View Full Version : Israeli Compulsory Military Service
Dutch
07-09-2002, 05:27 AM
What do you are the social merits and demerits of Israelis being obliged to fulfill military duties?
Dutch
07-09-2002, 05:28 AM
Please add 'think': 'What do you think are the...'
sharonbn
07-09-2002, 06:59 AM
My opinion is:
pros
----
IDF serves as an excellent entry point for new emigrates and as a general melting pot of the Israeli society, which is an emigration society.
Military service strengthen the bond of the citizens to the country and Jewish nation.
The army provides education and profession for the lower classes, and is often last chance for these people to escape life of poverty and crime.
The army is known to be the no. 1 matchmaker in Israel.
During military service, the soldier is subjected to unique pressure and extreme conditions. These hardships help build strong character, endurance and adaptability. Generally, speaking, an Israeli 20 y.o. will show a more mature mentality to that of his American/European counterpart.
cons
-------
Because of the omnipresence of IDF, all those who did not serve are virtually excluded from society. This include the Arabs and orthodox religious Jews. This exclusion alienates these minorities and prevents them from becoming productive parts of the society.
Again, because of the omnipresence of IDF, army generals are exposed to wide media coverage to the point of becoming an Israeli celebrity. This phenomena paves the way for many generals to launch a political career once they leave the army. This include prime ministers Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon and countless ministers and Knesset Members. Some of the generals, behave in the government and Knesset as if they’re still commanding soldiers. IMO, there are much too many army representatives in politics and too few ones from the academic world.
Originally posted by sharonbn
Generally, speaking, an Israeli 20 y.o. will show a more mature mentality to that of his American/European counterpart. Definetely :)
cerulean
07-10-2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn
Because of the omnipresence of IDF, all those who did not serve are virtually excluded from society. This include the Arabs and orthodox religious Jews. This exclusion alienates these minorities and prevents them from becoming productive parts of the society.
To what extent does this exclusion affect religious women who don't serve?
Mr. Pumps
07-14-2002, 09:39 AM
But the Jenin operation still shows the problem is making quick soldiers out of everyday citizensin a conscript army.
Sending in Reserves and not trained Soldiers lead to more casualities than trained soldiers would have experienced.
But I guess Israel in the situation it is in cannot change standard policy.
richcrassus
07-14-2002, 04:55 PM
The IDF is compulsory for everyone except israeli arabs and hasidic jews.
I was just wondering, since all israeli arabs are all supposidly vicious backstabbers, are their any israeli arabs in the IDF? as reservists or normal soldiors or whatever?
If yes, why do you think they have joined the IDF?
thank you.
Mediocrates
07-14-2002, 05:00 PM
Do you have a real question?
richcrassus
07-14-2002, 05:10 PM
So what i wrote wasent a real question? I think it was, are thier any arabs in the IDF?, if so why do you think they have joined?
If thats too hard for you than too bad? or if you dont want to answer because you care what some other member might think of you, fair enough too.
I think on here you should write what you really think.
cheers.
OK, to give you the benefit of the doubt...
There are Druze and Bedouin Arabs in the IDF, and have been from what I understand, from the very beginning. In fact, at least a couple of the attacks on IDF checkpoints have resulted in deaths of these brave people.
As to why they join up... well, you'd have to ask them, but IMHO their thinking is probably that the enemies of Israel are their enemies, since Israel is also their country. If Jews could fight in the Russian, Polish, British, US, and other armies for the country of their birth even if they were a minority there, why wouldn't the Druze and Bedouin do the same?
Mediocrates
07-14-2002, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by richcrassus
So what i wrote wasent a real question? I think it was, are thier any arabs in the IDF?, if so why do you think they have joined?
If thats too hard for you than too bad? or if you dont want to answer because you care what some other member might think of you, fair enough too.
I think on here you should write what you really think.
cheers.
Why don't you call an early end to the weekend, leave your mama's basement find something useful to do besides trolling.
sharonbn
07-15-2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by elke
As to why they join up... well, you'd have to ask them, but IMHO their thinking is probably that the enemies of Israel are their enemies, since Israel is also their country. If Jews could fight in the Russian, Polish, British, US, and other armies for the country of their birth even if they were a minority there, why wouldn't the Druze and Bedouin do the same?
The Druze, as a strategic decision, joins whoever is currently the ruler of the country. This means that Druze living in Syria serve in the Syrian army. Druze living in Lebanon serve in the Lebanese army, etc. This "strategy" of the Druze does put a question mark on their lotyalty, since you can argue that if Israel loses the next war, the Druze might turn their back on it. However, to date, the Druze have proven themselves loyal and fierce figthers in IDF, and have paid their toll in lives defending the country from terror attacks.
The Beduin joined the IDF after 1948 war to "prove" to Israel they are not part of the Arab nation. Like the Druze, they feel they still have to "prove" their loyalty to the Jewish Israelis, so they perform their utmost when in the service.
Also, the Druze living in Golan hights consider themselves Syrian and have not joined IDF.
and a note to richcrassus:
What you said on Israeli Arabs ("all israeli arabs are all supposidly vicious backstabbers") is not only false, it smells of racism as well.
Only last weekend it was discovered that an armed Palestinian terrorist went into the largest Israeli Arab city, Um El Fachem, and sought transpotation to the locality on which he planned to bomb himself (somewhere inside Jewish Israel). Despite the fact the a third of the city adult population are members of the ultra-orthodox "Israeli Islamic Organization", the terrorist was turned down by everyone he approached!
He began his journey on foot and was detected (by an IDF Druze unit, btw) a short distance from the Arab city, he was shot down immediately.
sharonbn
07-15-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
But the Jenin operation still shows the problem is making quick soldiers out of everyday citizensin a conscript army.
Sending in Reserves and not trained Soldiers lead to more casualities than trained soldiers would have experienced.
But I guess Israel in the situation it is in cannot change standard policy.
Interesting, Pumps, You say IDf has a weak snipers unit, a puny navy and an unprofessional reserve forces. according to the picture you're painting, I find it hard to imagine how is it that IDF has won every major armed conflict in its history. The IDF also proven itself successfull in long range operations on places as far as Uganda, Tunisia and Iraq. IDf is considered worldwide as a highly motivated, highly skilled formidable force.
IDF is anytrhing BUT "conscript army", and calling it with this name is either foolishly wrong or an attempt of a manipulation of some sort.
FYI, the reserve forces are all veteran soldiers who served full active duty and are considered more professional than duty-service forces. They go on active duty for 30-45 days each year, training and upgrading their skills.
I also fail to see what criticism you have over the operation in Jenin, I think it was a successfull operation, with minimal casualties (60 Palestinians, 13 IDF soldiers) that managed to severly damage the terrorit capability of the Palestinians.
Your explanation of the Druze and Bedouin mentality is very, very interesting, Sharon. Thank you! :cool:
cerulean
07-15-2002, 04:19 AM
I agree with elke :)
The Circassians, also Muslim, serve in the IDF as well.
Sharonbn, what was your impression of the 2000 movie "Time of Honor" (Hahesder), at least insofar as its portrayal of the IDF, or Israeli life in general?
sharonbn
07-15-2002, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by cerulean
Sharonbn, what was your impression of the 2000 movie "Time of Honor" (Hahesder), at least insofar as its portrayal of the IDF, or Israeli life in general?
I didn't see the movie.
Dutch
07-15-2002, 06:58 AM
Don't you mean 'time of favor'? Not that i have seen it, but i was looking for it and that is what turned up... ;)
cerulean
07-15-2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Dutch
Don't you mean 'time of favor'? Not that i have seen it, but i was looking for it and that is what turned up... ;)
Yes, sorry, that is what I meant :)
Did you see it?
Dutch
07-15-2002, 10:02 PM
Sorry, but no I haven't seen 'Time of Favor'. But I would very much like to see it. Can you tell whether or not this movie is obtainable via the net. If it really is such a good depiction of the effect of the IDF on the life of Israelis there are some more people that I would like to show it to.
