Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Sempre sulla menzogna dei morti a Gaza

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/353258.html
IAF report quickly dispels rumors on Gaza strike   
 
By Ze'ev Schiff 
 
There is one document that, in some ways, offers
even better testimony than do real-time
photographs from a pilotless drone as to what the
Israel Air Force command really knew about
Monday's missile strikes in Gaza. It is an
internal report on the operation sent by IAF
headquarters to all air force units. 
 
This document, which reached hundreds of personnel, was
sent out after news reports began claiming that
helicopters had deliberately fired missiles into a crowd
of Palestinian civilians gathered near one of the
targets. 
 
The drone's camera showed no such crowd, but the
camera's lens might not see everything
happening on the ground around the target. 
But anyone who thinks it is possible to lie in a
bulletin sent to every unit of the IAF and not
be caught does not know the air force. Any lie
or distortion would quickly be noticed - and
leaked. 
The bulletin was sent out on Tuesday in response
to plea by two IAF base commanders who, having
heard the media reports, wanted to know what
really happened. It was drafted by the head of
the operations division, with the approval of
IAF Commander-in-Chief Major General Dan
Halutz. The following are excerpts from the
text. The full text, minus a few operational
details having mainly to do with munitions,
appears in today's Hebrew Haaretz; details
omitted even in the Hebrew are marked here by
ellipses: 
"The following document briefly describes
yesterday's [i.e., Monday's] operational
activity. The document is being sent so that
you will know the facts ... 
I. The IAF conducted five strikes against
terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip
yesterday ... 
III. Following are the operations and the main
results, in chronological order: 
A. An attack on a plant for manufacturing
explosives: ... Moderate damage was caused to
the building. 
B. An attack on a car carrying weapons: Two
missiles were fired, which hit the car
directly. 
C. An attack on a munitions warehouse: 1. One
missile was fired, which destroyed the
building. 2. The building blew up, indicating
the presence of munitions. 
D. An attack on a car carrying suicide
terrorists: Two missiles were fired, which hit
the car and killed the two suicide terrorists
inside it. 
E. Another attack on the explosives
manufacturing plant (the plant attacked in item
A): 1. It was attacked with ... to minimize
collateral damage. 2. The result was ... and
the building was seriously damaged. 3. The
attack was halted because people approached. 
IV. Main points: ... 
C. All the targets were targets belonging to
terrorist organizations engaged in producing
arms or organizing attacks. 
D. In the planning and execution, maximum
efforts were made not to hurt uninvolved
persons. Despite this, when [there is] fighting
against terrorists who deliberately live among
a civilian population, uninvolved persons are
sometimes hurt. 
E. With respect to the media reports of a
missile that went astray and massive injury to
uninvolved persons, it is important that you
know the facts: 
1. All the munitions struck their targets
exactly. 
2. In every attack, at the time the munitions
were fired, neither the operational nor the
video films showed any uninvolved persons. 
3. There was no firing of munitions into a
crowd. 
4. In the attack on the car carrying the suicide
terrorists, the second missile was fired about
a minute after the first missile struck. At the
time the missile was fired, no uninvolved
persons were spotted, but by the time the
missile hit, a small number of people had
apparently already arrived at the scene. In any
event, according to the films, there was no
massive injury to uninvolved persons and there
was no firing into a crowd. 
V. Summary 
A. The results were very good. 
B. Planned terror attacks were prevented and
many armaments were assaulted. 
C. Maximum precautions were taken, in both
planning and execution, to avoid harming
uninvolved persons." 
The above document reflects what the IAF knew,
but it does not offer a full explanation for
the large number of Palestinian casualties. In
any event, air force policy on the conflict
with the Palestinians remains unchanged, so
this is probably not the last time such

 V. Summary 




-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Se lo dice il portavoce dell'IAF su Haaretz!!!!
E tu hai prove che Ze'ev Schiff sia "il portavoce dell'IAF su Haaretz"
ma non le vuoi mostrare, vero? :))
*LOL*
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Sono sicuro che chiunque l'abbia detto per te è la bibbia!
robin


Sono sicuro che chiunque l'abbia detto per te č la bibbia!
Se lo dici tu... :)))
*LOL*
Aspettiamo le prove che Ze'ev Schiff sia "il portavoce dell'IAF su
Haaretz". In caso contrario sara' solo l'ennesima ca***ta che avrei
scritto :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Se lo dici tu.


