undefined | Better HN

0 pointsignoramous29d ago0 comments

> case seems pretty clear, especially since the soldiers tried

Even if the 'soldiers' didn't, it wouldn't have mattered as the governing apparatus usually goes out of its way to protect their own militants.

Ex A:

  Detainees executed, unarmed civilians killed in their sleep, a child, handcuffed and shot, all covered up by the chain of command – this is the testimony of more than 30 eyewitnesses, former members of UK Special Forces ... Panorama – Special Forces: I Saw War Crimes ... reported a series of cold-blooded murders by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan over a period of ten years, followed by years of official cover-up.

https://www.counterfire.org/article/cold-blooded-murder-and-...

0 comments

austin-cheney29d ago

Yes and no. It does matter because it illustrates both malicious intent and evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action.

However, you are also correct, the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior.

bawolff29d ago

> evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action.

That might be a little strong. A cover up can happen for other reasons than covering up crimes (for example covering up bad PR that doesn't raise to the level of criminality). It does seem like a crime is what happened in this case, but i don't agree with applying that logic in general.

YZF29d ago

The IDF has some accountability for criminal behavior. If you search you will find plenty of examples were soldiers were held criminally responsible for their actions. It's true that the default (and maybe the correct default) is to shield soldiers from actions taken during the course of war. This is not unique to the IDF, it's true for all western armies. Try and find me if the US pilot that bombed a hospital in Kandahar, or the US security contractors that mowed down people in the Baghdad market, were ever held criminally responsible.

And just to be clear, my position is that if there was a criminal act here the IDF should absolutely prosecute. To my understanding this is still not settled for this case, i.e. there has not been a decision to not prosecute. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that this is somehow different.

SiempreViernes29d ago

Indeed, and a fig leaf does technically provide some amount of coverage.

For an example of how big this accountability is, when 3 of the hostages escaped they were killed by the IDF and that's ok because there was no malice in the act of shooting bare chested unarmed civilians waving a white flag as they approach.

kakacik29d ago

Was there ever a serious prosecution and serious punishments by IDF personnel? They always make PR circus how they investigate another war crime, but nothing ever happens from what I could find.

You are correct about others but it doesn't change anything here - war crimes and atrocities are the worst of human behavior. Whataboutism shouldn't diminish outrage, and every such person should be extremely severely punished and ostracized by rest of humankind till end of their days, no exception, doesn't matter what passport they hold. Basic morality and all that.

ignoramousOP29d ago

> the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action ... the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior.

May be the brazenness is why they make the best Tech CXOs?

  "The Israeli tank commander who has fought in one of the Syrian wars is the best engineering executive in the world. The tank commanders are operationally the best, and are extremely detail oriented. This is based on twenty years of experience — working with them and observing them."

  Eric Schmidt (Start-up Nation / Saul Singer et al / pg. 41)

actionfromafar29d ago

The tank commanders of another, bygone war also had the reputation for attention to detail. Funny how history rhymes.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse