"Our reign of terror, by the Israeli army" from The Independent.co.uk

wes

Our reign of terror, by the Israeli army


In shocking testimonies that reveal abductions, beatings and torture, Israeli soldiers confess the horror they have visited on Hebron

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Saturday, 19 April 2008



The dark-haired 22-year-old in black T-shirt, blue jeans and red Crocs is understandably hesitant as he sits at a picnic table in the incongruous setting of a beauty spot somewhere in Israel. We know his name and if we used it he would face a criminal investigation and a probable prison sentence.

The birds are singing as he describes in detail some of what he did and saw others do as an enlisted soldier in Hebron. And they are certainly criminal: the incidents in which Palestinian vehicles are stopped for no good reason, the windows smashed and the occupants beaten up for talking back – for saying, for example, they are on the way to hospital; the theft of tobacco from a Palestinian shopkeeper who is then beaten "to a pulp" when he complains; the throwing of stun grenades through the windows of mosques as people prayed. And worse.

The young man left the army only at the end of last year, and his decision to speak is part of a concerted effort to expose the moral price paid by young Israeli conscripts in what is probably the most problematic posting there is in the occupied territories. Not least because Hebron is the only Palestinian city whose centre is directly controlled by the military, 24/7, to protect the notably hardline Jewish settlers there. He says firmly that he now regrets what repeatedly took place during his tour of duty.

But his frequent, if nervous, grins and giggles occasionally show just a hint of the bravado he might have displayed if boasting of his exploits to his mates in a bar. Repeatedly he turns to the older former soldier who has persuaded him to speak to us, and says as if seeking reassurance: "You know how it is in Hebron."

The older ex-soldier is Yehuda Shaul, who does indeed "know how it is in Hebron", having served in the city in a combat unit at the peak of the intifada, and is a founder of Shovrim Shtika, or Breaking the Silence, which will publish tomorrow the disturbing testimonies of 39 Israelis – including this young man – who served in the army in Hebron between 2005 and 2007. They cover a range of experiences, from anger and powerlessness in the face of often violent abuse of Arabs by hardline Jewish settlers, through petty harassment by soldiers, to soldiers beating up Palestinian residents without provocation, looting homes and shops, and opening fire on unarmed demonstrators.

Click here for the rest of the article

Another article of interest on this topic (also from The Independent.co.uk):
Mario Vargas Llosa: How Arabs have been driven out of Hebron

Firstly, I have to say they soldiers who have come out and are telling there stories are heroes in no uncertain terms. I can only imagine the great risk they are exposing themselves to by coming out and telling the truth like this.

I have to say I am not surprised by the actions of the IDF. This is only the tip of the ice berg. I wonder how much we will never hear about.

There actions are in no uncertain terms terrorism. I wonder if "Western" governments will condemn this terrorism and punish Israel (like they punished Hamas) for it? Or will they once again show there hypocrisy? In likelihood nothing will be done, the US will pour billions into Israel to fund Israel to terrorize Palestinians.

RATM

Ah but its only terrorism if Palestine does it. When the IDF do it they are "protecting democracy" which may involve some "collateral damage".


I remember trekking with a few Israeli couples in Nepal a few yrs back, they were fresh from their 3 year stint in the IDF and displayed an astonishing lack of morals. They told stories of beatings like it was a bit of fun, it really reminded me of the kind of attitude we all saw in the Abu Garib videos.

The women weren't as bad but the blokes were just young lads with fire in their bellies and a gung-ho attitude to pulling the trigger.

But Im guessing thats they way their commanders in the IDF want them to be, they are just pawns in a wider political game.

Bubs101

I imagine that the Israeli government will just say it is not responsible for the actions of certain soldiers and that they were never ordered to do these things

wes

Bubs101 wrote: »

I imagine that the Israeli government will just say it is not responsible for the actions of certain soldiers and that they were never ordered to do these things

In full agreement, the Israeli government response is very predictable.

However, I know there damn well responsible for this. The IDF is there army and there actions are the actions of its government. There is no different between the 2.

Playboy

Nobody that matters cares unfortunately and I dont think that attitude is going to change soon.

croo

Befehl ist Befehl

Suff

you can find few of these atrocities on youtube:

- Videotape showing an army assault on a Palestinian home in which a mother of five children died

- Israeli Army Uses Palestinian Children as Human Shield

- part 2

- [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne75YgpYaxo
"]Live footage - Israel slaughters Reuters journalist [/URL]

- [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1Xfefs5_E
"]Israeli Army massacres a family at thier home - Very Graphic[/URL]


After all this Israel says they want peace!

