Haaretz's search for scapegoats
CAMERA has a lengthy report in which they discover the source of Haaretz's assertion that the two officers (who were first named by Haaretz) were disciplined. It's definitely worth reading the whole thing. It ought to convince you of Haaretz's ideological biases and cause you to take anything they write with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, before Haaretz changed the report, it was picked up by many media outlets worldwide. Among those outlets are the Times of London, the BBC, and the New York Times, although the latter was bit more careful in how it reported the story, referring to a 'reprimand' rather than to the officers' being 'disciplined.'
In a story Tuesday, Haaretz continues to insist that the officers were 'disciplined,' although it now claims that the discipline was for the improper use of artillery shells rather than white phosphorus. If you read the full CAMERA report, you will see that there is no basis for claiming that the officers were disciplined.
Writing in Tuesday's Haaretz, Amos Harel is upset that the IDF didn't tell anyone about the reprimands in April or July 2009.
In April 2009, when the investigations ordered by Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi were completed, then-Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Harel presented the findings to the media in a briefing. Harel briefly described the attack on the UNRWA compound at Tel al-Hawa, which was investigated by two different groups as part of the examination of the damage to international institutions.
The affair for which Eisenberg and Malka were later reprimanded was not mentioned at the briefing - the matter of the unjustified artillery fire: the use of live ammunition to help rescue a Givati Brigade platoon from a situation in which they were under anti-tank missile fire from Hamas - even though the orders allowed firing only smoke shells. The investigation found that Malka exceeded his authority, but his orders did not cause the death of any innocent civilians. Division commander Eisenberg, who was not directly involved in the decision, requested to be tried too, so as not to abandon his brigade commander.
Harel, who is now on leave before his his retirement from the IDF, said yesterday that the affair was raised in general terms during the investigation, and it was determined that the matter would be investigated more deeply at a later date. Therefore, the artillery fire was not brought up at the April briefing, he said.
Harel said it was a mistake that the results of the disciplinary action were not announced in July, and said he thought the matter "fell between the cracks" between the General Staff and Southern Command, two bodies whose relations are in any case sensitive.
For months, journalists who asked whether additional disciplinary actions had been taken against senior officers as a result of Operation Cast Lead were told "no." Now it turns out that they were misled. Military sources said yesterday that the IDF spokesman's office only heard about the matter for the first time on Sunday evening, when journalists asked for a response.
...
So did someone intentionally keep the matter from the IDF spokesman, or was it just an innocent mistake? That is a question the IDF must answer. Not providing an answer will only damage the IDF: After all, it was the IDF that investigated and tried. Why not publicize on time and prove that Israel dealt with such matters promptly, as it claims?
Israel Matzav: Haaretz's search for scapegoats
No comments:
Post a Comment