Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: riassumendo

Danny Zamir, ufficiale israeliano, nel 1990 fa obiezione di coscienza
e rifiuta di proteggere un gruppo di coloni a Nablus. Qualche mese
dopo si trova promosso maggiore di una unità di élite e direttore di
una scuola.
(se questo non è un esercito morale....)
Un gruppi di allievi di quella scuola sostiene di aver sentito
testimonianze relative a crimini di guerra, ma nessuno di loro vi
avrebbe partecipato. Ma la campagna di stampa è iniziata.
http://www.thejc.com/articles/israelis-debate-morality-gaza

 
http://www.thejc.com/articles/israelis-debate-morality-gaza
su Haaretz Pfeiffer è più duro con chi accusa il giornale di rinnovare
nientemeno che l'accusa del sangue...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074300.html


arriva, puntuale ed accurata, la risposta di Melanie Philips.  Intanto
le prime pagine non riportano più le sensazionali rivelazioni basate
sui "mi ha detto un mio amico che" e che eranp state precedute da
editoriali preoccupati per una presunta affermazione della cossiddetta
destra nell'esercito. Diciamo che la vicenda è spostata in seconda
pagina e ha iniziato la sua marcia  verso le pagine interne, dove -
come all'epoca della morte di Al Durra- verrà certo pubblicata una
smentita. In caratteri minuscoli.
Ecco comunque l'articolo della Philips:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3483666/israels-real-rotten-apple.thtml
Israel's real rotten apple
Friday, 27th March 2009
In today’s Ha’aretz, Anshel Pfeffer has written a wounded defence of
the paper’s publication of the claims by Israel Defence Force soldiers
that their comrades had deliberately killed Palestinian civilians in
Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, having been given explicit orders to
do so. Pfeffer had nothing to do with the story but, feeling
besmirched through ‘guilt by association’ as a result of being given a
lot of grief over his paper’s behaviour, he seeks to defend it.
In particular, it appears he was mortified by my blog posts here and
here about ‘the Ha’aretz blood libel’. Anshel makes his points in a
gracious and rounded way, acknowledging the need to fight the
onslaught of anti-Israel hatred and Zionophobia around the globe.  But
unfortunately he does not acknowledge the part played in this
onslaught by his own paper.
His essential point is that such discussion about Israel’s ‘rotten
apples’ must be brought out into the open, and that the angry
responses have been merely to brand Israelis who are sincerely
concerned for their society and the actions of their government as
traitors to the cause.
This is to miss the point by a mile. Of course valid criticism must be
made of Israel’s ‘rotten apples’. But the whole point is that these
were not valid criticisms because they were not true.
The article gave the impression of widespread war crimes having been
committed, which in fact boiled down to two allegations of intentional
killing of Palestinian civilians made by two soldiers. But there was
zero evidence to support these allegations, and it rapidly became
clear that they were no more than recycled rumour -- with one of the
soliders admitting that he was relying solely on hearsay.
Subsequently, the IDF said that one claim was a false rumour arising
from a warning shot having been fired but which did not kill anyone,
and the other incident never happened at all.
Furthermore, the transcript of the soldiers’ conversation, which
Ha’aretz published on the second day of its running story, revealed
that other soldiers in this discussion had not only cast doubt upon
these false claims but had produced evidence of their own of the
extraordinary lengths to which IDF soldiers had gone to behave
decently towards the Palestinians. (As for Danny Zamir, the ultra-
leftist instructor who presided over their discussion and whom Anshel
defends, the transcript shows how Zamir perversely described an
account of soldiers being instructed to wash the floor of a Hamas
activist’s house as evidence of  ‘an army with very low value norms,
that's the truth...’). It was Haaretz that had chosen to spin this
transcript – and indeed, its own published story -- in a way that was
wholly misleading and most damaging to the IDF and to Israel.
Also disgraceful was the way in which Ha’aretz implied that ultra-
nationalist rabbis were somehow instrumental in causing the IDF to
behave in an unethical way – a suggestion which is wholly unfounded
but which is now being taken up not just by enemies of Israel but by
secularised Jews with obsessive scores to settle against religious
Zionism, and who are now themselves thus contributing to the global
auto-da-fe. The only disquieting part of the soldiers’ chat which
actually stood up – the disclosure that soldiers were wearing tee-
shirts with disgusting motifs glorifying ‘kills’ of Palestinians –
rightfully drew instant IDF condemnation. But reprehensible as that
practice is, wearing tee-shirts is not a war crime.
The Ha’aretz claim that Israel had committed war crimes provoked the
widespread flak which has so upset Anshel Pfeffer because the story
fell apart and was shown to be merely maliciously spun froth.
Presented with such allegations made about the conduct of a war, any
reputable paper would check them out before sailing into print with
them. For Ha’aretz not to have done so in the current circumstances,
with both the Arab and Muslim world and the western intelligentsia
incited by the constant bombardment of such lies to genocidal frenzy
against Israel, was beyond appalling.
Anshel makes it very clear that he recognises the pogrom-style
atmosphere towards Israel in the UK. The contribution to that
irrational hatred made over the years by the distortions and lies
pumped out by Ha'aretz – which, consumed by the obsession with the
disputed territories of its publisher Amos Shocken, long ago lost its
journalistic marbles along with any claim to integrity – is
incalculable. It is Ha’aretz that is one of Israel’s ‘rotten apples’.
Anshel is a good reporter who has fallen amongst thieves. I
sympathise. I did after all work for Guardian Newspapers for two
decades. But he is defending the indefensible. And I think he knows it.

 smentita. 
E' come se il mondo esterno avesse bisogno di sionisti ferocemente 
assassini.
Anche quando sono con ogni evidenza episodiche (o come in questo caso 
pure fumose e leggendarie) le notizie sono accolte con grandi 
scondinzolate e latrati e ovviamente generalizzate all'inverosimile, in 
un crescendo di puttanate sempre più fantasiose, in cui si misura non 
solo la ben nota feccetta antisemita.
Le smentite, più o meno, rompono i coglioni.
Quoto per intero l'articolo di Dan Sagre sull'esercito israeliano, 
pubblicato ieri dal Foglio. E quoto anche la sua percezione di moralità, 
che sempre più mi è chiaro essere una definizione (felicemente) 
particolarista.
Si sta bene tra particolaristi, meglio se intelligenti, e ci si capisce 
al volo. Ogni volta che si spara su Israele, molto di ciò che 
moralisticamente si spaccia per universalistico appare dannatamente poco 
digeribile e  morale.
Non è con questo universalismo che ha senso discutere della moralità 
delle azioni delle IDF.
Tb
Tb

 arriva, puntuale ed accurata, la risposta di Melanie Philips.
a parti invertite (ovvero con Pfeiffer a parlare di blood libel e la
Philips a difendersi dall'accusa) avresti detto che Pfeiffer è
israeliano e la Philips no e quindi lei ha solo da stare zitta, chissà
perchè in questo caso lo status di diasporante della Philips e di
sabra di Pfeiffer non è rilevante...