Dutch
07-15-2002, 10:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn
[B]The army provides education and profession for the lower classes, and is often last chance for these people to escape life of poverty and crime.
Heard on the street: 'The army is keeping us dumb!'
Israelis are drafted right at the age of being ripe for a higher form of, for an academic educution. After their tour of duty has ended, many fail to go to university. Herewith a lot of potential is lost and people 'are kept dumb'.
This may also be another explanation for the lack of academics in general, and the lack of academics participating in politics in particular.
cerulean
07-15-2002, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Dutch
Sorry, but no I haven't seen 'Time of Favor'. But I would very much like to see it. Can you tell whether or not this movie is obtainable via the net. If it really is such a good depiction of the effect of the IDF on the life of Israelis there are some more people that I would like to show it to.
I'm sure you can probably order it from somewhere. Since you are in Israel, could you rent it as a video?
I enjoyed watching it, but I'm sure the experience would be different for an Israeli. One strange thing is that there is not a single Arab in the movie. The protagonist is given permission to start a unit for soldiers who are religious and drawn from a West Bank settlement and then things go badly. I don't want to give away too many details, but from my point of view the movie seemed to overexaggerate the danger posed by the right-wing in Israel. I know the movie was said to be very popular in Israel, but I haven't checked that out myself. So much has changed in Israel in 2 years - it would probably be interesting from that point of view.
Mr. Pumps
07-15-2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by sharonbn
Interesting, Pumps, You say IDf has a weak snipers unit, a puny navy and an unprofessional reserve forces. according to the picture you're painting, I find it hard to imagine how is it that IDF has won every major armed conflict in its history. The IDF also proven itself successfull in long range operations on places as far as Uganda, Tunisia and Iraq. IDf is considered worldwide as a highly motivated, highly skilled formidable force.
IDF is anytrhing BUT "conscript army", and calling it with this name is either foolishly wrong or an attempt of a manipulation of some sort.
FYI, the reserve forces are all veteran soldiers who served full active duty and are considered more professional than duty-service forces. They go on active duty for 30-45 days each year, training and upgrading their skills.
I also fail to see what criticism you have over the operation in Jenin, I think it was a successfull operation, with minimal casualties (60 Palestinians, 13 IDF soldiers) that managed to severly damage the terrorit capability of the Palestinians.
Am I truely wrong! over the years the IDF has cut their defense budgets cutting down on training, purchases of equipment.....etc.
But by the token Egypt was going on a Weapons shopping spee at the same time, buying modern Western supplies. The Israel navy is small now compare to the Big Egyptian navy, since the retirement of Missileboats(Sa'ar 2 and 3) and Submarines(Gal types). Sure the IDF is still the most powerful force in the MiddleEast, but don't be foolhardy and niave about count out adversary of Egypt, who by means of American capital stuffed her face with Western Weaponry.
Syria is a flop with old Soviet Designs in Weaponry, but Egypt is I am afraid seriously potent and dangerous to underestimate.With U.S built M1A1 tanks in their arsenal. Maybe the IDF has studied the American tank and knows Weakness around the special composite armor. I would say hit the Bastard in the Rear of the turrent(although that may only cause the loss of the blow out panels), or the rear turbine engine deck since it is near impenetrable on the sides of the turrent and front hull.
I did'nt say IDF snipers were weak, just given a limited secondary roles. Most operations have been with infantry and Tanks and Bulldozers. If Snipers are employed to the scale you suggest the News Stories would say as much.
Every reserve soldier is a expert Soldier, you say, I have never heard such things in any Army. Reservists are boys coming of age, Reservists are citizens plucked from jobs. Sure..... some have experience, but not all.
The Jenin operation brought 54 palestinians dead and 23 Israeli soldiers fallen. 23 fallen because the use of reservists, not as capable as Active personel, as is the case within any Army. You say the Reserves are better in the IDF than Active Career Soldiers. Well that is news to me! I always thought the Active Army is always better trained and equipped than the Reserve Army from what I understand.
What I say is don't be overly optimistic about flatting the opposite so quickly, as your point of view appears to be.More caution is needed, study the weaponry your enemy has and design a counter to it. Israel I am sure can deal with Sryian T-72, T-62, T-55 by way of Superior tanks and Missiles, but the Egyptian M1A1 needs alittle more focus as does Syrian AT-16 Missile bought from Russia. I hope the IDF has bought a AT-16 missile to study it Thoroughly.
With your surrounding Enemies as so formidable armed as ever before, your thinking of blowing your horn and yelling "Charge" thinking a win is assured is rather premature. A more "Standoffish" and analytical approach is needed, Find a way to neutralize Egyptian F-16's, Perry Frigates, Apache Helcopters and M1A1 tanks. Your Merkavas can handle the M1A1 I am sure, Modern SAM's will put a end to Egyptian helicopters, Sa'ar 5 could defeat a knox frigate, and Israeli made superior AAM's will destroy Egyptian F-16's.
Please recognize the Increased effective armaments the Arabs have, it is there, a fact, so such weapons will make for a more pitched battle, you as a Military Man should realize more preperation in defensive arms and thoughtful planning is needed to adjust to a more able enemy, not a headlong dive without a second thought.
sharonbn
07-16-2002, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Egypt is I am afraid seriously potent and dangerous to underestimate. With U.S built M1A1 tanks in their arsenal. Maybe the IDF has studied the American tank and knows Weakness around the special composite armor. I would say hit the Bastard in the Rear of the turrent(although that may only cause the loss of the blow out panels), or the rear turbine engine deck since it is near impenetrable on the sides of the turrent and front hull.
You are mixing two different issues.
First, you spoke earlier about the operation in Jenin. Now, you’re speaking about Arab armies. These are two different threats with different approaches.
IDF is built and designed to best handle large-scale short-term conflicts like the six days war. The strategy was always to quickly move the battle into enemy territory and drive forward with full force until the a cease fire is negotiated or enforced (as was the case after the six days and Yom Kippur wars.) IDF is much led prepared to handle long term low intensity conflicts, as was the case in Lebanon and is now in PA territory.
Regarding the issue of Arab armies, if you consider the modernization and upgrade of Arab armies vs. cuts in IDF, you also need to consider other new factors that were not prominent in the past but became crucial in the last decade – mainly international public opinion. Although it is possible that an all-out war will break between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations, following a degradation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this scenario remains unlikely due to two factors, well known to all concerned parties:
1. Public opinion, world powers (actually, there’s only one left) and the UN will not allow the conflict to go on for a period longer than a few days. The pressure that these factors can apply on the two sides cannot be discarded.
2. Given the history of the wars in the region and current balance of power, such a conflict will most likely result either with Israeli victory (however small), or, worst case, in a draw.
Regarding the issue of Jenin operation, it is opened for personal interpretation. However two things are clear:
1. I don’t know what resources make up the reserve forces in the US army, but in IDF, all reserve troops are veteran soldiers who maintain their skill and fitness by active service of ca. a month each year.
2. The number of suicide bombing and terrorist attacks dropped dramatically after the operation, proving that the operation did achieve most of the goals it was designed for.
I would like to point out another issue:
Because of the unique situations of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mainly the frequent friction with civillians, it was found that reserve troops are better equiped to handle certain cases.
For example, in each road block that is set up in roads connecting WB and Israel, reserve officers now play a new role: "Humanitarian officer". Because of their relative older age, calm behaviour and more rational thinking, these officers have authority to deal with emergencies and humanitarian cases and allow passage of civillian Palestinians to hospitals, family occasions, etc.
Thus, I believe that besides “more preparation in defensive arms and thoughtful planning” which I believe IDF is doing best with the resources it has, Israel should invest more in international diplomacy and propaganda, because this is an integral part of today’s battlefield and I’m sad to say that the Palestinians, however weak in military force, are scoring better points in these areas.
Israel should also prepare IDF for better handling unique situations that arise from warfare in densely populated civilian areas.
Originally posted by sharonbn
Thus, I believe that besides “more preparation in defensive arms and thoughtful planning” which I believe IDF is doing best with the resources it has, Israel should invest more in international diplomacy and propaganda, because this is an integral part of today’s battlefield and I’m sad to say that the Palestinians, however weak in military force, are scoring better points in these areas. As Palestinians kindly remind us of: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=16542#post16542 ?
Mr. Pumps
07-16-2002, 10:17 AM
I am just pointing out what I percieve as potential problematic errors or neglect, better to point them out now then let them stand out if the situation deteriorates.
Tank against Tank:Israel will win, althought the M1A1 equipped armored units would be a task to handle.
Air to Air: IAF win win automatically thanks to superior weapons and training.
Naval combat: Less clear cut I am afraid given that while Israel has excellent Missiles boats and weapons, Egypt has the largest warship class in the Middle East. The Sryian Navy is a pathetic joke. The main counter to the Egyptian ships are not enough in number(only 3).
Infantry: Israel has better trained men, but cuts has hurt readiness.
Some interesting things about the current conflict.
1.) Lack of Snipers.
2.) Surprising lack of Mortar fire support, the IDF has'nt fired one mortar bomb in the whole 22 month conflict, not even platoon level 60mm support Mortars.
3.) Extensive use of General Infantry, Tanks, Gunships, Bulldozers, Mobile AA Guns (although not a bad thing).
4.) Lack of use of the 40mm MK-19 AGL in Urban terrain. Proved absolutely devastating in Somalia.
About Propaganda, I would rather build myself up to sheer dominance than explain away my position hoping to grabbing a ear.
Mediocrates
07-16-2002, 10:31 AM
I've met albeit casually, IDF snipers. Their biggest complaint was equipment. I don't know if their level of training is equiv to US type training though. I really wouldn't know what questions to ask. I see a deeper problem is that the IDF may not be retaining that specialized talent after the requisite national service duration.
sharonbn
07-16-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
About Propaganda, I would rather build myself up to sheer dominance than explain away my position hoping to grabbing a ear.
That is, of course, your choice. but you must understand that the days when brutal force had the victory are over. to arm yourself to the teeth and disregard international public opinion, media coverage and diplomatic battleground can cause you to lose he war, regardles of your military might (see Yoguslavia for example)
Your line of thinking, btw, shows your military orientation. It was always like this: the Generals were always war-happy and the political level had to restrain them. When the generals weren't restrained - it usually ened in disaster (i.e. Vietnam for US, Lebanon for Israel)
Mr. Pumps
07-16-2002, 10:51 AM
Well Sharon is in Palestinian land thanks to "Military orientationed" thoughts and that is going just fine.
Another thing, as a former Soldier in the IDF can you explain to me the lack of vital Mortar fire-support, that does prevent casualities and I have not read one report about a mortar being fired by the IDF in all the time the Conflict has been going on, even though it is a essential fire support weapon.
And how come the IDF does'nt use Flamethrowers, Bayonets/Combat Knives, or Flame throwing tanks.
Mediocrates
07-16-2002, 11:00 AM
Vietnam is an example of the failure of the will, a failure of strategy not equipment. The entire debacle of VN is about the inability of politicians to distinguish military objectives from political objectives. All the overwhelming firepower in the world never made much difference because their leaders wouldn't let them shoot at the right people.
Similarly the IDF while it is and is supposed to be under civilian control is constantly hamstrung by a blurring of political and military objectives. The simple fact is that you have to be very very sure you want to unleash the army because it's blunt instrument. The break things. But once you let them go, let them go, there's no halfway measures.
Similarly Desert Storm and look where we are now. The purpose of the army is to beat down your opponent so hard that they can't get up again. Literally, not politically. Smash up everything. You can debate the efficacy of doing that but that's what armies do.
...For example, in each road block that is set up in roads connecting WB and Israel, reserve officers now play a new role: "Humanitarian officer". Because of their relative older age, calm behaviour and more rational thinking, these officers have authority to deal with emergencies and humanitarian cases and allow passage of civillian Palestinians to hospitals, family occasions, etc...
Why hasn't this fact made it into the news? Is there a way to do that? This is precisely the kind of action that needs to be emphasized and shouted from the rooftops!
Mr. Pumps
07-16-2002, 03:47 PM
you are right Mediocrates, if the U.S and South were allowed to invade the North and U.S B-52, F-111 and F-4 Phantom Aircraft allowed unrestricted bombing of Northern targets America would have won easily.
Sharon is doing the right thing as there is no alternative but the Military solution. But the Qualitive Edge, so counted on, has slipped alittle as the Arabs improve their position
through acquiring non-soviet weapons. Israel I hope has found a way to deter these weapon platforms. While improving their own position through aquisition of superior weaponry like the Merkava Mk 4 and F-15I is a great idea and a absolute must to keep ahead. Although I think in the support for Arab nations is non-existent in this post 9/11 world. Maybe with less support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt more money can go to Israel, :D maybe M1A2 MBT's and AH-64D helicopters to replace the Cobra's and MD-500's in you inventory.
.
sharonbn
07-17-2002, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Vietnam is an example of the failure of the will, a failure of strategy not equipment. The entire debacle of VN is about the inability of politicians to distinguish military objectives from political objectives. All the overwhelming firepower in the world never made much difference because their leaders wouldn't let them shoot at the right people.
IMO, the Vietnam loss was due to the decision to start the whole bloody war. Instead of learning from the French experience, President Johnson bought the "Domino Effect" theory that his Military advisors concocted (which eventually was shown to be false). President Nixon promised on his election campaign to weaken American intervention in Vietnam. Instead, the militery advisors and generals managed to drag te naive Cambodia into the Vietnam mess, causing the country to fall into 25 years of anarchy and brutal civil war.
By that time, it was evident to anyone that Vietnam is an ugly story with no possible clean ending. An agreement between US and the Vietkong was reached in Paris in 1973 to end American presence in South Vietnam. However, somehow, the war dragged on for another two years until finally the American Army, after losing 50,000 soldiers, was driven out of the country.
If you read Barbara Tuchman's excellent book "March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam" you should know by now that:
1. The fault for the Vietnam loss falls on the highest ranks of the American political leadership, meaning the presidents, their foreign and defense ministers and top advisors.
2. The information regarding the chances of winning the war were available to the presidents as far back as 1946, when the French entered their adventure in Vietnam. As time went on, the French driven out from Vietnam, weak, curropted and unpopular South Vietnamese leaders rose and fell - the evidence that Vietnam is a cesspool piled up.
3. Many points along the way from 1965 to 1972 offered the US an honorred way out of the Vietnam mess. Instead, the political leadership choose to blindly follow promises of the military generals about quick victory, each time deepening the involvement of US in domestic affairs of Vietnam and Cambodia
4. In the end, it was the extreme civil unrest caused by 8 years of brutal war that seemed to have no end that eventually led the way to the end of the war.
I am sad to say I find more than one similarity between what Vietnam caused the US and Lebanon did to Israel. In both cases the government choose to belive military promises of quick victory, only to discover it was led in vicious circle of sending more and more troops, loosing civil popularity to the point of resentment and failing to meddle with domestic affairs, sending more troops, etc, etc...
Mediocrates
07-17-2002, 06:03 AM
Eisenhower sent 'advisors' in in the 50's. In fact there were 2 American 'advisors' killed at Dien Bien Phu in 54. (The main defensive commander, Col. Christian De Castries named a ring of defensive fortifications after his mistresses - one wonders if he had too many mistresses or too few).
Kennedy sent in 'advisors' too. Usually they were my downstate neighbors from Ft. Bragg/Special Forces, Camp Lejeune/Marine Expeditionary as well as the 'secret' CIA paramilitary/terrorist tactics and demolitions training base on Harvey Point, Hertford, NC.
Real escalation didn't occur until 1964. We started to withdraw in 1971. US troops pulled out in 1973. Saigon fell in 75.
VN invaded Cambodia in 79 and a few weeks later China invaded the VN. In the meantime VN also invaded Laos. VN troops were removed from Laos in 88 and from Cambodia in 89. VN signed a peace accord with Cambodia in 91 and then restored diplomatic relations with China.
sharonbn
07-17-2002, 09:32 AM
Returning to the thread's main issue....
I'm not sure people outside Israel are aware of Tal committee. This government appointed committee was established after the supreme ruled December 1998 that the draft exempt that is given to orthodox Jews is illegal.
The committee, headed by retired justice Zvi Tal, attempted to set guidelines and criteria as to who is obliged and who is exempt from military service.
The situation that the committee examined resulted from a historical agreement made between PM David Ben-Gurion and orthodox leaders in the early 50s. The agreement stated that an elite selected group of Yeshiva students will be exempt from military service, so they can continue their holly studies. At the time of the agreement, the group consisted few hundreds of students. However, motivated by their leaders, orthodox youngsters saw the agreement as a loophole for escaping military service altogether. The definition of “elite” was broaden to include all Yeshiva student, and the number of exempt persons is standing today at total of ~15,000 eligible men in the ages 18-21. (orthodox woman are exempt by law).
The secular community, a vast majority of the Israeli society became outraged by the injustice of the sharing of the burden of military service. Just a reminder: after full 3 years service, the Israeli soldier is called for an annual one month active reserve duty until he’s 45. In addition, because they did not serve in the army, Yeshiva students found it difficult later on finding a job and making a living, perpetuating their position as social parasites.
The committee submitted its final report on Summer 2000. High expectations for a turnaround of the historical agreement and inclusion of orthodox men in the compulsory draft were replaced with a shock: The committee recommended an all-encompassing, legal under the law exempt of ALL Yeshiva students. The new law allows such students to receive automatic draft deferral until age 23, at which point they can choose to leave the yeshiva and either work or study for a year without being drafted. At the end of that year, they must either return to yeshiva - in which case they will continue to receive a draft deferral - or do either abbreviated military service or a year of civilian national service. Either way, after completing these obligations, the student can integrate into regular society in terms of job finding and economic conditions.
Mediocrates
07-17-2002, 09:49 AM
What specifically are their objections to serving? Are there specific tasks they resist or the encompassing service in and of itself?
We have provisions for concientious objectors to serve in non combat roles specifically for religious reasons. The Quakers I believe qualify, among others, and it is a voluntary self designation.
Mr. Pumps
07-17-2002, 10:42 AM
All citizens have the "honor" of serving thier Nation's Army.
Religious reasons is a excuse to "save his skin" from the potential from loss of ones own life in battle.
Idon't think it is fair for deserters to be shot though, just jailed for lack of loyality to the Motherland.
richcrassus
07-17-2002, 07:46 PM
You take my words out of context. I said "Arab Israelis are supposidly vicious backstabbers" because in another post on here written by someone which i cant find, someone wrote Arab Israelis ARE vicious backstabbers.
I wrote "suppposidly"
To the person which wrote that they are vicious backstabbers, maybe you should tell them they are rascist.
I dont think all arab israelis are vicious backstabbers.
sharonbn
07-18-2002, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
What specifically are their objections to serving? Are there specific tasks they resist or the encompassing service in and of itself?
They are resisting overall military service for ideological reasons (at least that's what they say):
1. They believe it is more important that Yeshiva students "cary the torch of the Torah" by continue holly studies.
2. In their heart, orthodox Jews are anti Zionists. they claim that a Jewish independant state can only be established by the coming of the Messiah and that Israel is "hurrying the end".
3. A more parctical reason is the view of IDF as a place where boys and gilrs interact closely together and thay fear their boys will be tempted to leave their faith.
Mediocrates
07-18-2002, 04:27 AM
Thank you for that.
That's a tough position to be in. A refusal to serve based on customs and mores and preferences and not spefically on law or act. Unfortunately (& by comparison), Americans take a very dim view of that. We would see that as more of a cult response than a bona fide religious objection.
Gilgamesh
07-20-2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn
They are resisting overall military service for ideological reasons (at least that's what they say):
1. They believe it is more important that Yeshiva students "cary the torch of the Torah" by continue holly studies.
Not totally accurate. Highly religious Jews acutally believe that the protect all of us Jews, in Israel and abroad, by praying and worshipping. Personaly, I believe that Hashem helps only to those of help themselve. A Jew and win a fight, with the help of Hashem, if and only if the Jew fights it. You can't fight or even put down a fire, solely with a pray.
The Left in Israel is preoccupaid in forcing those religious Jews into servies in order to force the religious to admit there is no God above, and praying don't work.
I obeject to that atitude too.
2. In their heart, orthodox Jews are anti Zionists. they claim that a Jewish independant state can only be established by the coming of the Messiah and that Israel is "hurrying the end".
Not true.
Some orthodox Jews are NON-Zionist and not anti zionist.
After all, orthodox Jews do recognize the Jewish people as a nation and not just a faith. They believe in the restoration of the state of Israel and the right, or rather the obligation of the Jews to return home, to Israel. They only object the time table: Zionist say that NOW is the time of restoration and only when the restoration coplates, only then Messiah will come (or any other interpertation of the end of history and frash Jewish golden age). The Orthodox (at least some of them) want massiah first, national restoration later.
There is a growing acceptance of Zionism in orthodox communities. Things are changing, although slowly but the change is there.
3. A more parctical reason is the view of IDF as a place where boys and gilrs interact closely together and thay fear their boys will be tempted to leave their faith.
There is a program in the Army, where highly religious Jews, at least some of them, join and serve and fight.
There are no women training them, and there is close observation of all the laws of the Jewish faith and Super Kosher kitchens. They allway make time to pray and so on...
a year ago, these people intercepted a car bomb.
The program is getting bigger all the time, as more and more orthodox Jews join in.
sharonbn
07-20-2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
The Left in Israel is preoccupaid in forcing those religious Jews into servies in order to force the religious to admit there is no God above, and praying don't work.
I obeject to that atitude too.
This is not accurate and not-so-true as well:
First of all, the flag of "army service for all" is NOT carried by the left wing in Israel excelusively. If Shinui party is the bearer of this flag, it appeals to all secular Jews, from Left and Right. Similar views regarding compulsary service have been expressed by Likud, Labour, Mafdal and Meretz MKs.
Secondly, there is not hidden agenda behind the call for equality in compulsary service. This is a paranoidic approach by the orthodox. No-one wants them to relinquish their faith.
What the secular Jews say is that the two goals of holly studies and military service are NOT mutually exclusive, meaning one can achieve both. I don't see the reason why a secular Jew can postpone his/her academic studies for 2-3 years, and a religious Jew can't do the same with his Yeshiva studies.
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Some orthodox Jews are NON-Zionist and not anti zionist.
After all, orthodox Jews do recognize the Jewish people as a nation and not just a faith. They believe in the restoration of the state of Israel and the right, or rather the obligation of the Jews to return home, to Israel. They only object the time table: Zionist say that NOW is the time of restoration and only when the restoration coplates, only then Messiah will come (or any other interpertation of the end of history and frash Jewish golden age). The Orthodox (at least some of them) want massiah first, national restoration later.
what you say way be true, I do not question the validity of this point of view. However, imo, this factor should have nothing to do with military service. This is because the service is compulsary and every eligable Israeli citizen who comes at the age of 18 is obliged under the law to draft. Some secular Jews may have conlict of morality or other reservations regarding military service, but if they refuse to draft - they go to military prison. - this unequality is what hurts the secular Jews.
