israel activists pushing for more sympathy for Israel are pushing on an open door. But they push anyway, in a variety of ways. The most common form of pro-Israel pressure is reader mail accusing writers, often in vitriolic, personal terms, of maligning Israel. Advocacy organizations sometimes weigh in, publishing specific media critiques that are circulated to sympathizers, generating more public protest.

Less common but more dramatic are boycotts of particular news organizations. The New York Times was targeted in 2002 for a ten-day subscription boycott, called by a rabbi who objected to the paper’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian fighting that was raging at the time. The paper didn’t divulge the losses, but they were “enough to notice,” former New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Sr. told me at the time. The following spring, coordinated boycotts were launched against the Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune, with thousands of subscribers participating. At the same time, pro-Israel hardliners launched a donors’ boycott of Boston’s public radio station, WBUR, to protest National Public Radio’s Middle East coverage. It cost the station more than $1 million in pledged gifts, according to news reports.

Even if the news organizations don’t crack down on their journalists, the outside pressure can lead, often unconsciously, to self-censorship. “If you’re an up-and-coming journalist, there is no reason whatsoever why you would want to get the pro-Israel community mad at you—absolutely none,” said M. J. Rosenberg, policy director of the liberal-leaning Israel Policy Forum. “The pro-Israel community is strategically located and is associated with powerful people.”

It’s almost a cliché these days to suggest that the presence of a well-organized Jewish community in America has a lot to do with the way Israel is treated by government and the media. It’s a mistake, though, to note the community’s ability to threaten and overlook its role as a leavening force in the larger culture. Jewish sensibilities help shape America’s sense of humor, U.S. attitudes toward civil rights, and much more. It would be astonishing if American Jews didn’t also influence America’s view of Israel—much as Irish Americans have helped mold attitudes toward Ireland.

That’s a key difference between American and British coverage of the Middle East. The British Jewish community is well rooted, but it’s smaller—barely one-tenth the size of, say, the British Muslim community.

Whatever conscious or unconscious motivations might have been at work at The New York Times Jerusalem bureau on March 19, they were contagious. The next American reporter to get the story out that day, Martin Fletcher of NBC News, framed it in the same indirect way that Bronner did. Comparing Fletcher’s first-day report with the story filed by his colleague at BBC, Paul Wood, offers a virtual Rorschach test of the way the Middle East is treated on the two sides of the Atlantic.

The contrast is apparent the moment the tape starts to roll. The BBC report led with Wood asking, “Did the Israeli army commit war crimes in Gaza? The Palestinians say that’s evident from the shelling of a UN school full of refugees or the use of incendiary white phosphorus.” On screen as he spoke were images of victims at the school and jets emitting trails of white vapor. “But now,” Wood continued, “testimony has emerged from Israeli soldiers about the deliberate killing of civilians.”

NBC eased into its story more gently. “Israel,” anchor David Gregory began, “has always said that its attack on Gaza was an act of self-defense, a response to missile attacks against Israeli civilians. But now Israel has been shaken by charges from some of the soldiers themselves that the Israeli military acted far more brutally than previously thought.”

Gregory then handed off to correspondent Martin Fletcher, who showed film of Israeli tanks that “flattened Palestinian homes”—in order, he said immediately, “to keep their own soldiers safe” by avoiding main roads.

Both the BBC and NBC went on to relate the two soldiers’ accounts of snipers shooting women. Both showed footage of an Israeli military spokeswoman promising an investigation. To balance her, NBC showed a Hamas spokesman saying that the “confessions confirm the criminal and terrorist mentality of the Israelis.” BBC, by contrast, brought in an Israeli human-rights activist with a more measured and hence more credible response. She said the reports didn’t represent “a few bad seeds” but rather “norms of behavior” communicated by “mid-level or high-level officers.”

BBC’s Wood then sharpened the allegation. “The claim then is that the Israeli army’s rules of engagement allowed soldiers to kill with impunity,” he said. “That charge is unproven. For an Israeli army that prides itself on purity of arms, these allegations are a challenge.”

Fletcher’s conclusion was far more cautious: “It isn’t clear how widespread these acts were.”

Here’s the scorecard: both television reports gave the same basic background about the soldiers’ visit to the academy. Both related the same two accounts of snipers shooting women and children. The difference was that BBC opened with the prosecution’s charges, while NBC opened with the defense. BBC made no mention of the Hamas rocket attacks that preceded the Israeli invasion. NBC didn’t mention any claims of permissive rules of engagement coming down from the higher-ups.

Missing bits of information like those can go a long way, intentionally or not, in tilting a story to one side or the other. Omitting mention of the rockets allowed viewers to conclude, as many observers around the world have concluded, that the Israeli onslaught was a senseless display of cruelty meant to humiliate Palestinians. It turned Israelis into stick figures, cardboard Nazis. In so doing, it tarnished the credibility of peace negotiations.