Manic Moran

Bubs101 wrote: »

I imagine that the Israeli government will just say it is not responsible for the actions of certain soldiers and that they were never ordered to do these things

They probably weren't. Note the first paragraph of the article: If the troop were identified, he'd be punished. I don't see how that would be a bad thing, frankly, or at least have him turned State's Evidence. My guess is that there's a discipline/attitude problem amongst the Hebron garrison.

I have no information on the other incidents, but for the record, the Nablus (human shield) incident was indeed a violation of an IDF policy, and a General got his pee-pee smacked for that one.

The Reuters cameraman incident was at best an honest error by the tank crew and just one of those trajedies of a conflict, and at worst the cameraman should have known better. Look at the terrain surrounding the man's vehicle: From the tank crew's point of view, the man appears to have just popped his head and camera up from behind cover (Note that the road is in a depression, embankments on both sides, higher than the "TV" sticker on the guy's bonnet even if there weren't trees to the side of the vehicle), and it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between a tripod-mounted camera and a tripod-mounted anti-tank missile when looking through a tank sight.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

They probably weren't. Note the first paragraph of the article: If the troop were identified, he'd be punished. I don't see how that would be a bad thing, frankly, or at least have him turned State's Evidence. My guess is that there's a discipline/attitude problem amongst the Hebron garrison.

The article meaning here is that they would be punished for speaking out about the atrocities.

This kind of thing isn't just happening in Hebron.

Just take a look at Amnesty International on Israel.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no information on the other incidents, but for the record, the Nablus (human shield) incident was indeed a violation of an IDF policy, and a General got his pee-pee smacked for that one.

A rarity.

The IDF regularly engage in war crimes and there ignored. From Amnesy again:

Israel: Winograd Commission disregards Israeli war crimes

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Reuters cameraman incident was at best an honest error by the tank crew and just one of those trajedies of a conflict, and at worst the cameraman should have known better. Look at the terrain surrounding the man's vehicle: From the tank crew's point of view, the man appears to have just popped his head and camera up from behind cover (Note that the road is in a depression, embankments on both sides, higher than the "TV" sticker on the guy's bonnet even if there weren't trees to the side of the vehicle), and it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between a tripod-mounted camera and a tripod-mounted anti-tank missile when looking through a tank sight.

This isn't the first time the Israeli's have done this sort of thing. So, I personally don't think they deserver the benefit of the doubt. Especially in light of the Independent.co.uk article.

Anyway, from the incident in question. Here is a video from Times Online.co.uk:

Footage is graphic and NSFW.

Video: final footage of Reuters journalist killed in Gaza

From the article as well:

From TimesOnline.co.uk

.............................

After medical examinations of Shana's body, Reuters said that Israel had used a controversial type of tank shell which scatters metal darts, or flechettes, around the surrounding area after exploding, risking civilian casualties. Israel refused to comment on the report, but stated that the weapons were not illegal.

Footage released by Reuters shows Mr Shana filming a tank positioned a few hundred yards away in the distance, over the Israeli border.

The film shows a tank firing its shell, which explodes causing the picture to go blank as the camera is thrown from Mr Shana's hand.

It then cuts away to a film made by another cameraman positioned nearby, which shows the devastation left by the shell, including two youths who had been passing the scene lying dead in the road.

Mr Shana, who was from Gaza and had covered the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for the last three years, died instantly. He had been covering events in Gaza for Reuters on a day of intense violence when 16 other Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers were also killed.

In a highly unusual appeal to camera after the footage of his death, David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters News, appealed for Israel to launch an investigation into the incident.

"It is clear to me that we need a thorough and immediate investigation by the Israeli defence forces into what happened," he said.

"This is a tragic incident and one that clearly shows the risks that journalists take every day, all over the world, but all organisations, governments included, have an obligation to let professionals do their job without fear of death."

He added: "The markings on Fadel Shana’s vehicle showed clearly and unambiguously that he was a professional journalist doing his duty. We and the military must work together urgently to understand why this tragedy took place and how similar incidents can be avoided in the future."
................................

Click here for rest of the article

The version of event you present aren't quite a clear cut imho.

