I'd like to focus here on one particular claim and its opposite, which are both made by Zionists of different stripes (or of the same stripe at different times). On the one hand it is asserted that Israel adheres to exceptionally high standards, indeed the best in the world, when it fights the Palestinians. On the other hand it is claimed that it's antisemitic to scrutinize Israel's behavior, especially vis-à-vis the occupied territories, since Israel is just another member of the international community and there's no special reason to look into its human-rights abuses. In other words, Israel is said to behave better than all other states, but if you want to verify if it does, then you're charged with being infected with an antisemitic obsession.
One notable example is the Purity of Arms claim, which is closely related to the familiar phrase, "Israel has the most moral army in the world." In what ways is the country exceptionally moral? According to the Judeo-Christian Alliance:
Israeli soldiers risk their own lives to prevent Palestinian civilian deaths.
According to the Zionist Organization of America:
No other nation teaches its soldiers to risk their own lives for the purpose of avoiding deaths and injuries to the civilian population of its enemies.
The point is picked up by Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading Israel apologists:
A lead story in the "Ideas" section of the Boston Globe analyzed the ethical training received by Israeli soldiers and concluded, "The IDF army offers a model for us and other coalition forces." It described the Israeli concept of "purity of arms," which "requires that soldiers put their own lives at stake in order to avoid harming non-combatants."
Why would they make such an unbelievable claim? Soldiers are usually too busy staying alive themselves; it's not reasonable to even suggest that they would place other people's lives above their own. However, Israel defenders play on the gullibility of a large segment of the Gentile community. Because of the immense contribution of Jewish persons to the European and American societies, the public is prepared to believe anything good about Israel, just as it's perpared to believe anything bad about the Palestinians, courtesy of Exodus and numerous other anti-Arab movies.
But, is there even a grain of truth to the claim? Is it at least formally accurate, i.e., are Israeli sodiers taught what they're claimed to be taught, even if they don't practice it?
No, it's a lie. The Purity of Arms concept indeed exists, but it does not involve teaching soldiers self-sacrifice for the sake of others. It's part of the Ethical Code of the Israeli Defense Forces:
Purity of Arms
The IDF serviceman will use force of arms only for the purpose of subduing the enemy to the necessary extent and will limit his use of force so as to prevent unnecessary harm to human life and limb, dignity and property.
The IDF servicemen's purity of arms is their self-control in use of armed force. They will use their arms only for the purpose of achieving their mission, without inflicting unnecessary injury to human life or limb; dignity or property, of both soldiers and civilians, with special consideration for the defenseless, whether in wartime, or during routine security operations, or in the absence of combat, or times of peace.
As can be seen, nothing you won't find in the Ethical Codes of other armies, and of course no hint whatsoever that soldiers should risk their lives to avoid harming non-combatants.
Indeed, "The Ethical Fight Against Terror," a 2003 article written by Israeli philosopher Asa Kasher and Major General Amos Yadlin, now the head of Military Intelligence, argued that it was justifiable to kill civilians so that soldiers won't be lost. The article is considered to have provided the justification for Israel's recent disproportionate war on Gaza. In an interview with Haaretz, Kasher stated:
There is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. (...)
Sending a soldier there to fight terrorists is justified, but why should I force him to endanger himself much more than that so that the terrorist's neighbor isn't killed? I don't have an answer for that. From the standpoint of the state of Israel, the neighbor is much less important. I owe the soldier more. If it's between the soldier and the terrorist's neighbor, the priority is the soldier. Any country would do the same.
That comes a lot closer to Israel's observed behavior in Gaza.
So that you see: I've had to do some research to establish, apparently for the first time on the Internet, the Zionists' mendaciousness as regards the Purity of Arms concept. They'll call me an antisemite, because, who would spend so much time on the Ethical Code of the IDF when China is occupying Tibet? But I guess I can live with the antisemitic slur being hurled at me. It's a sacrifice that I'm prepared to make so that truth won't be hurt.