Ramallah-based fund paid for Breaking the Silence report against the IDF in Operation Protective Edge, says Im Tirtzu.
Grassroots Zionist students’ group Im Tirtzu has responded to a report blaming the IDF of misdeeds in Gaza by pointing to the fact that it was paid for by a Palestinian-Arab fund.
The report by Breaking the Silence is based on alleged testimony from 60 officers and soldiers who served in Operation Protective Edge. The “evidence” includes allegations of indiscriminate fire on civilian targets by soldiers who took part in the fighting against terrorist organizations Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others in the summer of 2014.
Cash flow chart by Im Tirtzu Im Tirtzu
A statement on behalf of Breaking the Silence claimed that “analysis of the evidence indicates a worrisome picture of a drastic change in the IDF’s combat norms. As part of this change, values such as ‘purity of arms’ and ‘human life’ have lost their meaning… although evidence can be found of instances of soldier misconduct in the field, what is more troubling is the systemic policy guiding IDF operations at all levels and in all sectors. The guiding policy – a minimum risk to our forces, even at the price of innocent civilians – along with an attempt to terrorize Palestinians and demoralize them, led to enormous and unprecedented damage to the civilian population and infrastructure in Gaza.”
Paid to ‘break the silence’?
Now, Im Tirtzu reveals that an Arab-Palestinian Foundation based in Ramallah called the Arab Human Rights Fund (AHRF) ordered and financed Breaking the Silence’s report. The AHRF provided Breaking the Silence with US$300,000 to write the report, said Im Tirtzu. “Last August, the fund approved emergency funding at the request of partner organizations who approached the fund regarding this issue,” it added.
The AHRF’s goals include a focus on “documenting human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law during the ongoing military assault of the Gaza Strip by Israel,” said Im Tirtzu. “The foundation emphasized the need to coordinate documentation efforts to support current and future documentationand investigation efforts by organizations to assist national and international mechanisms.”
Im Tirtzu’s report, which can be downloaded from the group’s website, also shows that the AHRF is in direct contact with terrorist organizations, and individuals who have been involved in past and present terrorist activity against Israel, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Global Jihad.
Matan Peleg, CEO of Im Tirtzu, said: “Breaking the Silence is an organization operated by foreign elements hostile to Israel. The organization is exploiting loopholes in Israel’s law to work ceaselessly toward interests dangerous to the existence of the State of Israel. It is unacceptable that Palestinian and Arab foundations related to terrorism invite Israeli propaganda groups to fight on their behalf in Israel.
“The Attorney General must take immediate action to fix the cracks and weaknesses in the law. We also call on the security services of the State of Israel to take seriously the ease with which foreign officials and activists from Israeli organizations can act against the State of Israel and its soldiers.”
@ Yidvocate:
its time to treat those taking foreign money to libel the Jews and Israel, as criminals. Pogroms of the past were always preceded by such libels and therefore those uttering the libels are collaborating in attempted murder and genocide. Such libel endangers Jewish children. The Jewish children murdered in France are incited by the libels of these soldiers, they must be charged with collaboration in murder, just like any other criminal.
Yidvocate Said:
I would “stretch” the charge to include attempted murder and incitement to genocide. Libeling jews is a proven serious mode of incitement and a proven cause of pogrom and genocide. Being Jewish, being Israeli soldiers does not lessen their crimes. those funding the ventures are also guilty of the same crimes and should be brought kicking and screaming to an Israeli gallows like eichmann, or liquidated in an apparent mugging in a foreign gutter. (just hoping and dreaming 🙂 )
Matti Friedman
(posted on FaceBook)
(Very thoughtful and worth reading)
I’ve been asked a few times about the “Breaking the Silence” report that is currently being played up by the international press, as is any report that fits the narrative of Israelis as war criminals. (Contradictory reports, like the recent one I posted here from two US military experts, are not considered news.) I hope that most intelligent people have stopped taking international press coverage of Israel too seriously. But there are a few things that are important to understand.
1. War is awful and people come back feeling upset about things they’ve seen and done. Some observers are reliable, and others aren’t. Some of the things described in the report no doubt happened as they were described. Others didn’t. Infantrymen at the bottom of the hierarchy often don’t understand what they’re seeing, or the reasons for what they’re doing, and I’m speaking from experience. Things that make no sense to a private, sergeant, or lieutenant sometimes (but by no means always) make more sense if you go a few notches up the command chain. Young soldiers tend not to understand this, certainly not at the time and not immediately afterward. For example, open-fire regulations at a particular time could seem too aggressive given your limited understanding of where you are. If you have all of the information at your disposal – and no soldier does – you might understand why. A target shelled for reasons unknown to you might have been shelled for good reason after all. Or not. You don’t know, and in many cases (but not all) it’s a mistake to think you do. Drawing broad conclusions about Israeli military practice from “testimonies” of this kind is irresponsible.
2. Professional journalists looking at this report, and at similar reports, should be asking (but aren’t, of course): Compared to what? IDF open-fire regulations are lax – compared to what? Civilian casualty rates are high – compared to what? Compared to the U.S. in Fallujah? The British in Northern Ireland? The Canadians in Helmand Province? “Lax” and “high” are relative terms. If Israel is being compared to other countries in similar situations, we need to know what the comparison is. Otherwise, beyond the details of individual instances the broad criticism is meaningless.
3. Breaking the Silence is described as an organization of Israeli veterans trying to expose Israelis to the nature of service in the occupied territories, in order to have a political impact on Israeli society. That’s what it was a long time ago, and it once had an important role to play. But now it’s something else. Today, like B’Tselem and others, it’s a group funded in large part by European money which serves mainly to provide international reporters with the lurid examples of Israeli malfeasance that they crave. They are not speaking to Israelis, but are rather exploiting Israelis’ uniquely talkative and transparent nature in order to defame them.
There is actually a fairly straightforward solution to this problem. Any group genuinely fighting for the character of Israeli society should do so in Hebrew, which is the language that Israelis speak — and only in Hebrew. If you’re expending a great deal of energy and money translating your materials into English and speaking to foreign reporters, as we’re seeing Breaking the Silence do right now, I think it’s fair to ask what, exactly, you’re up to. How is speaking to the international press supposed to swing Israelis in your direction? Of course it has the opposite effect.
As long as this state of affairs continues, Israelis will be correct in identifying this group and its sister organizations as people paid by foreigners to say things that a lot of foreigners want to hear Israelis say. And Israelis will continue to live without the strong left that we need – one that comes from Israel, is part of Israel, and is concerned with bettering our society, not with posturing for an audience abroad whose hostile obsession with us has nothing to do with us at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Would it be a real stretch to say that these traitors, should be tried for treason or sedition?
Someone tweeted: