Guardian

Matti Friedman comments on Breaking the Silence report


Yesterday, we posted a response to a Guardian article on a new report by the European-funded NGO Breaking the Silence. We addressed the completely unsubstantiated claim by the group that the IDF operation in Gaza last summer was compromised by racism. Additionally, NGO Monitor published a broader analysis, criticizing the report’s omissions, flawed methodology, as well as their biased interpretation of the soldier testimony.

Today, former AP Jerusalem correspondent Matti Friedman offered his take on the BtS report in a Facebook status update and gave us permission to post it in full on our blog:

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. 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.

6 replies »

  1. Any group genuinely fighting for the character of Israeli society should do so in Hebrew, which is the language that Israelis speak. 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

    Ouch! Zing! That’s the money quote right there. Matti Friedman hits the nail bang on the head once again.

      • You miss the point John Paul. You obviously need no convincing – which is exactly my point.

        Breaking the silence ostensibly aims to break the Israeli silence about what they are claiming are abuses or crimes. So if they’re trying to persuade the Israeli public and inform them of these deeds, then they should be speaking in Hebrew.

        The very fact that they are going public in English, and having their articles published in the international media shows that their intention is not to “educate” the Israeli public or work to correct these alleged abuses, but merely to slam Israel and smear her in the international sphere.

      • when it comes to how european the israeli people is, they are very good english speakers, but when it comes to the BtS movement’s purposes, “well if you don’t publish those in Hebrew, how do you expect israelis to break their silence?”
        wow, you are great guys.