On the other hand, failure to note the substantial evidence that the army’s rules of engagement had been loosened had the effect of weakening the soldiers’ credibility. If there were no evidence that the abuses had been ordered from above, then the entire case would rest on the soldiers’ testimony. The public could then conclude that the misdeeds represented only a few bad apples—or never happened at all.

That theme—that the evidence was flimsy—was sounded repeatedly by conservative columnists and bloggers as they began to counterattack in the days after the first reports. “There is no evidence,” [emphasis in the original] conservative British columnist Melanie Phillips wrote in a Sunday posting on the Spectator Web site, tellingly titled the Haaretz blood libel. “Not one single verifiable actual incident of intentional killing of civilians.”

Back in Israel, a virtuoso summation of the stories’ purported flimsiness was presented by conservative columnist Caroline Glick, a longtime fixture at the venerable, rightist Jerusalem Post. Glick termed the entire process of eliciting and publicizing the soldiers’ testimonies a “major media assault on the IDF,” or Israel Defense Forces, and “a coproduction of a far-left political activist”—that would be Rabin academy director Danny Zamir—“and far-left reporters.”

At Zamir’s institute, she wrote, students are “subjected to post-Zionist political philosophy that according to sources familiar with the institution indoctrinates them to believe that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.” Actually, the school is a prime source of elite Israeli fighters, and Zamir remains a trusted officer.

More important, there was substantial evidence for the charge about changed rules. Ofer Shelah wrote, in his second-day report in the Maariv weekend supplement, that the military had drafted new rules of engagement in the wake of the 2006 Lebanon war. “Changing the rules was a General Staff decision,” Shelah told me in a phone interview. The army had concluded after Lebanon that its rules on protecting civilians left troops vulnerable to ambushes and booby traps. This time, it would protect its soldiers first. One of the senior commanders in Gaza, artillery chief Colonel Tzvi Fogel, had described the rules to him in an on-air interview on Channel 10. The army was instructed to target an area of suspected Hamas activity with artillery fire, then drop leaflets warning residents to clear out. Anyone who was still around after that was to be considered a suspected terrorist and fair game.

But you had to read it in Maariv (or see it in Shelah’s report on Channel 10). Most of the foreign correspondents don’t read Hebrew, and most educated Israelis they talk to don’t read the right-wing tabloid. Naturally, most overseas readers—and columnists—didn’t hear about it. Mostly they heard what was in Haaretz. And so one commentator after another complained about lack of evidence—and about Haaretz’s “leftist” motives in publishing.

On march 30, eleven days after the stories first appeared, the army published the report of its investigation. It said the squad leaders who described the two killings admitted they had not witnessed them directly, but were reporting hearsay. Therefore, the case was considered closed.

Amos Harel of Haaretz treated the probe’s findings sarcastically. A year earlier, investigators had completed a probe of an officer accused of letting his teenage son take a joy ride on a military ATV. That investigation took eighteen months. “One would be hard-pressed not to express astonishment at the speed and efficiency” shown by the army’s legal team this time, he wrote. Still, he wondered, why were the investigators so certain “the soldiers were truthful during the investigations,” as the army report put it, but lied when talking among themselves? Why were the soldiers now forbidden to speak to the press? What about the soldiers’ other accounts—of vandalism, bullying and the like? And why hadn’t the army sought testimony from Palestinians in Gaza, some of whom had told the AP stories that matched the soldiers’ accounts?

The foreign press—British and American alike—was less eager to dissect the findings. Both The Guardian and The New York Times offered straightforward accounts of the army’s report; each paper devoted a few lines in its story to noting that Israeli human-rights groups were calling for an independent investigation. In the days before and after, however, The Guardian trained a major spotlight on mounting international charges of Israeli war crimes, including two full-scale roundups of the furor plus an account of its own investigation into Israel’s actions. The major contribution of The New York Times during that period was a major report on Israelis’ mounting fears of international isolation. It folded the international uproar into its report on the army’s findings.

Was the Times being properly judicious, or just timid? As I noted at the outset, that depends on your point of view. One could just as easily ask whether The Guardian’s coverage of Israel’s actions was penetrating or just obsessive. In fact, the Times was being American and The Guardian was being British. If one views Israel as the injured party, the Times got it right. If Israel is basically a bully, then The Guardian got it right.

American coverage of the Middle East was profoundly affected by its traumatic experience after the battle at Jenin in 2002. During the eight-day Israeli incursion into a crowded refugee camp, Palestinian officials issued widely quoted reports of deaths numbering in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. The Israeli army said it was in the dozens. When the dust had settled, a United Nations investigation found that the army was right. That was the event that triggered the yearlong wave of media boycotts I mentioned earlier.

The Jenin experience was evident in American coverage of the recent Gaza war from the outset. When Israel barred reporters from entering Gaza, CNN’s cameras showed the fighting as tiny puffs of smoke, seen from a distant hilltop, while its reporters repeatedly noted that they couldn’t get inside to verify the facts. The BBC, by contrast, hired Palestinian camera crews and covered the devastation live. Only midway through the twenty-two day war, once the evidence of massive destruction was inescapable, did CNN start airing extensive footage from Palestinian crews.

