Cast Lead colleteral damage interview.

S

SHERMAN

Active member
A story from today’s Yediot Aharonot, the largest circulating paper in Israel. I have cut some of it out because it is long, but the main ideas are in it. The story is actually an interview with Colonel Ilan Malcha, commander of the Givati infantry brigade. This brigade fought in Gaza during the last round of violence, a.k.a “Cast Lead”. It somthing to think about.
“I sleep well” says Colonel Malcha, “My conscious is quiet and I can answer any claim or criticism against what we have done. I would like to explain once and for to all the critics, what happened in Gaza, how it happened, and maybe than their reactions will change”.
In the last few weeks Malcha and his subordinates found themselves under attack by human rights organizations such as “Shovrim Shtika”(Breaking the Silence- an organization which encourages IDF troops to tell of wrong doings by the IDF), who blame the IDF for un-proportional damage to civilians during “cast Lead”. Malcha is outraged. In this interview given a few weeks before he leaves the brigade following 2 years of constant action, he defends his troops and confronts hard questions…….
…During the operation the Givati Brigade operated in the Zitun Neighborhood located in the sector of Gala, and received praises from many in the IDF for its performance. Malcha was in the field constantly, close to the troops. “The enemy chose the field of battle”, says Malcha. “In a ‘playing field’ that has civilians, the basic assumption is that there will be casualties in innocent civilians. Not because we want it, not because we raise our weapon to fire at them, but because that is the nature of war. It’s a battlefield When the enemy chooses to fight in urban terrain it has a heavy price.”
Q: Wasent there a way to cut down on casualties among Palestinian civilians?
“There is no doubt it is complex, you can’t ignore it. You can’t say ‘Boys, there are no civilians, shoot in all directions’. You really can’t. There were company commanders that entered a building under fire, saw families inside and stopped shooting. In other cases you see insurgents going in and out of houses. What do you say to a company commander? ‘Don’t shoot at the house’? ‘Don’t use cover fire to protect yourself’? What do you tell him? And what will you tell his mother if he does not shoot? Or suddenly you get RPGs from a nearby house. There is a family inside but there is also someone firing RPGs at our troops. Wouldn’t you fire back? You do fire back and civilians get hurt. Whoever is firing that RPG at our forces has to understand he will be fired back at. What, if there is a family in the same building we won’t fire back?”
Q: Perhaps the volume of fire you used was too powerful?
“If we used less firepower we would have paid a very high price. In the end you can’t tell a force to attack ‘dry’, if you know the enemy is there. During the operation a compay commander walks into a building and sees an AK-47 and a hand grenade on the floor. What does that tell you? You don’t need to be an expert to know it means the house has insurgents in it. But then you hear screams and you know there is a family in there too. So what do you do, fire or not fire selectively?”
These hard questions, says Malcha, are the price of urban warfare. “Maybe you can mitigate it, but you have to understand that at the moment you are fired upon you have to react by doing whatever is needed to neutralize the source of fire and prevent casualties to your force. That’s what we are taught from day one”…”I have seen civilian hurt there. You think it was a happy sight? No. It’s a terrible price. But you know if you haven’t opened fire your own men would be dead and that is worse”
…A Squad Leader from Givati described an incident that happened in Gaza(In a meeting of soldiers from the same school after the war): “One of our officers, a Company Commander, saw someone walking on a path. An old lady. She was quite far but close enough to be taken down. If she was suspicious or not I don’t know. He put marksman up on the roof and told them to shoot her. I felt like its cold blooded murder”.
Malcha knows this story well. As far as he is considered, the Squad Leader did not see the whole picture and tells a half a story. “The Company Commander was on the roof with the Marksman,” Says Malcha. “It was daylight and she was walking off the path dressed in black. The Company Commander preformed the full suspect arrest procedure (Stop-Stop or I will Shoot-Etc) and she did not stop. He ordered the marksman to fire a shot in the air. She continued advancing towards them, off the path, without a child, and in the meantime they received reports of female suicide bombers attacking other forces. They also received warnings about possible female suicide bombers in their sector. They fired near her, and finally when she did not stop they shot her. The soldier that was in the house next door did not see the whole event. He only saw a woman being shot and that what he told. As far as he is considered that is what happened. In retrospective we should have talked to those soldiers and explain that event to them.”
Malcha is worried that the criticism will affect the actions of commanders in future conflicts. “I feel that in future battles our company commanders will start thinking deeply about whom they are firing at, who they are not firing at, what they should do, and what they should not do.”
Q: What’s bad about them giving deep thought to who they shooting at?
“I think this public debate and the attacks on them will cause them to stop acting as they have in ‘Cast Lead’. That must not happen. I saw my commanders in the field, they had confidence. They trusted themselves and the troops, They made decisions.”….
…”I am saying, these lines, you cannot draw them in orders. You can’t say go in to a house like this and like that. You need to give your subordinates a ‘toolbox’ and let them use their own judgment.”…
…”I expect the people criticizing us to come up with solutions…Let me take them to meet the soldier who was injured by female suicide bomber, what will they say then?”