One more point: If orthodox Jews have conflict of faith regarding military service - why don't they do community service (what is refferred to as "National Service")?
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
There is a growing acceptance of Zionism in orthodox communities. Things are changing, although slowly but the change is there.
If you say so. I didn't see an indication for the above notion. However, if this is true, then I still don't understand why we do not see orthodox men come to he recruitment centers.
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
There is a program in the Army, where highly religious Jews, at least some of them, join and serve and fight.
Yes, this is maybe the only indication for a change in traditional "non-Zionist" pov. Curerntly, the program includes two regiments (around 600 soldiers). They include those who dropped out of their holy studies. This is a good sign, but NOT ENOUGH.
When orthodox Jews will share the duty of military service, as is requested by the law from every Israeli citizen - then it will be enough.
sharonbn
07-21-2002, 03:28 PM
The vote in the Knesset on Tal's committee regarding regulating the service of orthodox Jews (or lack thereof) nears, and pressure amounts on both sides.
The latest of this can be seen in Pashkevils (street posters unique to the orthodox religious Jews) posted recently. They call IDF "national brothel" and Israeli society "Garbage society". The post condemns the liberal faction of the religious Jews that favors a compromise with the demands of the secular majority.
More from the posts: "The liberal Rabbis and their journalists aim to divert the public opinion towards compromise and incite our youths to join the national brothel, but all their efforts will fail."
Tomorrow, the Knesset votes on an ammendment to Tal's report, obligating orthodox youths to serve an annual two weeks in civil guard. The coalition hopes to avert the proposal.
Mediocrates
07-21-2002, 03:42 PM
Some secular Jews may have conlict of morality or other reservations regarding military service, but if they refuse to draft - they go to military prison. - this unequality is what hurts the secular Jews
I can appreciate their anger at this. One would think that there is one standard for concientious objection. But frequently there is not. I believe, and again this is drawn from US history, the concern is that the objection is not bona fide. Which is why the US has traditionally used some preexisting classes; such as Quakers and other groups who absolutely and categorically will not fight. But their objector status is based on long lasting agreed criteria AND is based not on a preference even a necessity to do something else. For those special cases like a single head of household draft requirements were frequently waived.
If the IDF has this seemingly arbitrary standard is does not lead to good results. Basically it comes to a promise made outside the context of national service which is pretty odd. They are asking haredi to make a promise to someone else in exchange for a waiver....odd. I wonder if there is a way split their time so that they can continue with their studies part time or reduced time while performing national service part time or split time?
Mr. Pumps
07-21-2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by sharonbn
The vote in the Knesset on Tal's committee regarding regulating the service of orthodox Jews (or lack thereof) nears, and pressure amounts on both sides.
The latest of this can be seen in Pashkevils (street posters unique to the orthodox religious Jews) posted recently. They call IDF "national brothel" and Israeli society "Garbage society". The post condemns the liberal faction of the religious Jews that favors a compromise with the demands of the secular majority.
More from the posts: "The liberal Rabbis and their journalists aim to divert the public opinion towards compromise and incite our youths to join the national brothel, but all their efforts will fail."
Tomorrow, the Knesset votes on an ammendment to Tal's report, obligating orthodox youths to serve an annual two weeks in civil guard. The coalition hopes to avert the proposal.
I am shocked at the comments made by such people, I may be wrong, but are'nt Orthodox Jews, the hardcore members of the Jewish Religion and yet they call the Army which protects the Jewish dream, a shameful slur and society meaningless. Do these people have any honor or self-esteem, it is not right for a religious man to insult what bindes his religion together, like a complete fool.
cerulean
07-25-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by sharonbn
I would like to point out another issue:
Because of the unique situations of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mainly the frequent friction with civillians, it was found that reserve troops are better equiped to handle certain cases.
For example, in each road block that is set up in roads connecting WB and Israel, reserve officers now play a new role: "Humanitarian officer". Because of their relative older age, calm behaviour and more rational thinking, these officers have authority to deal with emergencies and humanitarian cases and allow passage of civillian Palestinians to hospitals, family occasions, etc.
There's an article about this program here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1027506353065
to the comment that "army service is making us dumb"--why is it that conscripts are frequently not going on to university?
is it because they are staying in the services?
or beause they are placed easily into jobs afterwards with
military help?
i wonder what the statistics are on pregnancy & dissmissals in the conscripted years?
also, is there a psychological factor that somehow plays into it?
i have a possible con to compulsory service that hasn't been brought up & it is along psychological lines.
specifically, the mindset that is needed in an army, & is that which the military seeks to mold the young conscript minds to, is absolute obedience to authority.
if you are taught to obey orders , then your critical thinking skills are diminished, possibly atrophied ,to the demand that you obey first, & maybe think later.
Originally posted by ruby
i have a possible con to compulsory service that hasn't been brought up & it is along psychological lines.
specifically, the mindset that is needed in an army, & is that which the military seeks to mold the young conscript minds to, is absolute obedience to authority.
if you are taught to obey orders , then your critical thinking skills are diminished, possibly atrophied ,to the demand that you obey first, & maybe think later.
I don't know that automatons make terribly good anything, including soldiers. Just because somebody may obey orders, doesn't mean that they forfeit their ability to think and question. This is a similar scenario to any corporate job, to an extent (save for the life-and-death part, of course ;) ) : your boss gives you an immoral order. Do you follow it? Do you argue? Do you quit your job? Or do you just do whatever s/he tells you to: after all, that's why s/he gets the big bucks! I actually got fired once for refusing to do something dishonest my boss told me to do, so this is not unique to the military.
Originally posted by elke
Just because somebody may obey orders, doesn't mean that they forfeit their ability to think and question.
yes, you are correct.
but so am i to a degree.
miltary training focuses heavily on developing your responses.
so that you will anticipate & automatically respond to orders/situations. there may be critical thinking in carrying out orders/actions, but there is usually not he slightest encouragement to disobey orders or even to reason.
i think possibly that the reservists bring some more critical thought into the army, but not the young conscripts.
they are in the process of being molded into military thought/regimine. remember, you forge very strong bonds with your comrades (& possibly that is why it makes such a great "matchmaker" service between young men & women ;) ),
they become like family and that has to shut down all thought & resoning right there--you are solely in the service of protecting your family; independent thoughts are dangerous.
Originally posted by elke
I don't know that automatons make terribly good anything, including soldiers. Just because somebody may obey orders, doesn't mean that they forfeit their ability to think and question.I have heard of rather complicated guidelines entitling (if not directly compelling) IDF personnel to criticize questionable orders of their superiors.
Originally posted by Vic
I have heard of rather complicated guidelines entitling (if not directly compelling) IDF personnel to criticize questionable orders of their superiors.
me. too.
it goes something like: 1) if you are asked to carry out a minor command that is illegitimate, like maybe personal favors to your commander or aomething, do it then appeal & contest it.
&
2) if your are given immoral orders, say to execute children or something, you may refuse.
but i think the us military has this type of loophole, 2.
& that's not really what i was addressing,myself.
i was speaking more broadly about the shaping of citizen's minds.
One should hope that any military establishment, certainly one of a democratic country, would have such "loopholes" incorporated into their modus operandi!
As to shaping the citizens' minds... Israelis cannot have been made into zombies by the military service, since they seem eminently capable of dissent. The political picture in Israel sure seems fractured, which is often seen as one of Israel's main problems.
Mr. Pumps
07-28-2002, 08:51 AM
I say once a mindless drone always a mindless drone.
Military leaders have always use propaganda to influence their control to one of "I am your savior and by following me all will be well".
If the average soldier had the ability of rationality and Judgement the worst of Mankind would have be prevented. But once a Teenager is fed propaganda is rather hard to question the "order" because every else is caught up is the brainwashing ideas of the regieme in power, and so any questioning is seen as "Traitorous".
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
I say once a mindless drone always a mindless drone.