Whom you turn to first is a function of whom you trust more. And that depends on your point of view. 


In addition to this piece, the Columbia Journalism Review is offering two additional perspectives on the coverage of the fighting in Gaza. From Gaza itself, Taghreed El-Khodary, a correspondent for The New York Times, writes a Reporter’s Notebook piece on the war. Both articles are in the May/June 2009 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. And Lisa Goldman, writing from Israel, explains how the fighting was covered in that country, and how the militant mood of the Israeli press matched and fed the mood of the people there. All three pieces in this special package were supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute, for which we are deeply grateful.

Полторы недели назад меня попросили дать интервью ведущему радио Арье Голану. Интервью, завершившееся за каких-то 50 секунд, удостоилось сомнительного звания «Самое короткое интервью».

Естественно, было вполне ожидаемо, что стиль Голана и моя неожиданная реакция вызвали беспрецентную волну откликов. Как сообщило руководство «Голоса Израиля», многие слушатели со всех концов страны звонили, чтобы выразить протест против того, что журналист бросил телефонную трубку.

Обратившимся ко мне, я объяснял несколько моментов – которые я приведу ниже.
С недавних пор я не частное лицо. Поэтому брошенная телефонная трубка брошена в те несколько десятков тысяч представителей израильской общественности, посланником которых я являюсь.

В связи с этим не лишне напомнить: диктор, радиоведущий – это не кто иной, как госслужащий, он получает зарплату от государства Израиль. Он не хозяин радиостанции. Настоящие хозяева – граждане государства Израиль, а не только обитатели улицы Шенкин и Рамат-Авива…

Вопрос интервьюера: «Что значит – быть явным «каханистом» в Кнессете?» - не был воспринят мной как наивный и легитимный. За последние 2 месяца мне много раз приходилось отвечать на этот вопрос. Я никогда не увиливал от мой идентификации как ученика рава Каханэ. Но стиль вопроса в данном случае был иным и вызывающим. Невооружённым глазом просматривалась попытка занести меня в особый разряд, делегитимизировав, как маргинала. Что, собственно, и проделали с равом Кахана 25 лет назад. Того, кто кто заклеймён как «каханист», можно ругать, его можно бойкотировать, демонизировать, и уж конечно, бросить телефонную трубку, сказав ему на базарном языке: «Ялла!»

Ясно, что он нелегитимен, его никто не будет слушать, с ним никто не захочет иметь дела. Словом, как это называется у религиозных, он – «мукце».

Зато к таким депутатам Кнессета, как Ахмад Тиби и Талеб а-Сана, ведущие радио «Голос Израиля» в частности, и работники СМИ, в общем, относятся с удивительно подчёркнутой предупредительностью. Мы ни разу не слышали, чтобы у Ахмада Тиби спросили, как это быть советником обер-убийцы Арафата, а депутата Талеба а-Сану не спросили, как это быть декларируемым сторонником ООП в Кнессете.

Я представляю сектор общественности, которому СМИ никогда не покровительствовали. С точки зрения государственных СМИ, правые – это всегда экстремисты, тогда как левые – гуманисты, «стремящиеся к миру». Поэтому я моментально решил ответить вопросом на вопрос в том же, заданном интервьюером, духе: «А каково это - быть декларируемым сторонником «Гуш Шалом»?»

Здесь уместно напомнить, что «Гуш-Шалом» (блок мира) - не просто еще одна левацкая организация, это проООПовское движение, под руководством Ури Авнери, верного друга архиубийцы Арафата. Факт, что Арье Голан, украшенный стикером «Гуш-Шалом», мелькал в толпе на демонстрации "Гуш Шалом", тяжело опровергнуть фото! Заявление г-на Голана, что он случайно оказался там, а стикер ему прикрепил сам Ури Авнери, а он «из вежливости решил не снимать его», надуманно. Неужто же уважаемый ведущий оставил бы на себе стикер «Каханэ был прав» (если бы кто-то ему его приклеил) даже на мгновенье?

Угроза, что меня больше не будут интервьюировать, "очень пугает". Куда больше я опасаюсь готовности подставить головы моих сторонников, превратив их в «боксёрскую грушу» уважаемых радио-ведущих – только чтобы получить несколько минут эфира.

Г-н Арье Голан дал интервью своему другу и коллеге Ярону Декелю, где, описывая случай с отключением меня от микрофона, дал следующее этому объяснение: он прервал интервью, поскольку «не хотел оправдываться 5 минут». Представьте себе! - у меня та же причина: и я не видел причины оправдываться!

Подведём итог: я горд тем, что был одним из учеников рава Каханэ, который научил меня, что такое любовь к евреям, любовь к Израилю. Но, кроме того, я научился у него не склонять голову. Нет у меня ничего личного против Арье Голана, я даже никогда не был с ним знаком. Но мне кажется, что и он лично, и на радиостанции «Голос Израиля» поняли, что произошедшее явилось их серьёзным проколом. То, что г-н Голан вышел из себя, само по себе только лишний раз подтверждает мои опасения по поводу его враждебности, которую я верно оценил!

Я и далее продолжу свою борьбу за более справедливые и объективные СМИ в государстве Израиль, за те СМИ, которых мы достойны.

Фаня Шифман по материалам газеты "БеШева" от 20.03.09

A week and a half ago, I was asked to be interviewed on Kol Yisrael by Arye Golan. The interview lasted about 50 seconds, and was subsequently publicized as "the shortest interview in history." It also created unprecedented feedback from listeners all over the country, protesting the fact that Golan hung up on me.

What caused the interview to be so abruptly aborted? Basically, it was Golan's style of question asking, and my unexpected response. Let me reiterate some of the points I have already explained to people who have addressed me on this issue. It's already been a few days where I am no longer a private person, having been voted into the Knesset to represent the tens of thousands of Israeli citizens who sent me to represent them.

By the same token, we must remember that that same radio broadcaster is also a servant of the public who receives his salary from the state, and is by no means the owner of the radio station. The true owners of the radio station are the citizens, and not just those who reside in Ramat Aviv.

The interviewer opened with the question: "How does it feel being a self-proclaimed Kahanist inside the Knesset." To me, this question was hardly an innocent one, nor was it legitimate. Over the past few months, I have been asked questions of this type over and over again, and I have never denied the fact that I am a devoted student of Rabbi Meir Kahane. But this time, the tone and style were different. It was a transparent attempt to marginalize and delegitimize me, as they did to Kahane 25 years ago. For them, a Kahanist is someone who can be defamed, abused and banned. And one can even hang up the telephone in his face, telling him in street talk: "Ya-ala."

It is clear that he who is marginalized in such a way, will not succeed in getting his message heard. He will be considered, as religious Jews call it, muktze [untouchable].

THE FASCINATING aspect of all this, is how the same Kol Yisrael radio broadcasters treat Arab MKs such as Ahmed Tibi or Taleb a-Sanaa. We never heard Tibi get hit with a question like: "What's it like to be the right-hand man of the murderer Yasser Arafat," or a-Sanaa being asked: "What's it like to be a self-proclaimed PLOer in the Knesset?"

I represent a constituency that the media never give a break. For state TV and radio, the Right is always "extreme," while the Left is humanitarian and the pursuer of peace. That is why, in a split-second decision, I responded: "How does it feel being a self-proclaimed Gush Shalom peacenik." To refresh your memories, Gush Shalom is not just another left-wing movement, but the product of PLO lover Uri Avneri, devoted friend of Arafat.

The fact that Golan walked around with a Gush Shalom sticker is undeniable. It's pretty hard to deny what appears in a photograph. Golan claims that he happened to be at a Gush Shalom gathering, when someone put the sticker on him, and out of respect to Avneri, he didn't remove it. Yeah, right. And if someone had put on his shirt a "Kahane Was Right!" sticker, would he have let it remain there for even a second?

I was criticized by some who claimed I may no longer be given airtime. How scary! The fact is I prefer not to be toyed with like a monkey in a cage, made into a punching bag by some pompous talking head. And all for a few minutes of media coverage.

Golan explained to his buddy Yaron Dekel that he stopped the interview because he "didn't want to justify himself for five minutes." Neither did I.

In closing, I am proud of the fact that I have been selected to represent the followers of Kahane, from whom I learned the concept of "ahavat Yisrael" (love of Jews). I also learned from him that one should not grovel. I have nothing against Arye Golan, I don't even know him. But it appears that he and Kol Yisrael realize they made a mistake. Golan suddenly losing his cool tells me that I was right in my assumption.

I will continue to struggle for a balanced media - we deserve it.

The writer is a National Union MK.

RATE THIS ARTICLE
| Avg. rating 4.7 out of 5
rated 4.7 by 101 people [?] | Top Rated Articles [?]

28. We aren't followers of Kahane, but do think that if Arab Israelis are allowed to be MKs and participate in TerroristS'S Meetings in Syria and Lebanon,
WHY NOT having Kahanists as MKs? - (03/28/2009 04:04)
27. A Disgraceful example of the leftist media
george - (03/28/2009 02:19)
26. A self respecting Jew is a rare commodity in the Knesset. Congratulations MK Dr Michael Ben Ari
George Strauss - (03/27/2009 21:40)
25. It has always been so. Those who speak the truth are silenced while the dishonest shout and scream!
Phillip Moses - (03/27/2009 21:29)
24. The typical view of the fanatic
David Teich - (03/27/2009 19:56)
23. Damn you.
Boris - Israel (03/27/2009 12:04)
22. #11 Jason: commercializing state media won't achieve the result
Yehoshua Friedman - Israel (03/27/2009 11:00)
21. Glad I voted for National Union !!
Y. Kreminsky - Israel (03/27/2009 08:59)
20. Some variations on the question to Golan
Gaby - USA (03/27/2009 05:37)
19. This MK has a straight head on his shoulders and thinks on his feet. He is one to vote for.
Irwin Frankel - Kfar Saba (03/27/2009 04:18)
18. Kol Hakavod!
Joshua Mann - USA (03/27/2009 01:26)
17. Separated at birth
Eagle eye - USA (03/26/2009 23:36)
16. Kahana wasn't a navi
Joe - UK (03/26/2009 23:07)
15. Fascism lite
ron - (03/26/2009 22:23)
14. Nechama Purta, don't apologize..
m - (03/26/2009 21:34)
13. "interview"
DAvid Sterne - (03/26/2009 20:39)
12. we need same approach to Int'l Community!
Matt - (03/26/2009 20:34)
11. Our tax money goes to spread enemy propaganda!
jason white - israel (03/26/2009 20:34)
10. The Torah of HaRav David Bar-Hayim
Moshe - Israel (03/26/2009 20:03)
9. I am very far from being a follower of Kahane....
nehama purta - Israel (03/26/2009 19:46)
8. kol-ha-kavod!
ap - us (03/26/2009 19:19)
7. Kidush HaShem
David Ha'ivri - Israel (03/26/2009 18:40)
6. Fairness
RAB - USA, sometimes Israel (03/26/2009 18:20)
5. Kahane Tzadak
Aharon - (03/26/2009 14:22)
4. Finally, an MK with a spine!
Ari - (03/26/2009 13:40)
3. Golan is a paid lackey for the Left
George - (03/26/2009 13:28)
2. LET's STOP BEING PUNCHING BAGS ! ! !
jacob mandelblum - USA (03/26/2009 12:34)
1. More Power To Him
Shmuel - Israel (03/26/2009 11:26)

התקרית אירעה לאחר שגולן שאל את מיכאל בן ארי לגבי היותו איש כהנא, ובתגובה טען הח"כ שהשדר הינו חבר תנועת גוש שלום. גולן: "אני מצטער שבמקום לענות על השאלות הוא החליט לתקוף אותי על דבר שאין לי קשר אליו. מטעמי נימוס גרידא הורדתי אותו מהשידור"

עד כה: 107 תגובות ב-67 דיונים

Кстaти, o журнaлюгax:

Журналисты и политика
12:04 20 Мая 2004

В течение ближайших недель Второе управление телерадиовещание будет выведено из-под контроля министерства связи и передано под начало нового ведомства, которое возглавит Юлий Эдельштейн (Ликуд).

Согласно сообщению в газете "Гаарец", министерство пропаганды и диаспоры было специально "скроено" под Эдельштейна. Первоначально предполагалось, что оно сосредоточиться на связях Израиля с еврейской диаспорой. Однако позже полномочия ведомства были расширены.

Сам Эдельштейн в интервью радиостанции РЭКА пояснил, что новое министерство будет вести широкую разъяснительную работу как внутри страны, так и за рубежом. Эта задача обрела особую актуальность после Второй ливанской войны и операции "Литой свинец". То подразделение, которое было создано при канцелярии главы правительства для ведения пропаганды, с поставленной целью справилось лишь частично. Поэтому и было решено объединить усилия на данном направлении в рамках особого министерства, "усилив" его правительственным пресс-бюро. Министерство будет также осуществлять контроль над Гостелерадио.

Напомним, что Второе управление телерадиовещания занимается надзором за деятельностью коммерческих телекомпаний – "Решет", "Кешет", 10 канал и т.п., а также региональных радиостанций. Что касается спутникового и кабельного телевидения, то они останутся под контролем министерства связи.

davidaidelman
Apr. 3rd, 2009 11:10 am (UTC)

yaqir_mamlal wrote:
Apr. 3rd, 2009 12:16 pm (UTC)

...

Русскоязычный депутат Кнессета от партии "Ликуд" Юлий Эдельштейн вновь получил министерское назначение. Редакция NEWSru.co.il обратилась к министру с просьбой рассказать о перспективах работы порученного ему ведомства.

Беседовал Евгений Финкель.

Подобные диалоги принято начинать с поздравлений. Поэтому я вас поздравляю.

Спасибо.

Но как вы сами считаете, назначение на пост министра пропаганды – это назначение, с которым стоит поздравлять? Я такого поста в израильской политике не припомню. Вы полагаете, подобное министерство нам необходимо?

Во-первых, давайте сразу внесем уточнение. "Мисрад асбара" (наиболее точный перевод: министерство по разъяснительной работе – Прим.ред.) правильней называть по-русски министерством информации, а не министерством пропаганды. Оно же будет заниматься делами диаспоры.

Во-вторых, такое министерство (мисрад асбара) в Израиле уже было. После войны Судного дня его возглавлял Арон Ярив (бывший глава военной разведки).