 
CVD :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 was no firing into a crowd. 
Ma certamente, Stefano.
Il secondo missile ha solo colpito un "piccolo" numero di persone e
non gli ha fatto nulla.    Lo dice un frammento di film e un rapporto
dell'esercito Israeliano.
Peccato che nessuno ci crede, membri del Knesset compresi.
E lo sai perche?
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article273.html
   (English)
Whom to Believe? Well...
"Whom do you believe?" asked General Ya'akov Amidror on TV with  subdued
anger, "the army spokesman or Hamas?"
General (reserves) Amidror is the highest religious officer in our army. 
In the past he has raised several public storms with some utterances 
denigrating secular Israelis, saying that they are not real Jews. He has 
a sharp mind, much above the average in the army command, and his 
intellect is fully employed in serving his extremist views - both the 
extremist religious and the extremist nationalist ones.
His question was intended to be rhetorical. After all, the answer is self-
evident: on one side there is the IDF, "the most moral and most  humane
army in the world", as it calls itself, and on the other side  there is a
bunch of crazy murderers, so what's the problem?
But, according to Amidror himself, the reverse is happening. The world 
believes Hamas and does not believe the IDF spokesman. The Israeli  public
believes Hamas. Even cabinet ministers and Knesset members  believe Hams
and do not believe the army spokesman.
The crisis of confidence was revealed in all its harshness by a series of 
events last week in the Gaza Strip. According to the Palestinians, the 
army fired air-to-surface missiles at a car in which there were two  Hamas
militants. When people from the neighborhood crowded around  the smashed
car to see if the could help the victims, they were  attacked by another
missile. All in all 14 Palestinians were killed,  among them a doctor who
had rushed there to help, and dozens of  others, including many women and
children, were wounded.
"A big lie!" the Army Spokesman angrily announced. The army did not  fire
another missile at all. It did not hurt civilians! It's just another 
vicious Palestinian slander! 
So there are two opposing versions, which are completely 
incompatible. A matter of either-or. One of the two sides is lying. But 
who?
The Palestinian version is supported by the TV and video coverage of  the
killed, the funerals, the wounded delivered to the hospitals, as well  as
by doctors and journalists, local and foreign. The army version is 
supported by the host of Israeli "military correspondents" and "Arab 
affairs reporters" on TV, the radio and the newspapers who, almost to a 
man, repeat the official line like robots, as if they themselves had 
investigated and come to this conclusion.
This time even the heavy artillery joined the battle, headed by Haaretz 
military commentator Ze'ev Shiff, whose independent judgements are  often
uncannily similar to those of the army command. The Air Force  commander,
already up to his neck in the affair of the rebellious  combat pilots,
took an unprecedented step and had the official version,  denying the
Palestinian story, circulated at all Air force bases.
To reinforce its own story, the Air Force published, after a delay of 24 
hours, a clip shot during the action by an army drone (unmanned 
aircraft). It clearly shows two missiles fired at the suspect car, with 
hardly any civilians in the vicinity. The devoted military correspondents 
even used their stopwatches to measure the seconds between missile  A and
missile B.
So here we have a perfect riddle. A factual clip against the eye-witness 
account of the journalists. What would Sherlok Holmes have said?
Well. Perhaps a Palestinian propagandist of genius invented the whole 
thing. The civilians committed suicide or shot each other, dozens of 
others wounded themselves, all in order to besmirch the IDF with a 
monstrous lie. (By the same logic, the father of little Muhammad al-
Dura killed his son, at the beginning of the present intifada, in order to
 slander our brave and upright soldiers).
Another possibility is that not two, but three missiles were used - the 
two seen in the clip and a third one later on. In order to find out, one 
has to view the whole film, not just an excerpt. And perhaps we are 
dealing with two different events altogether.
If the Israeli media were truly independent, instead of being a 
department of the security establishment, a dozen Israeli journalists 
would have rushed to Gaza on the same day, interviewed the dozens of 
wounded in the hospitals, compared the evidence, visited the families  of
the dead and taken testimony from eye-witnesses, confronting these  with
the army version. But apart from Amira Hass and a Palestinian 
correspondent of Channel 2, this kind of independent investigation has 
disappeared long ago from our media (and perhaps never existed.) 
There remains the rhetorical question posed by General Amidror:  Whom to
believe?
The Minister of the Interior Avraham Poraz (Shinui party) and the  Knesset
member Zahava Gal'on (Meretz) chose, so it seems, the  Palestinian version
and acted accordingly. So did a large number of  other public
personalities. That was what raised the hackles of the  army.
But even if we take the official version on trust, we would have to raise 
another question: WHY do so many people, in Israel and throughout  the
world, believe the Palestinians? In other words, why do they not  believe
the army spokesman? 
There were times when the army spokesman was believed without 
reservation. During the 50s, I was often asked by foreign journalists 
whether to believe the army statements. My answer invariably was:  Sure,
our army does not lie.
These days are long gone. The occupation, which has corrupted  everything,
has corrupted the army statements, too. During the first  intifada, the
IDF published hundreds of statements that were manifestly  mendacious.
Children "lost their lives" when the army "shot into the  air" (giving
rise to bitter jokes about "flying children"). Palestinians were  killed
while "trying to wrest weapons from the hands of soldiers". Tall  stories.
Baron von Munchhausen would have been envious. Since then,  the situation
has become even worse.
During the last 20 years I have followed the work of foreign 
correspondents, neutral, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, and almost all 
of them trust the Palestinians more than official Israeli spokespersons.
When things get tough, official spokespersons bring up the Jenin affair. 
The Palestinians claimed that during the "Defensive Shield" operation  in
April 2002 a massacre occurred there. This proved to be an  exaggeration,
but the things that did indeed happen there were terrible  enough. For
example, many houses were demolished by the drunken  driver of a giant
army bulldozer, without any idea whether the  inhabitants were still
inside. The terminological battle over the word  "massacre" distracted
attention from what actually happened. 
Credibility is worth more then gold. It takes years to build up, but just
a  few minutes to destroy. Now this affair shows that the credibility of
the  army spokesman has fallen into an abyss.
"Whom do you believe?" the general asked. Well?hmm?it's not 
pleasant to say, but?