Military leaders have always use propaganda to influence their control to one of "I am your savior and by following me all will be well".
If the average soldier had the ability of rationality and Judgement the worst of Mankind would have be prevented. But once a Teenager is fed propaganda is rather hard to question the "order" because every else is caught up is the brainwashing ideas of the regieme in power, and so any questioning is seen as "Traitorous".
yes, pumper. my point :)
here you have military+government leader, many /most who are products of military.
look, i m not arguing that israelis are made int zombies, that's bogus. obviously many, many israelis value intellectual debate, etc, .
but there is a reason that overwhelmingly militaristic societies have drawbacks & i tried to point out one underlying potential problem w/ it.
\
Mediocrates
07-28-2002, 09:09 PM
Huh? The reason armies draft 18 year olds is because 18 year olds will do what they are told by and large. I am 43 and physicality aside I am less prone to blindly charge that hill just because some 6 week wonder told me to.
Mr. Pumps
07-29-2002, 05:04 PM
I respect the IDF for it listens at grunt level the vulnerabilities of equipment is and provides a adequate solution.
It is disurbing when BMP's and BTR's went into Grozny during the 1994-96 war and got turned into scrapheap. And the second war involves the exact same BMP's and BTR's with no modifications, so they are still mobile coffins, so much for adjustment.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Huh? The reason armies draft 18 year olds is because 18 year olds will do what they are told by and large. I am 43 and physicality aside I am less prone to blindly charge that hill just because some 6 week wonder told me to.
i know that :rolleyes:
& you know that you would still be in the reserves over there & it sounds like you would spending your time on your butt in the brig :D .
are you saying that with every passing year you are less likely to follow orders?
it seems like they use at least a 50/50 of reservists & conscripts, not all conscripts in their actions. might be wrong, there...
the original point was, anyway, that, say , in the US we only draft when we need to, there they draft nearly everyone & the psychological effects of that may be....
Never having been interested in things military I am not sure, but it seems that that's the case in much of the world: many if not most countries, AFAIK, have - or at least had - compulsory military service for 18-year-olds. Heck, all my uncles spent 2 years in the Soviet army, and my father escaped it only by studiously evading the military authorities until he was accepted in college. What, they are all zombies (except my father ;))?
Military heroes become politicians as a matter of course, not only in Israel but elsewhere as well. From Eisenhower to Powell in the US alone! These are people who have the clout, because they have saved their nation. Remember the controversy over Clinton's lack of military service?
Mr. Pumps
07-29-2002, 08:06 PM
Well Elke,
Did your Uncles serve in Afghanistan with the Soviet on mass weaponry. I bet the weapons (BMP-1, BDRM, bMD, BTR-60,70,80) used in Afghaistan are in Chechnya at this moment, infact I know they are.
Russia has had this rush on mass and die on mass propaganda given by Soviet leaders who bark speeches, but keeps his relatives well away from combat, as does all Communist party officials.
The Leaders of the U.S.S.R did'nt give a **** about adjusting to combat and even now former Soviet Generals are handling the Chechen rebellion do not have a clue, while Troops die everyday in a foriegn land.
Maybe instead of creating a artifical "sacred struggle" to brainwash young people, more should have been put toward coming up with new tactics to adjust to low-intensity conflicts or improving equipment to prevent soldiers from burning to death. It took sobering losses like the loss of 130 vehicles in two days of Urban combat in Grozny for the Russians to design a more survivable vehicle.
Mr. Pumps
07-29-2002, 08:25 PM
Unlike the mindless troopers of the Soviet Union who just used whatever they were given and brainwashed to die in inadequate junk, :( and unfortunately still die in inadequate junk.
Israeli troops had the flexibility to realised the bare bones M-113 was a very vulnerable target so now your have mobile tracked Heavily armored fortresses with very effective pintle MG's agianst close in face to face attacks.
In the end, Military leaders in Dictatorships don't give a damn about the lives of young soldiers or what enviroment they fight in or what they use to fight, all they truely are are careerist looking for more and more personal benefits.
No, Mr. Pumps, my uncles are way too old to have served in Afghanistan ;) . One of them was apparently about to be shipped off to Egypt in '67, to fight against Israel (he decided to run away if that were to happen).
You won't hear any arguments from me regarding the integrity or military ability of Russian generals or government officials, believe me. I am none too fond of these people, to put it mildly. My point simply was that many countries have compulsory military service, which does not seem to prevent people from being able to think for themselves, at least in terms of politics.
Mediocrates
07-30-2002, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by ruby
i know that :rolleyes:
& you know that you would still be in the reserves over there & it sounds like you would spending your time on your butt in the brig :D .
are you saying that with every passing year you are less likely to follow orders?
it seems like they use at least a 50/50 of reservists & conscripts, not all conscripts in their actions. might be wrong, there...
the original point was, anyway, that, say , in the US we only draft when we need to, there they draft nearly everyone & the psychological effects of that may be....
Well in every army the ground pounding infantry soldier is in a different class than the armor, artillery units as well as the rearward services. Reservists normally are used to fill those rearward and support and armored units. Front line infantry groups, even if filled with reservists still should be commanded by professionals and everyone should be younger than your average clerk.
There are more than a few countries that have mandatory reserve service - Switzerland for example. Drafting for limited service during certain times is different from requiring national service that leads to an extended period of reserve service.
In the states, our variation on that is to use specific National Guard units that receive enhanced equipment and training to backfill front line armed forces units. Typically they operate side by side and train in the same programs. I think the mobile armor units at Ft. Knox, TN operate this way.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]
Reservists normally are used to fill those rearward and support and armored units. Front line infantry groups, even if filled with reservists still should be commanded by professionals and everyone should be younger than your average clerk.
i only based my comment on the very subjective info gleaned from news footage:
there seemed to be an awful lot of pretty old (or 'older' ;) ) guys in the footage--on foot, sweeping the streets--but maybe they are far behind...
wait! far behind WHAT? it is urban warfare (w/o the 'war'). there is no front. unless you call something like a hot spot like what happened in jenin the front.
Mediocrates
07-30-2002, 06:46 PM
Virtually all of the IDF casualities either in combat or terrorist attacks are under the age of 25. The youngsters commuting to work in support functions who were killed were much younger 18-22.
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
2) Surprising lack of Mortar fire support, the IDF has'nt fired one mortar bomb in the whole 22 month conflict, not even platoon level 60mm support Mortars.
4) Lack of use of the 40mm MK-19 AGL in Urban terrain. Proved absolutely devastating in Somalia.
The IDF has those means; they're probably not used to cut down on unintended casualties.
Reservists had a front-line role in ODS, and (to a more limited degree) in later operations. Actually, I've heard some speculation that for urban warfare, reservists actually function better than younger regulars, as it's a type of warfare which values care and patience.
Originally posted by ruby
i only based my comment on the very subjective info gleaned from news footage:
there seemed to be an awful lot of pretty old (or 'older' ;) ) guys in the footage--on foot, sweeping the streets--but maybe they are far behind...
wait! far behind WHAT? it is urban warfare (w/o the 'war'). there is no front. unless you call something like a hot spot like what happened in jenin the front.
Mr. Pumps
08-02-2002, 07:54 PM
I think video games, specifically FPS games should be used by militaries to increase experience among troops.
Doom, Quake, Half-life, AvP 2 should be used as training tools in one form or another.
I once read a article about a criminal who had a habit of playing FPS games and notice when they got into a firefght with this criminal how impeccable accurate his aiming was.
I bet a expert FPS player could outshoot or match the most capable soldier
A hint to the U.S army and IDF, FPS games as part of training is beneficial.
Well, the US Army begaun distributing a game as a recruiting tool...
However, an FPS wouldn't be very effective as a training tool (well, you could use it to learn about weapon stats, I guess). For example, aiming a rifle with a mouse is vastly different than doing so with an actual rifle. Certain types of games might be somewhat effective as an introduction to basic tactics, but thats it.
Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
I think video games, specifically FPS games should be used by militaries to increase experience among troops.
Doom, Quake, Half-life, AvP 2 should be used as training tools in one form or another.
I once read a article about a criminal who had a habit of playing FPS games and notice when they got into a firefght with this criminal how impeccable accurate his aiming was.
I bet a expert FPS player could outshoot or match the most capable soldier
A hint to the U.S army and IDF, FPS games as part of training is beneficial.
sharonbn
08-03-2002, 11:53 AM
The PC game Operation Flashpoint is already used as training tool for US army and maybe in other countries:
http://www.gamingexcellence.com/pc/news/011220/001.shtml
Originally posted by eyl
Reservists had a front-line role in ODS, and (to a more limited degree) in later operations. Actually, I've heard some speculation that for urban warfare, reservists actually function better than younger regulars, as it's a type of warfare which values care and patience.
thanks, that's what i thought.
btw, how many of the "mistakes" that we hear about--the kids, the pregnant women getting shot--are committed by personnel under 22 yrs of age, i wonder?
Mediocrates
08-15-2002, 04:12 AM
What's your real question?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
What's your real question? [/QUOTE
what's your "real" point?
i stated my real question. i didn't realize that everyone on site here had to pass your litmus test of what a "real" question is.
i find your question inpertinent & insulting.
Mediocrates
08-17-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by ruby
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
What's your real question? [/QUOTE
what's your "real" point?
i find your question inpertinent & insulting.
You always do, sucks to be you I guess.
My real point is what leading question are you asking when you ask,
how many of the "mistakes"(in "quotes", quote unquote) that we hear about--the kids, the pregnant women getting shot--are committed by personnel under 22 yrs of age,
Or was that too subtle for you to grasp?
Originally posted by Mediocrates
You always do, sucks to be you I guess.
My real point is what leading question are you asking when you ask,
how many of the "mistakes"(in "quotes", quote unquote) that we hear about--the kids, the pregnant women getting shot--are committed by personnel under 22 yrs of age,
Or was that too subtle for you to grasp?
oh Mr Moderator, such immaturity!
i broke none of the rules you are supposed to uphold --i didn't attack YOU, unlike yourself ("sucks yo be you").
"mistakes" is in quotes because that is a direct quote of the terminology used by israelis when explaining palestinian civilian deaths. perhaps they are "leading" , i am not. my question is clearly stated.
NewsGuy
08-18-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by ruby
btw, how many of the "mistakes" that we hear about--the kids, the pregnant women getting shot--are committed by personnel under 22 yrs of age, i wonder?
Let's get this back on track.
I don't know how many "mistakes," but it is a tiny amount in the enormous scope of the war against Palestinian terrorism.
So far, Israel has tried to meticulously avoid civilian casualties among the supposedly innocent Palestinian population -- even at the expense of sacrificing Israeli lives to save Palestinians.
I personally object to Israel sacrificing its soldiers' lives to avoid Palestinian casualties, because of the circumstances. But at the very least, Palestinian supporters like yourself should be incredibly grateful for Israel's amazing self-restraint and humane treatment of the Palestinians, even as those very same Palestinians continue to massacre Israelis.
Mediocrates
08-18-2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by ruby
oh Mr Moderator, such immaturity!
i broke none of the rules you are supposed to uphold --i didn't attack YOU, unlike yourself ("sucks yo be you").
"mistakes" is in quotes because that is a direct quote of the terminology used by israelis when explaining palestinian civilian deaths. perhaps they are "leading" , i am not. my question is clearly stated.
If you think you can bait me into a reaction, you are wrong. Your one-note is not worth it. But please, continue to ask loaded leading questions and then feign affrontory and mock horror.
Mediocrates
08-18-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
Let's get this back on track.
I don't know how many "mistakes," but it is a tiny amount in the enormous scope of the war against Palestinian terrorism.
So far, Israel has tried to meticulously avoid civilian casualties among the supposedly innocent Palestinian population -- even at the expense of sacrificing Israeli lives to save Palestinians.
I personally object to Israel sacrificing its soldiers' lives to avoid Palestinian casualties, because of the circumstances. But at the very least, Palestinian supporters like yourself should be incredibly grateful for Israel's amazing self-restraint and humane treatment of the Palestinians, even as those very same Palestinians continue to massacre Israelis.
No no no. What we hear over and over and over and over is one Palestinian is too many and a bunch of Jews is some kind of statistical rounding error. It matters not at all to these people what if any precautions are taken. One Palestinian ant is not worth the whole of Jewery world wide to them.
Jeremie
08-20-2002, 03:32 AM
I am in Israel for 4 years, I'll have to do the Shlav beth very soon (4 months).
- I came from France, I wasn't really prepared for that, everything in the army impresses me.
- When you make 4 months you don't learn much, I'll have a very bad role in the next 20 years when I'll do my Miluim (1 month per year)... Guarding most of the time.
But I won't run away, that's part of the israeli life, and I feel deeply israeli.....
Originally posted by NewsGuy
Let's get this back on track.
I don't know how many "mistakes," but it is a tiny amount in the enormous scope of the war against Palestinian terrorism.
So far, Israel has tried to meticulously avoid civilian casualties among the supposedly innocent Palestinian population -- even at the expense of sacrificing Israeli lives to save Palestinians.
I personally object to Israel sacrificing its soldiers' lives to avoid Palestinian casualties, because of the circumstances. But at the very least, Palestinian supporters like yourself should be incredibly grateful for Israel's amazing self-restraint and humane treatment of the Palestinians, even as those very same Palestinians continue to massacre Israelis.
first of all, i never declared myself a palestinian "supporter" b/c i am not, but i guess any one w/ some criticism for israel is an 'enemy' in your view.
secondly, it's probably been said before to you, no doubt, but you seem to lump every palestinian into the terrorist catagory. that's really sad & also, i think, really bad. let's not get into why you feel justified in doing that, that is tired...
israel is an occupying force, & unfortunately in those circumstances, soldiers should be taking the brunt of any violence.
that's just how it is.
policemen are enforcers, too, & they have to put themselves in harm's way every day. and they have a duty to protect civilians from harm. that is a quality that seems to be lacking in the idf when it comes to palestinian civilians in a lot of instances. the fact that you seem to find these 'mistakes' insignificant says a lot about you & your position on israel, the idf & how you view palestinian civilians. i know that there are a helluva lotta good israeli soldiers who are decent & act accordingly. i also know that when so many civilians are fired on indisriminately or become 'mistakes' so casually sometimes, that something is not working right.
i don't think those civilians should feel "grateful" about the treatment they receive or the casualties they incur due to bad policy & a lack of compassion on either israel's or your part .
you say you don't "know how many 'mistakes' "are made, you should've ened it w/ '& i don't care b/c palestinians mean nothing to me in human terms'. that's what it sounds like.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
No no no. What we hear over and over and over and over is one Palestinian is too many and a bunch of Jews is some kind of statistical rounding error. It matters not at all to these people what if any precautions are taken. One Palestinian ant is not worth the whole of Jewery world wide to them.
this would be hysterical if it weren't so blind, paranoid & racist.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
If you think you can bait me into a reaction, you are wrong. Your one-note is not worth it. But please, continue to ask loaded leading questions and then feign affrontory and mock horror.
nobody's trying to bait you into a reaction. everything you say is reactionary on it's own.
shoshannah
08-24-2002, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by cerulean
To what extent does this exclusion affect religious women who don't serve?
I am a women (no religuos) who didn't server (I had health problems at the time).
I hve faced very little exclusion (mainly, I don't get help in fonding higher education, and certain jobs are closed for me), and religous women who didn't serve face even less, since they go to "natioal duty" ( social vollenteer work), an option which was not open to me. Those who go to natioal duty, get many of the enefits ex-army people get.
