So far, what the article established is that at most a relative handful of civilians were killed, under ambiguous circumstances, and that the `shoot-to-kill" entry orders were canceled. There do not seem to have been any citations of truly "indiscriminate" fire.
Some troops actually cleaned and straightened the houses they occupied, which I find astounding(speaking as a veteran), and is definitely not the impression one gets from world media which has latched on to this story to defame Israel. Given the lessons Israel supposedly learned in Lebanon, I wonder what practical alternatives there were to heavy firepower in an environment of booby traps,, tunnels, suicide bombers of both sexes and all ages, and many fighters in civilian clothes. Which of the soldiers would prefer to be dead?
If anything, the article as a whole was a tribute to the relative morality of the Israeli army in difficult circumstances. Not at all what Haaretz had implied in its Thursday preamble.
JIM |
|