Manic Moran

The IDF regularly engage in war crimes and there ignored. From Amnesy again

That Amnesty dislikes weapons such as cluster munitions and landmines does not make them illegal. Some kinder, gentler armies are switching from one kind of cluster munition to another if they can afford it, but that's just for political benefit.

This isn't the first time the Israeli's have done this sort of thing. So, I personally don't think they deserver the benefit of the doubt. Especially in light of the Independent.co.uk article.

I am not commenting on any other instances. I am commenting on this instance, as we appear to have all the visual evidence we need to analyse it on its own merits.

The version of event you present aren't quite a clear cut imho.

The version posted by the news agency is perhaps a bit simplistic. But that doesn't surprise me, it was one of their own that was killed and I can't blame them for it.

The video footage posted above shows both what was recorded by the journalist's camera, and the aftermath with a good pan around the surrounding terrain. You can quite clearly see that the road is bordered on both sides by elevated terrain, with vegetation. It seems that the embankment is about a metre high, and the assorted trees and shrubs are another metre, metre and a half. This will have obscured most of the vehicle, including the "TV" stickers on the hood and doors. (Which don't show up in thermal sights anyway, I should add)

The time of flight of the round was almost exactly two seconds. This means that the distance was somewhere between a mile, and two kilometers, given that muzzle velocity for such a round is on the order of 900-1000m/s. (anti-tank rounds fly much faster, about 1,400m/s if you're curious.) Now, go get a set of 10x binoculars, and see how much detail you can make on a person at that distance, particularly if there's vegetation partially blocking him.

Now combine everything together from the tank's perspective. A bloke appears from behind good cover and concealment at what is an optimal missile range. Long enough for some stand-off, close enough for a reduced time of flight. He's got something on a tripod (Still photos of the scene show a tripod) which, especially at that distance, looks a hell of a lot like a missile launcher, especially the way he puts his head to it. The guy's vehicle is very much within concealment, and thus not much of a factor.

You don't point what looks a lot like a gun at a cop without risk of getting shot. Similarly, you don't point what looks like a missile launcher at a tank without risk of getting blown up. I see no reason to believe the tank crew didn't honestly think they were engaging an ATGM.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

That Amnesty dislikes weapons such as cluster munitions and landmines does not make them illegal. Some kinder, gentler armies are switching from one kind of cluster munition to another if they can afford it, but that's just for political benefit.

Just, because something not illegal doesn't make it right. However, the point is shooting these at civilians is a war crime. Which is what Amnesty are talking about. Still nice of you to make excuses for Israel's terrorism against the people of Lebanon.

Here from Human Right Watch report on the Lebanon war (it does so for both sides):

Civilian Casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 War

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not commenting on any other instances. I am commenting on this instance, as we appear to have all the visual evidence we need to analyse it on its own merits.

I think the record of the Israeli's is important. This kind of things seems to happen a lot. As I posted earlier, take a look at the Amnesty link, I provided. I have commented on other instances, because I believe the IDF target civilians on purpose and its sorta the point of the thread I started. Hence, why I see it as relevant.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The version posted by the news agency is perhaps a bit simplistic. But that doesn't surprise me, it was one of their own that was killed and I can't blame them for it.

I blame the IDF on it. A disturbing group of terrorist if there ever were. Just look at the article, I posted from the Independent. Former IDF state there actions in there own words.

So considering this sort of thing, I think the news agency has every right to be suspicious of the IDF.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The video footage posted above shows both what was recorded by the journalist's camera, and the aftermath with a good pan around the surrounding terrain. You can quite clearly see that the road is bordered on both sides by elevated terrain, with vegetation. It seems that the embankment is about a metre high, and the assorted trees and shrubs are another metre, metre and a half. This will have obscured most of the vehicle, including the "TV" stickers on the hood and doors. (Which don't show up in thermal sights anyway, I should add)

The time of flight of the round was almost exactly two seconds. This means that the distance was somewhere between a mile, and two kilometers, given that muzzle velocity for such a round is on the order of 900-1000m/s. (anti-tank rounds fly much faster, about 1,400m/s if you're curious.) Now, go get a set of 10x binoculars, and see how much detail you can make on a person at that distance, particularly if there's vegetation partially blocking him.

