Breaking the Silence released a booklet of anonymous soldiers' testimonies about the Gaza war. Unfortunately it raises more questions than answers.
• What do the people at Breaking the Silence really expect me to make of their booklet of allegations?
• How am I supposed to trust a report based entirely on anonymous testimony?
• Given the vague details in the incidents described — no names, units, or locations are identified, nor are any incidents put in a perspective of a date — how are IDF investigators, journalists or human rights activists to look into these claims?
• Why is so much testimony based on hearsay and word-of-mouth?
• Did the Breaking the Silence make any effort to independently verify the stories themselves before going public with such explosive allegations?
• Why haven't these allegations already come up in numerous investigations already undertaken by the army, media, and non-governmental organizations? • Just why should I believe that these 30 soldiers represent the entire IDF?
• Is there any reason to believe Breaking the Silence has its own agenda?
• Did the EU and Britain — two of the organization's donors — fund this new booklet?
• Hasn't the media learned from Dani Zamir and the soldiers' testimonies that sparked a wildfire of hysterical coverage in March?
• Why didn't Zamir's reaction to the controversy get equal billing to the sensational headlines?
• Did Breaking the Silence's uncorroborated allegations deserve a double-page center spread like in today's print edition of The Independent?
• And why did The Independent see fit to post on it's web site the full copy of Breaking the Silence's booklet?
• How do we explain today's British media's fixation, while the US media (except for McClatchy News) completely skipped the story or used wire coverage?
• Did certain papers rush the story because it fits a pre-conceived storyline of Israeli brutality?