Я думаю, что никого не удивлю, если скажу, что в самых разных ситуациях нам приходится сталкиваться с тем, как люди разочарованы, недовольны и возмущаются тем, что Израиль не может наладить всерьез свою разъяснительную работу. Выигрывая войны, мы проигрываем в информационной войне на международной арене. И хорошо, что теперь, наконец, создано министерство, которое будет координировать все усилия и стараться разрабатывать новые формы работы, а не только вести стандартный диалог, когда представитель палестинцев или какой-то международной организации говорил "Вы убиваете невинных граждан", а мы отвечали "Мы – самая гуманная, самая демократическая страна на Ближнем Востоке, мы никого не убиваем". Понятно, что в таком диалоге очень трудно выиграть, он никуда не ведет. А при наличии министерства, при наличии группы людей, которые будут стараться как-то иначе вести разъяснительную работу, я думаю, можно будет достичь определенных успехов.

То, что в том же министерстве будут находиться и все правительственные функции, связанные с работой с еврейской диаспорой, я думаю, в каком-то смысле, может тоже обогатить возможности вести разъяснительную работу.

На минувшей неделе депутат Кнессета от партии "Кадима" Нахман Шай заявил в эфире радиостанции "Решет Бэт", что мисрад асбара – "карикатурное" министерство, частично подменяющее функции МИДа… Ваша реакция на эту реплику господина Шая?

Видимо, Нахману Шаю еще долго придется учиться тому, как быть депутатом Кнессета от оппозиции. Пока что он знает только одно: все надо критиковать публично. Удивляет одно: за несколько часов до интервью, о котором вы говорите, Нахман Шай подошел ко мне в Кнессете и сказал, что я возглавляю "самое важное министерство в израильском правительстве", что пришло время наладить разъяснительную работу, и он очень рад, что такое министерство создано. При этом также заверил меня, что он полностью к моим услугам, учитывая его опыт в этой области, и готов делать все для успеха этого министерства. Но когда перед ним оказался радиомикрофон, он решил свою позицию полностью поменять. Как я уже сказал: будем считать, что это – ошибки новичка.

Что же касается тех людей, которые действительно профессионально этим занимаются, они понимают, насколько важной является такая работа… Мне уже позвонил и пресс-секретарь Армии обороны Израиля Ави Бнаягу, с которым меня не связывают никакие личные отношения, и сказал, что он очень рад, что такое министерство создается, и теперь наша главная задача: наладить координацию. Как только министерство будет "запущено", а это произойдет в ближайшие несколько недель, он предлагает устроить мне визиты по все подразделения армии, которые занимаются разъяснительной работой. Такая же реакция была со стороны Еврейского агентства "Сохнут", такая же реакция была со стороны людей, которые занимались этими вопросами в министерстве главы правительства.

Как по-вашему, почему МИД не справляется с ведением разъяснительной работы?

По разным причинам… Напомню, что бюджет одной только "Аль-Джазиры" (катарский спутниковый телеканал) во много раз превосходит не просто бюджет подразделения МИД Израиля, ответственного за информационную работу, а превосходит бюджет всего нашего министерства иностранных дел.

Ну, с этим-то ничего не поделаешь. Я думаю, что министерство информации Израиля, как вы его называете, тоже будет иметь бюджет на порядок меньший бюджета "Аль-Джазиры".

Это понятно. Я просто о том, что всегда есть обвинения и критика – зачастую справедливые – в адрес нашей разъяснительной работы, но задача нашего министерства не в том, чтобы выколотить неизвестно откуда несколько миллиардов долларов. Понятно, что этого не будет. Наша задача в том, чтобы найти новые формы работы и координировать наши усилия.

О каких новых формах вы говорите?

Простые примеры. Израиль – уникальная страна, в которой люди говорят примерно на 100 языках на уровне родного. Так как же получается, что наши представители на разных радиостанциях и телеканалах зачастую, скажем так, выражаются на языке, который оставляет желать лучшего – с точки зрения грамматики и произношения?

В Израиле живут евреи, приехавшие из самых разных стран мира. Так почему же наша разъяснительная работа сводится к желанию выступить исключительно по CNN или по BBC – и при этом не используются неформальные связи наших граждан с гражданами других стран, например через интернет? Я вас уверяю, что, если бы кто-то провел такое исследование, выяснилось бы, что в компьютерах наших граждан – неважно, "левых" или "правых", религиозных или нерелигиозных, но любящих свою страну и понимающих, что это не фашистское государство, убивающее невинных детей, а настоящая демократическая страна, которая защищается – есть миллионы адресов, которые не используются тем или иным образом…

Простите, не понял. Как вы собираетесь их использовать?

Есть самые разные формы работы. Мне кажется, что сейчас преждевременно подробно говорить о наших планах… Но эти методы и формы я уже обсуждал с очень серьезными специалистами, и мы их попытаемся внедрить.

Но, чтобы ни у кого не возникло сомнений, скажу: здесь не будет "комиссарских усилий". Надо понимать, что Палестинской автономии легче, они могут решить, что "только этот, этот и этот интервьюируются", а всех остальных, кто попытается что-то сказать, надо расстреливать. Понятно, что у нас такого, слава Богу, нет и быть не может. Но координация усилий может быть…

И ко мне, и к людям из министерства премьер-министра уже были сотни или даже тысячи обращений людей, которые не ищут работу, а готовы добровольно что-то делать в данной сфере. С одной стороны, можно над этим посмеяться и сказать: "Это как в футболе или в воспитании детей, все всё понимают лучше других". Но, с другой стороны, это можно попытаться использовать.

