≡ Menu

Ronen Bergman Confirms IDF Soldier Deliberately Killed by His Own

guy levy ronen bergman

Ronen Bergman report (now censored) on Tel Aviv radio confirming Sgt. Guy Levy was killed by IDF to prevent his capture

Ronen Bergman was interviewed on Tel Aviv radio yesterday and confirmed my report that Sgt. Guy Levy was killed by the IDF in order to prevent his capture by Hamas fighters during a battle in Gaza.  The report reads:

…Levy was killed in Gaza in the course of a kidnap [sic] attempt.  IDF soldiers succeeded in preventing the kidnapping and killed one terrorist [sic] but Levy too was killed in the midst of the attempt to prevent it.

While I’m grateful to Bergman for affirming the accuracy of my prior report.  I’m disturbed by the interview (audio) between Bergman and radio show host, Guy Zohar.  At no point, do either of them doubt or question the moral basis for the Hannibal Directive.  There seems a Spartan sense of sacrifice among Israelis that part of the cost of serving in the army is that your own brothers may be forced to kill you for the greater good of the nation.

There is something deeply troubling, even demented about such a regulation.  I could perhaps understand it in ancient Sparta; or even among the diehard Japanese kamikaze fighters during World War II.  But in a country that prides itself as being the equal of any western democratic nation?  No.

Another bizarre aspect of this report is that the text that appeared on the radio station website above was censored (removed), presumably by the IDF censor.  But the audio of the interview itself remains, uncensored.  The “logic” of censorship.  Go figure.

Oren Persico covered this story in 7th Eye.

A number of commenters here derided my earlier report about the killing/murder of Guy Levy.  I won’t go into the various epithets used.  Suffice to say they were strong, mean and abusive.  I put anyone on notice who disputed the accuracy of this report that unless I read in the comment thread here an acknowledgement that I was right, they won’t comment here again.  Anyone who does not do so will lose their comment privileges.  I’m sorry for the taking such a strong position on this, but I’m sick and tired of the crap people write when I report major scoops like this one.  It’s easy to write crap.  It doesn’t cost you anything.  Well, I want them to know it has a cost and I’m taking payment.

It’s worth noting a few linguistic oddities involved in this Gaza war.  Israelis mobilize Hebrew as a weapon that either obscures the troubling moral dimension; or deliberately distorts reality in order to allow them to feel empowered in their outrage against their enemies.  In this particular case, Israeli soldiers are not “captured.”  They are “kidnapped.”

The use of the latter term allows Israelis to claim that their soldiers are not occupiers or invaders, but rather defenders.  No enemy has the right to kidnap Israel’s soldiers whose only sin is defending the homeland.  If the soldiers were “captured,” then it would infer that they are fighters engaged in a war with a legitimate enemy.  Israelis refuse to acknowledge the validity or (often) even the existence of Palestinians or Palestine.  Therefore, anyone fighting for Palestine must be a terrorist (illegitimate), not a soldier (legitimate).  Terrorists “kidnap” hostages.  Soldiers capture the enemy.  Palestinians can never be the latter.

One of the major new developments of this iteration of the Gaza Wars is the tunnel network that Hamas dug underground.  Though some of the tunnels have been used to cross into Israel and attack mostly military targets, the lion’s share of the tunnels are used to defend Gaza from the Israeli invaders.

Nevertheless, in the Israeli hasbara apparatus, they’ve become “terror tunnels.”  Instead of being a means of defense of the Palestinian homeland, they become the deadly underground lairs of terrorists.  Any act of defense by Hamas using these tunnels becomes nothing more than terrorism.  It’s a shameful distortion of reality.

On a related matter, Israel proclaimed a unilateral ceasefire, which wasn’t actually a ceasefire at all.  It claimed it would cease “offensive operations.”  But reserved the right to search and destroy Hamas tunnels.  In IDF-speak, the destruction of tunnels is a defensive operation.  This is utter nonsense.  The tunnels are meant to defend Gaza.  If you want a ceasefire you cease firing.  You cease all military operations.  You don’t cease some of them.  If you refuse a general ceasefire in the accepted sense of the term, then you’re not observing a ceasefire.  You’re observing an artificial conception which you call a “ceasefire,” but which isn’t.

This hasn’t stopped Israel from pointing its finger at Hamas and claiming that while Israel was honoring a ceasefire, Hamas wasn’t.  Of course, there was no reason for Hamas to honor anything since there was no real ceasefire on the table.  Israel, as usual, is playing games with the truth.  The shame of it is that there is no one but Hamas to make them pay for this sham and deception.  John Kerry and the Obama administration have been snookered.  The EU is toothless.  The world stands by jaws agape, while Israel pulverizes Gaza into limp hamburger meat.

