Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
JeffDavis
Bilda dig en egen åsikt i stället för att lyssna på propaganda från en stridande part under brinnande krig.
Som officer är jag utbildad i krigets lagar, internationell humanitär rätt samt har egen kännedom om hur målprocessen ser ut. Jag är därför bättre skickad än gemene man att bedöma såväl dokumentären som svaret från IDF. Det som sägs i Naza stämmer helt enkelt inte. Det faktum att dokumentärfilmarna väljer att låta juniora värnpliktiga tala utan att ifrågasättas och att man inte låter de som anklagas svara säger ju det man behöver veta kring huruvida det är objektiv film eller propaganda.
Att AI skulle välja mål är helt enkelt en lögn. Alla beslut om attacker fattas av militära befäl.
https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-israel-at-war/october-26-pr/idf-response-to-the-film-naza/
Citat:
The film “NAZA” presents a distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process.
The film's narrative is based on substantial factual errors stemming from a misrepresented and manipulative depiction of reality (see below for the IDF's detailed responses to key claims in the film). It consists of testimonies of anonymous individuals who, generally, describe experiences from a limited and initial stage of a process that entails many more stages. The result is an incorrect and highly misleading description of reality. The filmmakers also omit context essential to understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF's conduct during it, in order to fit the narrative the film promotes. The film deepens this distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews and alluding to historical atrocities, while falsely and baselessly attributing malicious intentions to the IDF that the purported "evidence" in the film does not substantiate. While interviewees raise serious dilemmas posed by asymmetric warfare, the film's simplistic account does not treat them with the seriousness they deserve.
The film inverts reality in various ways, beginning with its title. “NAZA” is the acronym of the Hebrew term “Nezek Agavi” – "collateral damage" in English. This is a professional term commonly used by every law-abiding military worldwide, and has been used for many years in the IDF as well to describe incidental harm to civilians resulting from a strike on a military objective. Paradoxically, the film presents the exceptional effort and detail the IDF devotes to estimating such harm in strikes as evidence of indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing expected civilian harm in strikes is a requirement under international law. The IDF conducts that assessment so commanders can determine whether a strike is lawful, direct additional precautions, modify the strike plan or cancel it, all to mitigate the possibility of harm to civilians to the greatest extent feasible, as IDF commanders did many times during the war.
The IDF is open to hearing genuine criticism of its conduct and attaches importance to learning from substantiated allegations and continually improving its practices. It is bound by and committed to international humanitarian law, its operational procedures are designed to implement those legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to mitigate civilian harm. Suspected violations of the law or IDF orders are examined and, where warranted, addressed through disciplinary action, criminal investigation or other measures.
Contrary to accepted practice, the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF for examination and response before publication, and did not provide a copy of the film after its screening, although the IDF requested it. They also supplied no details that would enable the individual incidents alleged in the film to be identified. To assess the film’s contents, the IDF relied on a detailed account by a representative who attended a public screening, as well as other public accounts and the filmmakers’ own public statements.
This response has two parts: the first addresses overarching problems with the film’s content and production; the second addresses key allegations in the film. The list does not cover every false and distorted claim in the film.