Now combine everything together from the tank's perspective. A bloke appears from behind good cover and concealment at what is an optimal missile range. Long enough for some stand-off, close enough for a reduced time of flight. He's got something on a tripod (Still photos of the scene show a tripod) which, especially at that distance, looks a hell of a lot like a missile launcher, especially the way he puts his head to it. The guy's vehicle is very much within concealment, and thus not much of a factor.

A camera tripod and a missile launcher are very different things. Anyone can see the difference. To claims that a camera tripod could be confused with a missile launcher is a joke.

The IDF damn well knew who they were shooting at.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You don't point what looks a lot like a gun at a cop without risk of getting shot. Similarly, you don't point what looks like a missile launcher at a tank without risk of getting blown up. I see no reason to believe the tank crew didn't honestly think they were engaging an ATGM.

Ridiculous example. There was no gun or rocket launcher. The IDF aren't police. There an army that enforces Israels apartheid and to steal Palestinians land.

Also, you ignore the stories from IDF members, which is what I started this thread about, shows that they have no problem attacking civilians.

Manic Moran

I am commented on other instances, because I believe the IDF target civilians on purpose.

I'll meet you at "The IDF doesn't worry overly much if civilians get killed when they're targetting combatants"

I think the news agency has every right to be suspicious of the IDF

OK, fair enough. The problem is that in this case, we have some pretty compelling evidence available to us to confirm or deny the validity of those suspiscions in this particular incident.

A camera tripod and a missile launcher are very different things. Anyone can see the difference. To claims that a camera tripod could be confused with a missile launcher is a joke. The IDF damn well knew who they were shooting at.

Bullcrap. It's easy to tell the difference 100 yards away in a parking lot or in still photographs of "This is a camera. This is an ATGM."
From a mile, in concealing terrain and through a tank sight, it gets a whole hell of a lot more difficult. Trust me, I know these things.

Also, you ignore the stories from IDF members, which is what I started this thread about, shows that they have no problem attacking civilians.

I'm not addressing the original story of Hebron either way, except to say that the actions of the Hebron garrison are not of a standard I expect from a first-world military. I am addressing the claim that every single instance is a blatant example of rampant heartlessness and unaccountability by the IDF, without any consideration given to the background or subsequent effects. Some are. Some are not. In this case, I firmly believe the cameraman incident is a 'not.'

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll meet you at "The IDF doesn't worry overly much if civilians get killed when they're targetting combatants"

Fair enough.

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, fair enough. The problem is that in this case, we have some pretty compelling evidence available to us to confirm or deny the validity of those suspiscions in this particular incident.

There is certainly disagreement on what happened.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bullcrap. It's easy to tell the difference 100 yards away in a parking lot or in still photographs of "This is a camera. This is an ATGM."
From a mile, in concealing terrain and through a tank sight, it gets a whole hell of a lot more difficult. Trust me, I know these things.

The IDF are very well trained and have the latest tech available to them. I find it hard to believe they could make such a mistake.

I still think there should be an investigation to find out what happened either way.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not addressing the original story of Hebron either way, except to say that the actions of the Hebron garrison are not of a standard I expect from a first-world military. I am addressing the claim that every single instance is a blatant example of rampant heartlessness and unaccountability by the IDF, without any consideration given to the background or subsequent effects. Some are. Some are not. In this case, I firmly believe the cameraman incident is a 'not.'

Fair enough, I believe otherwise. I could be wrong in this, but I am not convinced of your argument and I am siding with Reuters on this.

Riddle101

This will have no affect on anything, Isreal will continue it's act of infamy with a cold iron fist and no one will do a thing. Why is that you ask? Because this is the world we live in, where the cruel and threachrous are treated like kings, and the kind and loving are depicted as no more then animals. It's times like these that i thank god i'm Irish we're at least over here we have better morality then the rest of the world and have no evil deeds under our name

eoin5

I see theyre killing African migrants now as well, cant they just arrest and deport like everyone else?

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

There is certainly disagreement on what happened.

I don't think there's any disagreement as to what happened. There's disagreement as to why it happened. The what is simple enough: Reuters cameraman filming Israeli tank was killed by a beehive or APAM round fired by the tank at about a mile.

The IDF are very well trained and have the latest tech available to them. I find it hard to believe they could make such a mistake.

I would submit that it is very unlikely that anyone on this board is better qualified than I to conclude what a trained crew can or cannot determine through the sight of a modern tank of a first-rate military.