 
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article273.html
   (English)
A beh! Se lo dice Avnery allora ha sicuramente ragione lui! :))
*ROTFL*
-Stefano

 IAF report quickly dispels rumors on Gaza strike   
Menzogne su Gaza... intendevi queste?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73BABE6F-D3F8-4E5A-809F-0DD1786C534A.htm
Israeli army admits lying over air raid 
The Israeli army has acknowledged in a rare admission of guilt that it
lied over an air raid that left 12 Palestinians dead.
Contrary to earlier claims that it had only used Hellfire missile in a
raid at the crowded Nusseirat refugee camp in Gaza, the Israeli army
on Wednesday finally admitted using far deadlier weapons in the raid
on 20 October.
"Perhaps due to the operation and security sensitivity before our
eyes, we erred in the way in which we chose to describe the means of
operation," a military spokesman said.
But he still did not specify the weapon that was used.
The Israelis initially said they had used Hellfire missile. But the
high casualties led to accusations that the army was lying over the
weapon they used.
Palestinians say that Israel's army cares little about casualties when
it strikes into their cities.
Israeli lawmaker Yossi Sarid of the left-wing Meretz Party said the
number of casualties in the Nusseirat had been high and suggested the
Israeli air force had used a more lethal weapon than it had admitted.
"The question is whether the lives of people, women and bystanders,
weren't lost unnecessarily," he said.

Israeli army admits lying over air raid
E dove sta l'ammissione?  Io nell'articolo non la vedo.
Non c'e' alcun riferimento ad essa ne alla data in cui sarebbe stata
fatta ne da chi sarebbe stata fatta.
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ce9c325.0311...@posting.google.com...


Palestinesi.
Dove sta il "razzismo nei confronti dei palestinesi"?
-Stefano