Но вы намерены сотрудничать в вопросах разъяснительной работы с министерством иностранных дел, которое теперь возглавляет Авигдор Либерман?

Не только намерен, без этого ничего не получится. Я говорю про новые формы работы, я говорю про разные методы, но при этом я, безусловно, согласен с тем, что необходимы те представители, которые у нас есть за рубежом, наши дипломаты… Мы должны работать и с ними, и с Армией обороны Израиля, и с министерством туризма. Должны совместно работать над концепциями. Должны согласовывать, какие темы мы собираемся освещать в тот или иной период. Если же каждый будет действовать как "лебедь, рак и щука" и говорить "это всё моё", то ни никакой координации не получится.

Предполагается ли координация деятельности вашего министерства с министерством стратегического планирования и министерством по делам разведок, которые также возглавляют представители "Ликуда"?

Безусловно. И такие разговоры уже начались. Но сейчас требуются определенные усилия на различные бюрократические процедуры. Ведь министерство информации как бы создается заново. Определенные структуры существуют, но и они разбросаны по разным местам. Есть государственное бюро по работе с прессой, есть бюро печати и так далее… Теперь надо их собрать под одной крышей, создать какие-то дополнительные подразделения. Есть много административно-бюрократической возни на ближайшие недели. Но уже начались и разговоры по сути. В том числе – и в тех направлениях, о которых вы сейчас сказали. Мы уже, в принципе, договорились, что так, где нужно и можно, будет постоянный неформальный обмен информацией. Который, я надеюсь, потом станет и формальным.

Но, хочу подчеркнуть, мы не собираемся идти по пути постоянного реагирования и постоянного оправдания. Мы постараемся наладить свою плановую работу, конечно же, не игнорируя текущие события.

Предполагает ли ваше министерство каким-либо образом контролировать или курировать средства массовой информации?

Конечно, в демократической стране это невозможно. Но мы постараемся "вбрасывать" интересную информацию и в израильскую, и в международную прессу. И постараемся наладить как можно лучше работу с иностранными журналистами, аккредитованными в Израиле. На это есть немало жалоб. И я думаю, что при лучшей координации можно немножко "изменить настроение".

Есть множество израильских СМИ не на иврите – на русском, на французском языках и так далее. Насколько пристальным будет внимание вашего министерства к этим СМИ?

Это будет очень важная часть нашей работы. Иначе мы не сможем достигнуть успеха в нашей работе.


Последний вопрос, не имеющий отношения к министерству информации. В пятницу газета The Marker назвала вас в числе возможных кандидатов на пост министра здравоохранения. В качестве другого кандидата был назван министр без портфеля от "Ликуда" Йоси Пелед. Может ли так сложиться, что вы согласитесь занять другой пост – пост министра здравоохранения?


На мой взгляд, министерство здравоохранения – одно из важнейших министерств. Открою маленький секрет: я просил у премьер-министра назначения меня на пост министра здравоохранения. И тогда, в день распределения портфелей, мне было сказано, что это министерство отходит к одному из коалиционных партнеров – фракции "Яадут а-Тора". Пока я не имею информации о том, что собираются назначить кого-то на пост министра здравоохранения, и если да – то кого. Думаю, что в воскресенье утром окончательно будет понятно, назначают ли или нет такого министра от "Ликуда". Еще до первого заседания правительства, в воскресенье состоится встреча всех министров от "Ликуда", и я собираюсь задать премьер-министру такой вопрос… Потому что, на мой взгляд, очень важно, чтобы это министерство функционировало на лучшем уровне.

То есть вы можете перейти на работу руководителя министерства здравоохранения, еще не приступив фактически к работе министра информации?

Я еще никуда не перехожу. Но я позабочусь о том, чтобы министерство здравоохранения обрело подходящего руководителя. Я являюсь не единственным таким кандидатом. Как вы правильно сказали, есть и другие. И я надеюсь, что в ближайшие дни состоится официальное назначение – чтобы и там началась серьезная работа, а не просто разговоры.

- Обсуждение данного интервью на сайте "Мнения"

Ссылки по теме:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Министерство-сирота" в Израиле. Минздрав не нужен никому
// NEWSru.co.il // В Израиле // 3 апреля 2009 г.

Депутат Нахман Шай назвал министерство пропаганды "карикатурным"
// NEWSru.co.il // В Израиле // 2 апреля 2009 г.

Существенное продвижение в реформе государственного Управления гостелерадио (Рашут ха-шидур): третьего дня представители журналистов договорились с руководством о добровольном увольнении 380 человек.
Речь идет об освобождении ставки в обмен на солидную компенсацию, устраивающую рабочий комитет Гостелерадио. Все уволенные получат подарок в размере 17 месячных окладов и еще 105 тыс. шек. Работники в возрасте старше 50 лет смогут выйти на досрочную бюджетную пенсию.