I still think there should be an investigation to find out what happened either way.

I don't have a problem with that as a concept, but the investigation is going to be very simple: Sworn testimony from the TC and gunner: "We saw a chap appear a mile away with what we honestly thought was a missile launcher, so we killed him." "Fair enough" says the IG, "Investigation over." I don't think that's going to satisfy many people, but it's all that is realistically able to be done. Even if they were to recreate the incident, it's all very subjective and the tank crew has to be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is absolutely no doubt at all, and I don't see that happening given all the factors I listed above.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that it is very unlikely that anyone on this board is better qualified than I to conclude what a trained crew can or cannot determine through the sight of a modern tank of a first-rate military.

How exactly are you qualified then?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that as a concept, but the investigation is going to be very simple: Sworn testimony from the TC and gunner: "We saw a chap appear a mile away with what we honestly thought was a missile launcher, so we killed him." "Fair enough" says the IG, "Investigation over." I don't think that's going to satisfy many people, but it's all that is realistically able to be done. Even if they were to recreate the incident, it's all very subjective and the tank crew has to be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is absolutely no doubt at all, and I don't see that happening given all the factors I listed above.

I suppose its hard to prove these things. Simply put I don't trust the IDF and wouldn't surprise me if this was done on purpose.

**EDIT**

Israel: Investigate Death of Gaza Civilians

Evidence Suggests Soldiers Targeted Reuters Journalist

(Jerusalem, April 20, 2008) – The Israeli government should conduct an immediate and independent investigation into the deaths of four civilians, including a Reuters cameraman and two teenage boys, in Gaza on April 16, 2008, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch’s investigations at the site found evidence suggesting that an Israeli tank crew fired recklessly or deliberately at the journalist’s team.
Contribute

“Israeli soldiers did not make sure they were aiming at a military target before firing, and there is evidence suggesting they actually targeted the journalists,” said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Israel should investigate these deaths and, if crimes were committed, hold to account those responsible.”

Fadel Shana’a, a 23-year-old cameraman employed by Reuters, was killed as he was filming the tank close to Gaza’s border with Israel, southeast of Gaza City. Three other persons were killed as they watched Shana’a filming. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights identified them as Ahmed ‘Aaref Farajallah, 14, Ghassan Khaled Abu ‘Otaiwi, 17, and Khalil Isma’il Dughmosh, 22.

Interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch with an eyewitness to the shelling, a resident in a nearby village and a journalist who arrived just after the attack, as well as camera footage taken by Shana’a, indicate there was no military activity by Palestinian militants at the scene of the attack.

On April 16 around 5 p.m., Shana’a was driving with his soundman, Wafa Abu Mizyed, to Johr el-Diek, a village on the eastern edge of the Gaza Strip, to investigate reports of shelling in the area, according to Abu Mizyed. They drove an unarmored gray pickup truck, which, according to Reuters and photographs of the scene, was marked “TV” and “Press” in large colored letters.

On their way they passed an Israeli tank that was parked on a hilltop a few hundred meters away. Once in Johr el-Diek, they filmed a group of villagers injured by the fighting, and then left the area by the same road, again passing the Israeli tank. While there was some machine-gun fire in the distance, Abu Mizyed told Human Rights Watch, there was no shooting in their immediate area at the time.

Abu Mizyed said they then decided to stop by the roadside to take more video of the surrounding area. Shana’a was wearing a flak jacket with “PRESS” printed in large blue and white letters on the front. Footage from Shana’a’s camera shows an Israeli tank a few hundred meters away firing a shell. About one second later, Shana’a’s camera goes black.

Click here for rest of article

Looks like at a minimum, that the IDF were being reckless in this situation. Can't say I am surprised considering how little Israel values Palestinians lives.

dresden8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic Moran
I would submit that it is very unlikely that anyone on this board is better qualified than I to conclude what a trained crew can or cannot determine through the sight of a modern tank of a first-rate military.

How exactly are you qualified then?

Ooh, you fell for it. Manic is US army and drives (or something) an armoured vehicle.

I agree with Manic though don't point things at tanks in a combat zone.

But that is hardly the issue here, the Israeli army targetting and killing civilians, children, peace workers and anybody else they feel like is.

Manic Moran

How exactly are you qualified then?

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this board who has looked through a modern tank sight and made the determination on whether or not to kill someone. It ain't easy.

Looks like at a minimum, that the IDF were being reckless in this situation

At a minimum, it's people not having a clue about tanking.

You have feck-all near visibility in a track. You've got your little 18 degrees of vision for the gunner, the same for the commander, and the other two are each limited to two or three small little periscopes. And you can't hear anything. As any infantryman who has tried to get the attention of a tank crew can tell you, a UFO could land next to the tank, little green men could set up a barbeque and disco, and the tank wouldn't know it. I've been there, jumping up and down, yelling at the top of my voice, waving in the hopes that someone actually might glance outside of whatever periscope I'm next to. That's why tanks are reliant on infantry for close protection. The fact that the jeep drove past the tank a couple of times earlier in the day is pretty irrelevant unless the tank was tracking it the whole way there, which it shouldn't have been: Supporting infantry is responsible for the close stuff, the tank should be paying attention to the distant stuff. Not to mention that if the tank sight is in thermal mode, which is far and away the best for detecting things, you can't read writing anyway as black ink doesn't put out noticeably more or less heat than white ink. The truck could have had "Free beer and loose women" plastered on the side, and they likely wouldn't know it.

“The Reuters truck was clearly marked ‘TV’ and ‘Press’ and drove by the tank twice, so it’s hard to believe the Israeli tank crew didn’t see the pickup contained only journalists.”

I wouldn't expect HRW to know such details, but it's easy to say "Heck, unless they're totally oblivious, they should have seen the truck earlier and known what it is", without understanding that when it comes to close range stuff, tank crews are totally oblivious. It further seems to me that if their theory of a deliberate targetting is correct, and if the crew did know about the journalists earlier, why did they wait until the truck went some distance away and people got out before blowing it up? It doesn't parse.

NTM

AngryHippie

The same US Army that "misplaced" the Hellfire missile that tore apart an ambulance full of women and children on April 13th 1996.
US govt. are the biggest arms dealers on the planet. As such Manic is probably a good judge of weapons systems capabilities, but in absolutely no position to speak on behalf of the IDF, They are some of the US' best customers.

The IDF are a bunch of animals, The situation in the region is as much down to their actions and provocations as it is to Arab hatred of the state of Israel. The situation has been worsening since the June war of 1967. Moshe Dayan should have been heeded in his initial warnings against the push into the West Bank, as he knew elements within Israel would lay claim and settle on every square inch that was overrun by the Israeli army at the time, ensuring bitter resentment and hatred from all of the Arab states instead a possible tense peace. Since then many of the '67 big wigs have advocated blatantly aggressive and oppressive policies with regard to water and settlement, Resulting in civil resistance that has escalated to the scale where Israel can give the IDF carte blanche to maintain control of the non-Israeli populations by any means they see fit to use. It is the exact same thing the state of israel was created to be a refuge from, only instead of Jewish people being persecuted, its Jordanians or Palestinians or Lebanese civilians in many cases, many of whom by now have been directly affected by the actions of the IDF and are prepared to resist and frustrate it in any way they can. Its ****ing madness to think the situation can settle into peace as it is. The Israeli's need to pull their horns back and help to solve the Refugee crises that they have been causing for the last 41 years.....

Manic Moran

"Misplaced?" The US pretty openly sold them AH-64s and the associated missiles in 1990. They had initially been produced for the Kuwaiti Army, but were redirected to Israel as Kuwait was at the time in no position to receive them.

As such Manic is probably a good judge of weapons systems capabilities, but in absolutely no position to speak on behalf of the IDF, They are some of the US' best customers.

I believe I have been focusing on analysing the data on this particular incident with the benefit of practical knowledge, not making sweeping generalisations about IDF targetting policy.

NTM

AngryHippie

Fair enough, Just out of curiosity what would the reaction be to a US unit committing some of the acts documented,committed and witnessed by members of the IDF ?

TerrorFirmer

Are you guys for real? MM is giving a practical analysis of what happened based on the evidence; and all you can do is come out with a vastly inferior technical knowledge and incite he's making excuses for Israel?

Very easy to claim that anyone can tell the difference between a missile launcher and a tripod at that distance, notwithstanding the fact that you couldn't, particularly given the circumstances; when you're faced with what appears to be an aggressive hostile you can't exactly afford yourself the luxury of an in depth analysis.