Click to expand...





 
people always quote the 1400 people killed in cast lead. you never hear that around 2/3 of them at least were terrorists.

no nation would tolerate rockt fire on its population for 8 years, let alone a military buildup as we see now in lebanon with the hezbos and gaza with hamas. if it was any other country they would of removed this threat a long time ago and the civilian casualties would be through the roof.

people tend to forget that at the same time as cast lead the sri lankan army waged its final assault against the tamil terrorists. estimates of civilian casualties were around 10,000. but you don't hear an utterance of war crimes accusations.

go figure...
 
Right ! for all who thinks that Israel guilty in death of innocent's civillian ppl
I have to say:" No Israel is not guilty there is only one guilty in this case=>HAMAS is guilty"

The only problem of cast lead was that most of HAMAS members escaped to Rafiah zone and this zone wasn't controlled by IDF so too much of them survived :(
 
Indeed. The majority of the civilian casualties were in fact caused during the initial airstrikes (I'm not actually 100% on this, but it seems exceedingly logical). These airstrikes were necessary, as they tore Hamas's control and communication infrastructure to pieces (to the point where they resorted to sending runners), which significantly reduced Hamas's ability to fight effectively. This, in turn, saved the lives of many IDF servicemen. And I have to say I fully agree with the good Colonel on the subject: though civilian casualties should be avoided as much as possible, the lives of your own soldiers should always come first.
 
I am also sure that if the civilians protested to them ...they would get shot and blame fall on the Isrealis. It is sad indeed but you 'd think the people would help themselves more. :roll:
 
benaakatz, where do you get your statistics?

2/3 casulties terrorists? how do you know that? Everybody say that they lost more civilians. And you say otherwhise.

What operation are we talking about here exactly?

I've already gave the argument.

Civilians are easy to kill. Terrorists are sleepery targets.
Civilians are easy to kill. Professional soldiers are hard to kill.

Israel lost 10 soldiers and 4 were because of friendly fire... (wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_war

1400+ people were wasted in the other side...

The problem is that you are fighting terrorists with heavy weapons. If some terrorists take hostages in Israel, what do you do?

You send the army and shoot at the building until they stop firing? Or do you level the place with artillery?

He says:
But you know if you haven’t opened fire your own men would be dead and that is worse”
Click to expand...

This is my problem. Once you start seeing a difference between your people and the others... You will be making a huge mistake.

It's this kind of thinking that made the situation so chaotic.

Why cant we just admit that we dont care about foreign civilians once and for all.

All I ask for is a coherent speech. Two things. "I care" or "I dont care".

Because this "I care. But I prefer to kill them rather than to lose my people." Is really a big joke.

I would let the terrorist get away... If I dont have men ready to risk their lives to do a clean "job". He won the battle. And I still have my chances to win the war.

And once again, I see a modern army, that cost billions... With a lot of friendly nations... Winning the battles and losing the war.

With such methods, I dont see any kind of peace in the future...
 
"I care" or "I don't care" - so world is only black and white? why don't you ask hamas the same question (those in the human shield were their people as far as i remember) :)
lets see how you gonna talk once your son/father/family member will come back in a box because he tried too hard to do the clean job, oh and you probably served long enough and took part in many wars so you know that trying hard is always enough....
i'll surprise you, there is a difference between our people and the others :0 our army should defend our people and not the others. are you shocked?

p.s I don't see any kind of peace in the future for other reasons :<
 
Viewer? you want me to ask these twisted terrorists to care for human life? They are crazy man.

And yes, I understand what you are saying. You say that its difficult. In this forum, they dont even hesitate. I was told many times that war would be impossible if we ask for zero collateral damage.

And about black & white. I'm talking about rules of engagement here. It's supposed to be pretty "white".

A bit like "dont call for fire support in a crowded area."
 
benaakatz said:
people tend to forget that at the same time as cast lead the sri lankan army waged its final assault against the tamil terrorists. estimates of civilian casualties were around 10,000. but you don't hear an utterance of war crimes accusations.

go figure...
Click to expand...
Reality... the darker the skin of the victim the less the Anglo-European public care about the loss of life. Why intervene in Bosnia and not Rwanda? This is also where China is going to win the hearts and minds of resource rich developing nations in Asia and Africa.
 
I've been trying to find it for a couple of days now, and at last, I did. This link is to a page on the IDF's site, dated approximately 5 months ago. The article is about the statistics of the Palestinian casualties. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a version in English, so I'll simply translate the important stuff.

"According to IDF data collected by the research division of the Intelligence Directorate, there are overall the names of 1166 killed during Operation Cast Lead, out of which 709 were Hamas militants, and several more from other terrorist organizations. Additionally, there are 162 men around the ages of 16-50 whose ascription is yet to be determined. Also known are 295 uninvoled killed, out of which 89 were beneath the age of 16, and 49 women."

Now, worst case scenario, assuming all 162 unidentified men were innocent, that makes it about 1.55 terrorists per civilian killed ( 709 divided by [295+162] ).

Best case scenario, assuming all 162 unidentified men were terrorists, that makes it about 2.95 terrorists per civilian killed ( [709+162] divided by 295 ).

And now for the middle ground, assuming it went 50-50, that gives us 2.1 terrorists per civilian killed ( [709+81] divided by [295+81] ).

At any rate, you can see that the majority of Palestinians killed during Operation Cast Lead were terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Ice Tea, I really dont trust these sources.

The problem is that there is not many trustworthy information sources in the area.

Even Amnesty is accused of bias. And by the way, Amenesty gives 1400 dead people in the Palestinian side. 300 kids, 115 women and 85 men more than 50 years old.

And I really dont like the use of statistics in human affairs. We are not cattle.

1 innocent person's life is more valuable than all the terrorists in the world.

Who are you to say what a good ratio is?

Dont you see how immoral it is?
 
LeMask said:
Ice Tea, I really dont trust these sources.
Click to expand...

Well, if you can't trust the IDF, you have two more options: Amnesty and Hamas.

I wouldn't put my faith in Amnesty because I really don't think they were there with the soldiers throughout the fighting to know that kind of stuff. Plus, I very much doubt that Amnesty's knowledge of what happened in Gaza throughout Operation Cast Lead exceeds that of the IDF's Intelligence Directorate. Plus they like Israel about as much as the average Syrian President.

As to Hamas. Well, after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas claimed to have won a great victory - a testimony to their incredible lack of accuracy and objectivity.

The only truly reliable source is a single, absolutely neutral, let's say European guy, who went all around Gaza and counted the bodies and found (and read) a full, 100% true biography on each one. This is, of course, impossible. But you get my drift. As much as it might not make sense, the IDF is pretty much the most reliable source of information on the subject.

LeMask said:
Even Amnesty is accused of bias. And by the way, Amenesty gives 1400 dead people in the Palestinian side. 300 kids, 115 women and 85 men more than 50 years old.
Click to expand...

I'll stick with the IDF's version. But suppose Amnesty is correct, that's still 900 terrorists for 500 civilians. I'm not saying whether that's an acceptable price or not. All I'm saying is that whoever claims the IDF killed more civilians than terrorists is in error.

LeMask said:
And I really dont like the use of statistics in human affairs. We are not cattle.
Click to expand...

I see your point. But I needed exact figures to make my argument (that argument being, the IDF did not kill more civilians than terrorists). So... sorry if I was offensive there. Didn't mean to be.

LeMask said:
1 innocent person's life is more valuable than all the terrorists in the world.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Unless you mean 1 innocent person's life is more valuable than killing or capturing all the terrorists in the world. In that case, I have to say that's actually a pretty sweet deal. Much better than what we have normally (more than 1 innocent killed by terrorists, very few terrorists dead or captured).

LeMask said:
Who are you to say what a good ratio is?

Dont you see how immoral it is?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not one to decide whether it's acceptable or otherwise (unless it's really disproportionate). My main interest in this thread is vindicating the IDF.
 
Last edited:
Ice Tea, I understand your position. But as the IDF is definetely not a neutral entity in this story. We cant use their version.

And I have a hard time following you in this "Amnesty dont like Israel." Come on. Is Amnesty a nazi organisation or something like that?

The people who criticize you can be your best friends.

And how do you know who is from Hamas and who is not?
 
LeMask said:
Ice Tea, I understand your position. But as the IDF is definetely not a neutral entity in this story. We cant use their version.
Click to expand...

I admit you have a point. It's just that I, personally, feel that lying about the numbers and such for good PR is not the IDF's style. Hell, truth be told, anything that's good for PR is not the IDF's style. I mean, the only time I've heard of the IDF Spokesperson Unit doing anything was in Operation Cast Lead, and the aforementioned unit existed for several decades now. But I digress. Moving on.

LeMask said:
And I have a hard time following you in this "Amnesty dont like Israel." Come on. Is Amnesty a nazi organisation or something like that?
Click to expand...

I agree. I can't actually prove that Amnesty doesn't like Israel. My feelings about the subject are, admittedly, based on one Amnesty report I've read, which seemed way exaggerated. But that was a few years ago, so my memory is hazy at best. So yes, I concede this as well.

LeMask said:
And how do you know who is from Hamas and who is not?
Click to expand...

The Intelligence Directorate and the General Security Service (aka Shabak/Shin Bet) are really good at that stuff. I'm only guessing here, but I imagine that they probably have a database about a huge amount of terrorists to ascertain things like that. Trust me on this. These guys are pros.
 
Last edited:
if the idf wanted to lie shouldn't it have "fudged" the numbers even more? it you're gonna lie, why say 300+ casualties were civilians?

unfortunately, civilians do die in war. i'm very disturbed and sad that that many civilians were killed. but our sides goal is bringing back all our boys home safe. if their is a threat then by all means open fire.

a lot of times second hand explosions killed civilians. hamas rigged many many homes, schools, etc to blow up and kill their own people for the PR victory.

REMEMBER that all of this bloodshed could have been averted if the palestinians chose to build up their economy in gaza in 2005 when we pulled out, instead of choosing war and amassing rockets and firing them into israel.
 
This is why I say "dont send soldiers to fight terrorists."

It's a job of the police's special units.

But the situation in the area is pretty messed up. And I think that the IDF doesnt have the equipement/manpower for such battles.

The terrorists hide behind civilians for a reason. To not let you use your superior firepower.

If you use heavy weapons while there is hostages...

Anyways, all this destruction means more terrorism... There is still no peace in the area. Even after all this violence.

We need a political solution.
 
LeMask said:
1 innocent person's life is more valuable than all the terrorists in the world.

Who are you to say what a good ratio is?

Dont you see how immoral it is?
Click to expand...

So unless there is a 100% surefire way of getting only the bad guy and never anyone else, we sit around and do nothing?
Might as well just surrender to the terrorists then. No more civilian casualties caused by us overnight. I guess that would be the victory of morality?

LeMask said:
It's a job of the police's special units.
Click to expand...

You realize having Israeli policemen patrol those areas would
a) deny all autonomy of Palestinians
b) be suicide for the cops patrolling the streets
c) lead to regular civilian casualties caused by cross fires.

LeMask said:
The terrorists hide behind civilians for a reason. To not let you use your superior firepower.

If you use heavy weapons while there is hostages...
Click to expand...

If you hide behind your own civilians and use them as shields, don't cry about them getting shot.
If there was some kind of universal law saying that engaging the enemy that has used civilians as shields is absolutely unacceptable, every bad guy in the world will be ditching body armor to strap babies in front of them.

LeMask said:
We need a political solution.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz, why couldn't anyone think of that? :roll:
 
i don't think its so simple ice http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/956859.html
we will run out of money before hamas runs out of rockets :<

The money issue

An examination of the economic aspect also casts grave doubts on the decision to choose Iron Dome. The cost of each intercept missile will probably be about $100,000. (Rafael claims the cost of a missile will be about $40,000, but given the cost of similar missiles, that does not seem reasonable.) In contrast, the cost of making a Qassam rocket is well under $100,000. So, if the Palestinians produce thousands of Qassams, the Israeli defense establishment will have to respond by manufacturing thousands of Iron Dome missiles, at a prohibitive cost of hundreds of millions of shekels. On the assumption that this information is known to everyone involved, it must be asked, again, how it came about that Iron Dome was chosen as the preferred solution to the Qassam rockets while other options were vehemently rejected.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top