Соглашение вступит в силу после того, как будут оговорены новые условия трудоустройства уволенных журналистов на прежних местах, но за меньшую зарплату.

Напомним, что в марте было подписано соглашение об увольнении 320 техников и администраторов, состоявших в штате Управления. Всего же, в рамках реформы, планируется уволить около 1900 работников.

Реформа предполагает выплату работникам компенсаций на сумму 700 млн. шек. часть бремени возьмет на себя Министерство финансов.

К каким только манипуляциям не прибегает левая израильская пресса, чтобы запудрить мозги еврейской части населения страны и развернуть массы упертых избирателей в сторону лагеря "мира в обмен на территории (и безопасность)"…

Вот и сегодня в стране разразился скандал. Дотошные социологи выявили: чтобы создать впечатление, будто подавляющее большинство израильтян считает американского президента Барака Хусейна Обаму "справедливым и дружески к нам настроенным", редакция "газеты для думающих людей" ("Гаарец") исказила результаты опроса общественного мнения. А по-нашему, по-простому – подтасовала.

"Гаарец" ввела в заблуждение читателя, создав впечатление, что подавляющее большинство израильтян считают президента США Барака Обаму "справедливым и дружественно настроенным" по отношению к нашей стране", - сообщил корреспонденту англоязычной израильской газеты Jerusalem Post известный социолог, профессор Тель-авивского университета Камил Фукс.

Дело было так: ивритское и англоязычное издания "Гаарец" под заголовком "Большинство израильтян считает Обаму справедливым и дружелюбным по отношению к Израилю" опубликовали результаты опроса. Правда, английское издание (как бумажное, так и онлайновое) не представило никаких графиков.

Опубликовали "графическое сопровождение" только на иврите – как в газете, так и на интернет-сайте "Гаарец". Из графика явствует: всего 18 (восемнадцать!) процентов опрошенных считают Обаму "дружественно настроенным по отношению к Израилю" – на 3 процентных пунктах меньше 21 процента опрошенных, которые назвали отношение Обамы к Израилю "враждебным".

10% ответили на заданный им вопрос: "Не знаю", а 51% респондентов назвали отношение Обамы к Израилю "конкретным" или "деловым" (на иврите – "иньяни"). Однако между "деловым" и "справедливым" – огромная дистанция, подчеркивает Jerusalem Post.

В английском варианте "Гаарец" рядом с фотографией Обамы написали: "69% опрошенных считают Обаму дружески настроенным и справедливым".

Профессор Фукс, декан факультета статистики Тель-авивского университета, сказал: многие пользователи англоязычного интернета из разных стран мира потребовали от него разъяснений, так как без труда (интернет – медиа для думающих людей!) определили расхождение в термине, вынесенном в заголовок ("дружественный") и – в заданном респондентам вопросе. Фукс поспешил дистанцироваться от заголовка и даже обрушился на редакцию "Гаарец" с критикой за то, что подготовленный им опрос неправильно озаглавили.

"Что я мог сделать, – оправдывался Фукс, - если заголовок дает редактор?"

"Когда они складывают цифры и пишут 69%, число это правильное, но оно вводит в заблуждение, - сказал Фукс. – Точно так же можно сложить "враждебное" с "деловым" и получить впечатляющую сумму".

Озадачило профессора Фукса и то обстоятельство, что в английском издании "Гаарец" (то есть в той версии израильской газеты, из которой недружественные, мягко говоря, интернет-сайты, включая сайт ХАМАСа и других исламистов, постоянно перепечатывают всевозможные скандалы) цифры были помещены в суммах, но не дифференцированы в соответствии с ответами на каждый вопрос.

Грешащий тенденциозными неточностями айтем был удален из архива англоязычного сайта "Гаарец", а второй – ивритский – переписали, причем в заголовок на сей раз вынесли вывод социолога о том, что "27% респондентов считают Обаму антисемитом".

Источник в Ликуде отреагировал на вынужденный "косметический ремонт" текста следующим образом: "Гаарец" прибег к уловке в целях убедить общественность, что Обаму в Израиле любят больше, чем Нетаниягу".

Тем временем опросы, заказанные 2-м израильским телеканалом институту "Геокартография" и редакцией газеты "Едиот ахронот" институту "Дахаф", показали, что большинство израильтян обвиняют в "кризисе в отношениях между США и Израилем" администрацию Белого дома, а вовсе не нашего премьера.

Кстати, опрос, проведенный по заказу израильской англоязычной газеты Jerusalem Post, показал: большинство респондентов считают Обаму пропалестински настроенным, но никак не произраильски.

И, наконец, Шарлотт Хэлл, редактор англоязычной версии "Гаарец", распространила заявление, в котором подчеркнула: публикация была совершенно правильной, никаких неточностей допущено в ней не было. "Любая попытка утверждать обратное – ложь", - подчеркнула редактор.

Верно! Разве может ошибаться "газета для думающих людей"?