As such Manic is probably a good judge of weapons systems capabilities, but in absolutely no position to speak on behalf of the IDF, They are some of the US' best customers

What a throughly childish statement. Grow up, would you, firstly; he's not speaking on behalf of the IDF but merely addressing points you're raising; secondly, to incite that his opinion is biased merely because he belongs to the armed forces of a country that supplies aid to Israel...are Irish people biased too because their government permitted the use of Shannon?

AngryHippie

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

are Irish people biased too because their government permitted the use of Shannon?

Yes.
Rendition, Geneva convention ?

TerrorFirmer

That was to say, are we supposed to disregard Irish peoples opinions in general simply because their government permitted use of Shannon?

that would make everyones points here just about as null as was claimed MM's input was regarding the IDF owing to the nature of his interest.

AngryHippie

I never said his opinion was invalid, and he was very convincing in his post about the visibility and targeting limitations from a modern tank, As for giving Israel "aid", I'm not convinced they need it, they need to chill the **** out and stop persecuting their dispossed victims.
Btw, 159 of the lot of 300 of the Hellfires I was referring to were used in Kuwait, the rest of them were dropped of at Haifa munitions pier, no questions asked... convenient.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this board who has looked through a modern tank sight and made the determination on whether or not to kill someone. It ain't easy.

Well, I am not a mind reader. So I wouldn't know that unless you stated it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

At a minimum, it's people not having a clue about tanking.

You have feck-all near visibility in a track. You've got your little 18 degrees of vision for the gunner, the same for the commander, and the other two are each limited to two or three small little periscopes. And you can't hear anything. As any infantryman who has tried to get the attention of a tank crew can tell you, a UFO could land next to the tank, little green men could set up a barbeque and disco, and the tank wouldn't know it. I've been there, jumping up and down, yelling at the top of my voice, waving in the hopes that someone actually might glance outside of whatever periscope I'm next to. That's why tanks are reliant on infantry for close protection. The fact that the jeep drove past the tank a couple of times earlier in the day is pretty irrelevant unless the tank was tracking it the whole way there, which it shouldn't have been: Supporting infantry is responsible for the close stuff, the tank should be paying attention to the distant stuff. Not to mention that if the tank sight is in thermal mode, which is far and away the best for detecting things, you can't read writing anyway as black ink doesn't put out noticeably more or less heat than white ink. The truck could have had "Free beer and loose women" plastered on the side, and they likely wouldn't know it.

I wouldn't expect HRW to know such details, but it's easy to say "Heck, unless they're totally oblivious, they should have seen the truck earlier and known what it is", without understanding that when it comes to close range stuff, tank crews are totally oblivious. It further seems to me that if their theory of a deliberate targetting is correct, and if the crew did know about the journalists earlier, why did they wait until the truck went some distance away and people got out before blowing it up? It doesn't parse.

NTM

Fair enough then. However, the weapons they were using would still easily kill anyone who got out of the vehicle considering they are flechettes involved.

Also, why would the tank not have a radio to contact infantry on the outside?

Also, why wouldn't HRW, have people who have knowledge about tanking?

Its basically your expertise against a reputable Human Rights organization expertise. A organization who actually had people on the ground to investigate the incident. I think they are in a better position to know what happened.

Manic Moran

Fair enough, Just out of curiosity what would the reaction be to a US unit committing some of the acts documented,committed and witnessed by members of the IDF ?

Within the US structure? Probably lots of investigations, congressional oversight and a court martial or two. One company commander in my battalion was relieved because one of his platoons had the bright idea of using a donkey or mule as target practise when it refused to move (As per the movie "Patton"), and I doubt it was because there was any pressure from international rights organisations for investigations or reprecussions. I am aware of two other soldiers in my battalion imprisoned for malfeasance with the locals which resulted in no death or injury at all to human nor animal. It was all handled internally. The Army does tend to take care of its own laundry, if it knows about it. That's where the discipline bit comes in which, as I said, appears to be lacking in the case of the Hebron garisson.

Btw, 159 of the lot of 300 of the Hellfires I was referring to were used in Kuwait, the rest of them were dropped of at Haifa munitions pier, no questions asked... convenient

The Apaches and Hellfires Israel received in 1990 were not originally built for Israel. The systems Israel initially took delivery of were supposed to be delivered to the Kuwaiti military, with Israel to take delivery of a later batch of systems. When Kuwait was overrun, delivery was obviously withheld, and instead Israel took delivery of its order ahead of schedule. Assuming the Israeli and Kuwaiti orders were not identical, it is not surprising that the ammunition lot was split up, if the lot was even procured as a single entity.

Well, I am not a mind reader. So I wouldn't know that unless you stated it.

Well, my function in the US military is fairly well advertised on boards (It's even in my profile). Dresden has under 20% of your post count, and had figured it out. However, that's as may be.

However, the weapons they were using would still easily kill anyone who got out of the vehicle considering they are flechettes involved.

Didn't seem to kill his sound engineer, despite his claim that two rounds were fired.

Also, why would the tank not have a radio to contact infantry on the outside?

That was the original thinking in the US when they designed the M1. "Sure, everyone has a radio, why bother installing an infantry telephone system on the tank?" The Army is now currently retrofitting telephones to the backs of its tanks with the practical experience of Iraq.

Unfortunately, the reality is such that it doesn't actually work that way. Tank radios usually do not interface with infantry squad radios, and definitely don't interface with individual radios such as the PRR the British Army uses. On the occasion that the infantry radio does interface (and if it works: I had difficulty at times talking to a squad attached to me less than 100m away), traffic is going to be limited to things which are important ("Check out the building to your 3 O' Clock, I think I saw something suspiscious in there"). Non-events "There's a guy with a donkey cart 50m to your left" are not going to be reported.

Also, why wouldn't HRW, have people who have knowledge about tanking?

I'm sure that they probably do have a couple of ex-tankers on staff. They apparently didn't write that article, though. What they are saying is possible but they're concluding it as likely or fact.. Given what I know as a tanker, such a conclusion is not based on a solid foundation.

I think they are in a better position to know what happened.

They probably are. That does not mean to say that they are in a better position to draw conclusions as to the "how", as long as they are publicly reporting all the "whats" that they find out about.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, my function in the US military is fairly well advertised on boards (It's even in my profile). Dresden has under 20% of your post count, and had figured it out. However, that's as may be.

Well, i didn't read you profile. So I taught the best way to find out how you came by your knowledge was to ask. Whenever, I check people profiles they tend not to have much info.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't seem to kill his sound engineer, despite his claim that two rounds were fired.

Well, quite a few people were killed. Hes a very lucky man.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That was the original thinking in the US when they designed the M1. "Sure, everyone has a radio, why bother installing an infantry telephone system on the tank?" The Army is now currently retrofitting telephones to the backs of its tanks with the practical experience of Iraq.

Well, thats good to hear.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unfortunately, the reality is such that it doesn't actually work that way. Tank radios usually do not interface with infantry squad radios, and definitely don't interface with individual radios such as the PRR the British Army uses. On the occasion that the infantry radio does interface (and if it works: I had difficulty at times talking to a squad attached to me less than 100m away), traffic is going to be limited to things which are important ("Check out the building to your 3 O' Clock, I think I saw something suspiscious in there"). Non-events "There's a guy with a donkey cart 50m to your left" are not going to be reported.

Was unaware of the difficulties of different types of communication devices having trouble talking to one another.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm sure that they probably do have a couple of ex-tankers on staff. They apparently didn't write that article, though. What they are saying is possible but they're concluding it as likely or fact.. Given what I know as a tanker, such a conclusion is not based on a solid foundation.

They probably are. That does not mean to say that they are in a better position to draw conclusions as to the "how", as long as they are publicly reporting all the "whats" that they find out about.

NTM

Fair enough. I certainly respect your opinion and its good to have someone who knows about this sort of thing.

Kev_ps3

Not really surprised. A criminal occupation committing criminal acts. You'd think the jews would stay well clear of that stuff after the treatment the germans gave them in the 30's and 40's.

munchester29

One more thing that is worth remembering, is that the Palestinians have disguised themselves as journalists in the past, in order to get close to Israeli soldiers and attack them.
Even if the Israelis saw the TV stickers on the vehicle (which from the video I've seen and what I know of tanks, was not possible) they could not have known for sure that these are not terrorists aiming a tripod mounted rocket launcher at them.

Check out these links. Link #2 has a picture of the vehicle used by the terrorists in their attack:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians-Press-Disguise.php
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Palestinian_Terrorists_Abusing_Freedom_of_the_Press.asp