A few days ago, I reported on Israel’s shelling of a UN school in Beit Hanoun in which 16 civilians were killed, among them 8 children.  At the time, Israel didn’t deny it might’ve been the culprit, while witnesses and the UN spoke clearly of Israel’s responsibility.

Now, IDF spokesflack Lt. Col. Peter Lerner acknowledges that the IDF hit the school.  But he does so in a way that complete obfuscates reality and the truth:

Israel acknowledged Sunday that troops fired a mortar shell that hit the courtyard of a U.N. school in Gaza last week, but said aerial footage shows the yard was empty at the time and that the shell could not have killed anyone.

The shell was not fired at the school intentionally, an army spokesman said.

…Lerner raised the possibility that shrapnel from the shell might have wounded some at the school. He also offered other scenarios — that the wounded were “brought to the compound after injury” or were caught in a crossfire between Israeli troops and Gaza militants.

So to summarize the Israeli claims: it fired a mortar shell accidentally at a school whose courtyard was empty.  So none of the 16 people who did die, died from this shell.  They somehow either didn’t die or died in some other fashion.  The shrapnel could have wounded some, but only from the shrapnel of the blast.

As usual, the IDF explanation defies logic and common sense.  Not to mention that the IDF hasn’t produced the “aerial footage” on which it bases its claim the courtyard was empty.  If it has such evidence it should produce it rather than merely to claim it exists.  The claims of the IDF are useless.

If one mortar shell did hit the compound where did it come from?  Who fired it?  And why did it hit the school?  What was it trying to hit?  The IDF will answer none of these questions because it essentially doesn’t give a crap about evidence, proof, or reason.  It only cares about covering its ass and looking clean even if takes lies to do so.

I particularly like Lerner’s claim that the wounded were brought to the school after they were injured.  And why would anyone bring gravely injured people to a propaganda event rather than taking them to the hospital?  He avoids dealing with the 16 dead.  Were the corpses trucked there for propaganda purposes?  If so, how and by whom?  The implication is, of course, that Hamas is evil and duplicitous enough to have contemplated and organized such a project.  But the only thing this proves is the weird, malevolent imagination of the IDF in coming up with such a cockamamie piece of nonsense.  In doing so it makes a mockery of itself and defiles the sanctity of the women and children it killed.

The UN itself says it tried to conduct its own investigation of the tragedy but had to abort the investigation because the IDF fired again at the school.  This is considered a subtle way to communicate in Israeli circles.


The Jewish Agency’s chief social media propagandist, Avi Mayer, has been tweeting hasbara like crazy during the War.  He’s in high dudgeon about the horrors perpetrated by Hamas.  It’s “criminal” that the PA has refused to accept Israel’s offer of humanitarian aid to offset its guilt in murdering 1,110 Gazans.  But the corker is Mayer’s anger at the “disproportionality” of foreign journalists freely shooting and publishing photos of IDF soldiers, while not doing so for Hamas fighters.  So he dares photographers to publish pictures of Hamas.

There are a few problems with this.  First, anyone who takes a picture of a Hamas fighter is liable to get himself and the Hamas fighter killed.  Anyone photographed fighting against Israel would likely become a target of Israel.  Unlike Hamas which doesn’t engage in targeted assassinations of Israeli soldiers, Israel does (kill Palestinian fighters).

Further, the IDF itself has warned foreign journalist not to embed or locate themselves near Hamas fighters.  It has told them that they could become a target.  Israeli snipers cannot distinguish between a reporter and a fighter through a rifle scope.

So in essence, Avi Mayer is encouraging foreign journalists to get themselves killed.  No skin off Avi’s back.  The IDF is already targeting foreign journalists, especially ones like Al Jazeera which it hates.  So what if another one bites the dust.  Right, Avi?

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtubeyoutube
{ 37 comments… add one }
  • walter benjamin July 27, 2014, 10:07 PM

    most of your above article is conjectural prejudice.
    your statement”In this particular case, Israeli soldiers are not “captured.” They are “kidnapped.”
    I assume you are differentiating between חטף ושבוי which would require you knowing what is exactly going on in the mind of the captor or kidnapper. in addition to this in the Shalit case, Hamas never kept any of the Geneva convention conditions like the right of the ‘Red Cross’[sic] to inspect and visit the kidnapped etc. this has also been the practice of Hisballah with ‘corpses’ etc yet the world is מעלים עין.
    for your info i have no ‘hasbara’ ties, i just have a ‘hobby’ of studying anti-semitism in its various forms.

    • Elisabeth July 28, 2014, 12:44 AM

      ” i just have a ‘hobby’ of studying anti-semitism in its various forms.”
      If so, what are you doing here? Go practise your sick hobby somewhere else.

      • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 1:06 AM

        i would hardly call it a ‘sick habit’ as probably one could get one form or a degree or another in anti-semitism today taking into account the academia in the US is at an all time low.
        on the other hand this blog is the ‘perfect place’ to observe self-hating jews and their special kind of anti-semitism.

        • Elisabeth July 28, 2014, 5:49 AM

          I think you just got yourself banned. I only needed to point you to the rope, and yup, you went for it.
          Funny.

          • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 5:58 AM

            do you really think it really matters to me?

          • Elisabeth July 28, 2014, 6:43 AM

            No, I don’t think it matters to you, because you are totally fake.

        • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 7:03 AM

          Elisabeth
          when you have to resort to ad hominems it is sign of desperation.

          • Elisabeth July 28, 2014, 8:20 AM

            You being fake is not an ad hominem, but a description of what you are doing here. You are here in an organized effort to spout propaganda, not because of a real interest in the things discussed here. So yes, you don’t care because everything about you here is fake

    • __ \ | July 28, 2014, 8:45 PM

      to “walter benjamin”,
      “… i just have a ‘hobby’ of studying anti-semitism in its various forms.”
      you appear to exhibit partiality. i.e. compromise the ability to think critically, and find what is sought.
      once again “walter benjamin”, Walter Benjamin:
      “The distracted person, too, can form habits.”

    • Damien Flinter August 2, 2014, 10:58 AM

      Do your hobby’s ‘various forms’, Walter, include the exotica of antiPalestinian apartheid racism??

      Palestinians being, after all, a Semitic people.

  • Citizen of The World July 27, 2014, 11:54 PM

    -“As usual, the IDF explanation defies logic and common sense. Not to mention that the IDF hasn’t produced the “aerial footage” on which it bases its claim the courtyard was empty. If it has such evidence it should produce it rather than merely to claim it exists. The claims of the IDF are useless.”

    You can find your desired footage in this link:
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4550905,00.html

    As you know, raw footage can never be published immediately (at least based on the past). I see you never lose an opportunity to publish assumptions, when you don’t have all of the information. I’m also sure that even after you see the footage, you’ll have something to say which is totally irrational, just to prove your point (even when its wrong based on facts).

  • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 3:16 AM

    Koestler claims in one of his novels that the people who had to constantly lie on behalf of the Soviet Union started to suffer from “tiredness of the synapses”. Since I wonder whether hasbara spreaders might experience the same syndrome I googled on that term also because I have always believed that Koestler engaged in a bit of scifi fantasy here. But, indeed, there is such a thing as “synaptic fatigue” says Wikipedia but the relevant article doesn’t tell us whether it is brought about by an increasing estrangement from the truth. So, in the interest of science, I wonder whether Fake Benjamin and the Citizen of the Land of Yahoos can tell us whether they have perceived any symptoms yet.

    • Citizen of The World July 28, 2014, 3:35 AM

      As I would expect, your comment has nothing to do with the article and the information I’ve posted in my comment.. Wonder why @RS doesn’t delete your comment (as he did for the same reason for many other comments on his blog…).

      When you claim that info posted by me is a lie, you should prove it. For now all I see is a pro-terrorist propaganda in panic.. It’s really can be observed when you target my (or anyone who shares opinion close to mine) nicknames. You remind me of Munayyer Yousef when interviewed by Sean Hannity (avoiding the facts and the discussed subject)..

      • Dirk July 28, 2014, 1:17 PM

        When you mentioned Sean Hannity you outed yourself as a brain washed neo-con who seems to get his ‘facts’ from Fox News

        • Citizen of the World July 28, 2014, 11:00 PM

          I was not talking about Sean Hannity as my mentor. I was talking about the reaction/response of Munayyer Yousef in this interview.. Try to read the whole text instead of finding one word/name and believing that you undersdand the context..
          In the interview Munayyer avoided directly answering a question, because he knew that his answer will definitely play against him, even though the question was a legitimate one.

    • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 4:17 AM

      i am assuming you live in the US. if so, IMO, you comments and opinions are totally irrelevant.

      • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 5:35 AM

        That is where your dough, part of your weaponry and your getting a free pass at the UN is coming from – isn’t it

        • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 7:01 AM

          explain why it bothers you so much.

          • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 7:28 AM

            Explain why it doesn’t bother you.

          • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2014, 12:18 AM

            @ walter benjamin: SInce you’ve violated the 3 comment a day rule, you are now moderated.

  • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 4:19 AM

    ‘allo citoyen de la nation yahooaise – the topic of a thread is set by the moderator’s introductory article, not by an individual contributor. I was particularly reacting to Richard’s:

    “A number of commenters here derided my earlier report about the killing/murder of Guy Levy. I won’t go into the various epithets used. Suffice to say they were strong, mean and abusive. I put anyone on notice who disputed the accuracy of this report that unless I read in the comment thread here an acknowledgement that I was right, they won’t comment here again. Anyone who does not do so will lose their comment privileges. I’m sorry for the taking such a strong position on this, but I’m sick and tired of the crap people write when I report major scoops like this one. It’s easy to write crap. It doesn’t cost you anything. Well, I want them to know it has a cost and I’m taking payment.”

    And I was speaking about hasbara spreaders in general so you are right in saying that “your comment has nothing to do with the article and the information I’ve posted”. . See, I acknowledge truth where I find it.

    • Citizen of the World July 28, 2014, 4:46 AM

      You’ll just prove my point… + My comment addressed directly to a part of the article and proved it [the part] wrong with a strongest evidence possible.. That makes you angry, isn’t it? You hate facts when they prove you’re wrong..
      You are everything but “peace” seeking person… Ignoring completely one of the sides in the conflict just makes it much much deeper.

      • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 5:40 AM

        ” Ignoring completely one of the sides in the conflict” If I see some heavily armed policemen roughing up a prostrate weedy individual who can’t do more than kicking I know which “side in the conflict” to ignore.

  • Arie Brand July 28, 2014, 4:22 AM

    Oops. I did indeed mention Fake Benjamin and the Citizen of the Land of Yahoos by name. Now how could I make such a mistake.

    • walter benjamin July 28, 2014, 4:35 AM

      do as you please

  • Ari Greenfield July 28, 2014, 6:52 AM

    Is it unreasonable to interpret these comments to mean that he was simply accidentally or unintentionally killed during the course of trying to prevent the capture? Hostages are unintentionally killed (but more often intentionally by the captors) during hostage rescue operations conducted by the best militaries in the world; it’s an accepted risk of these types of operations, and that risk is certainly far greater during an impromptu attempt which is seemingly what happened in this case. I’m not debating the existence of the Hannibal Directive, I’m simply saying it’s impossible to know what happened w/out an understanding of what was going on in the minds of the men involved in attempting to stop the would be captors- mens rea. Just something to consider.

  • Piotr Berman July 28, 2014, 8:30 AM

    I am not sure if Richard is correctly representing ancient Sparta. What is true is that fleeing the enemy on the battlefield was very strongly deprecated, and it is also true that Sparta was ready to make considerable concessions to free her captured prisoners, as it happened during the Peloponessian war. But I do not recall them killing their own.

  • Michael July 28, 2014, 1:56 PM

    in addition to this in the Shalit case, Hamas never kept any of the Geneva convention conditions like the right of the ‘Red Cross’[sic] to inspect and visit the kidnapped etc. this has also been the practice of Hisballah with ‘corpses’ etc yet the world is מעלים עין.
    Walter Benjamin:
    and the difference between this and Israelis illegal imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians, including children is………

    • yaron July 28, 2014, 10:10 PM

      Michael, there is a definite difference here. Israel is a sovereign state and what it does within its border is up to them. The example that{fake} Walter Benjamin brought is in violation of acceptied international law which is abided by most civilised nations.

  • Popeye Jones July 28, 2014, 4:52 PM

    Richard, the most controversial conclusion that can be drawn is that the IDF solider was killed by friendly fire. This is not anything close to what you said. And nobody else has the same report as you.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2014, 12:22 AM

      @ Popeye Jones: No, it’s not “friendly fire” when the tank shell is deliberately fired into a building holding an IDF soldier.

  • David B July 28, 2014, 7:09 PM

    “Killed the in course of preventing him from being kidnapped” is hardly the same as murder. No prosecutor in the world would take a case like that for murder, UNLESS there was evidence that they intentionally killed the soldier, as opposed to him dying during a firefight with the other side. Since you don’t have any evidence of intent, there is no murder. Period.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2014, 12:37 AM

      @ David B: I didn’t ask you or anyone else to prosecute Hannibal Directive killings. Nor do I believe you have any legal background to make any such determinations. But the fact that you fire on a building with lethal force in which you know an IDF soldier is being held captive is murder. You can call it murder with extenuating circumstances, but it’s still murder.

      • David B July 29, 2014, 11:24 AM

        No you can’t. It might be justified homicide, it might, if unduly negligent, be criminal manslaughter. But unless you meant to kill the soldier, it’s not murder, which requires malice aforethought. http://thelawdictionary.org/murder/

  • shahar July 28, 2014, 8:41 PM

    Though I have my regards on the military use/abuse of hebrew, I can’t accept your description of the tunnels as means for defending Gaza.
    How a tunnel from Gaza into Israeli area defends Gaza?
    Please explain the logic…

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2014, 12:34 AM

      THe IDF has invaded Gaza. Tunnels within Gaza certainly defend Gaza. The few that reach Israeli territory are used to assault Israeli troops who are part of the invasion force that has killed 1,100 Palestinians.

Leave a Comment