Originally posted by ruby
israel is an occupying force, & unfortunately in those circumstances, soldiers should be taking the brunt of any violence.
that's just how it is.
Israel is no longer the occupying force, The PA rule the territories, they were and are (now partially) providing of all civil needs to the population.
Israel rentered the territories to fight palestinian terrorists groups, and will exit when those terror attacks stop and some alternative palestinian government will be willing to take matters into their own hands.
Is the US the occupation force in Afghanistan now?
policemen are enforcers, too, & they have to put themselves in harm's way every day. and they have a duty to protect civilians from harm. that is a quality that seems to be lacking in the idf when it comes to palestinian civilians in a lot of instances. the fact that you seem to find these 'mistakes' insignificant says a lot about you & your position on israel, the idf & how you view palestinian civilians. i know that there are a helluva lotta good israeli soldiers who are decent & act accordingly. i also know that when so many civilians are fired on indisriminately or become 'mistakes' so casually sometimes, that something is not working right.
The IDF is an army in a war, forced to fight terrorists groups inside a hostile civilian-urban area.
In this kind of War, innocent people are killed.
In every war, innocent people are killed.
Take WWII for example, how many innocent Germans killed in the bombing of Berlin and many other german cities?
Now, ofcourse the IDF will never bomb any palestinian city like that, the IDF do not act randomly, but rather try to ditinguish between the non-combatant and the terrorists. but the terrorists and the civilian population making it harder for the IDF to do so.
The support the civilian population have for the terrorists is not only morral, and when the palestinian take advantage of the humanitarian considerations the IDF take to smuggle weapons and bombs, the population suffers more.
For Example, smuggling weapons and suicide bomb belt inside ambulances, and putting a suicide bomber in a car with a "pregnant" woman. This causes the IDF to be more careful even in humaniterian emergencies.
The US War in Afghanistan is an example to a war against terrorism where you do not know who is the enemy and who is not. And there too, many innocent civilians were killed, hospitals bombed, Red Cross center bombed, A wedding bombed. yet no one has called it "state terrorism" like some reffer to Israel. no one said it was inciting the violence.
i don't think those civilians should feel "grateful" about the treatment they receive or the casualties they incur due to bad policy & a lack of compassion on either israel's or your part .
I agree. and I know some were compensated. I think Israel should compensate everyone that is wrongfuly hurt.
And I think that if the palestinians who were wrongfully hurt by the IDF would sue Israel in the Israeli high court they would be compenstated.
Originally posted by gev
Israel is no longer the occupying force, The PA rule the territories, they were and are (now partially) providing of all civil needs to the population.
Israel rentered the territories to fight palestinian terrorists groups, and will exit when those terror attacks stop and some alternative palestinian government will be willing to take matters into their own hands.
Is the US the occupation force in Afghanistan now?
Now, ofcourse the IDF will never bomb any palestinian city like that, the IDF do not act randomly, but rather try to ditinguish between the non-combatant and the terrorists. but the terrorists and the civilian population making it harder for the IDF to do so.
The US War in Afghanistan is an example to a war against terrorism where you do not know who is the enemy and who is not
I agree. and I know some were compensated. I think Israel should compensate everyone that is wrongfuly hurt.
And I think that if the palestinians who were wrongfully hurt by the IDF would sue Israel in the Israeli high court they would be compenstated. look, im not here at this site to argue about how 'bad' israel is. i am hear to learn, learn about your side, and try to make sense of what i can, so i hope that i am not seen as a israel-hater, it isn't so.
the point you make abt america/afghanistan is true enough.
but it is also a different animal than the IS/PA situation. i m not justifying, there are paralells but it is not the same.
the line b/w civilian & terrorist has been deliberately smeared from all sides, even the israeli side--the bombing of shaheeda was not a mistake(at the most, they might've believed no one was in the house, i find that hard to believe, but of the surrounding apartments?), they full well knew what would happen when they did what they did.
some things happen b/c of an action; some things in the heat of the moment & bad training or lack of supervision--like firing on curfew breakers at that market; other things have been happening for a while, kids getting shot or pregnant women at checkpoints....
i don't know what to make of it except there seems to be a lack of empathy on both sides...as well as justifications...
[/b]
Mediocrates
08-24-2002, 01:01 PM
I'm sure I made this point before but unless one is willing to engage in WW2 style total war, armies haven't fought in long organized lines facing off one another since the American Civil War. The history of battle since then is the story of blurring the distinction among uniformed and non uniformed and bystanders. That is simply a fact. Urban and 'asymmetrical' warfare is the modern method. There is neither peace nor mobilization but some weird low level brush war in between.
5-alef
08-24-2002, 03:39 PM
my cousin was in 5th brigade went into Jenin. he lost 20 of his mates in battles there.
the IDF could have used some cluster bombs and some FAE and get done with it.
the reason they sent Infantry in IS the fact that in the IDF the rule of thumb is to avoid any unnessecary casualties.
that shows again and again.
the bombing in Gaza WAS distinct, and you know it well, since you talk about it.
since the fight is delibiratley was decided by the PA and other organizations to be inside cities, it shows the PA WANTS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!
why else would they fabricate funerals, inflate casualties and even shoot their own people (http://www.oslo-war.com/kid_eng.htm)
Originally posted by ruby
look, im not here at this site to argue about how 'bad' israel is. i am hear to learn, learn about your side, and try to make sense of what i can, so i hope that i am not seen as a israel-hater, it isn't so.
I don't think you are an Israeli-hater, but judging by your posts, you are quick to beleive the palestinian side, and to disbeleive the Israeli side.
I am an Israeli leftist, supported the Oslo accords and thought that peace was right around the corner.
Arafat and the PA has shattered this hope for peace for me and most of Israelies who beleived in it.
I and most of Israelies supported and still support the two state solution, when a peaceful and trust-worthy palestinian leadership arrives.
I'm here because I think Israel is doing now the right thing in order to defend it's civlians.
the point you make abt america/afghanistan is true enough.
but it is also a different animal than the IS/PA situation. i m not justifying, there are paralells but it is not the same.
I don't see a lot of difference, when looking at the current situation. only the circumstances that brought this situations are different. and ofcourse the US do not conduct the war in urban territory, as Israel is forced to do.
If it were, I think that there would be a lot more civilian casualties.
the line b/w civilian & terrorist has been deliberately smeared from all sides, even the israeli side--
The palestinians organizations have a clear interest of making all civilians "warriors of the intifadah" (the more they suffer the more the support they get)
While Israel has a clear interest of making a distinction between Civilians and Terrorists, thus making the population abonden the support for terrorism and the current Intifadah.
But, not in the price of hurting Israel's security, if one Israeli dies because Israel was trying to be nice to palestinians, IT IS NOT WORTH IT.
The point I'm making is that innocent people do die in every war, in fact I urge you to find ONE war in all of history where civilians were not killed.
Why this war would be any different in that respect? remeber NATO bombings of yuguslavia?
The only difference that while the palestinians try to kill as many civilians as possible (women and children preffered),
The Israelies are trying to avoid as much civilians casualties as possible, but as in every war, there is no 100% success.
the bombing of shaheeda was not a mistake(at the most, they might've believed no one was in the house, i find that hard to believe, but of the surrounding apartments?), they full well knew what would happen when they did what they did.
How do you know that? Did you know that shehada was saved 6 times before he was bombed, because he was surrounded by civilians?
Did the US knew it was bombing a hospital, a wedding? what is the difference?
some things happen b/c of an action; some things in the heat of the moment & bad training or lack of supervision--like firing on curfew breakers at that market; other things have been happening for a while, kids getting shot or pregnant women at checkpoints....
Yes, things happen that shouldn't, and the IDF is investigating and repairing where it can, but sometimes it is not the IDF's fault, as I said the Hamas have tried to smuggle a suicide bomber inside a car with a pregnant woman, hoping that the soldeirs will not check the car as it was humanitarian emergency.
So the IDF is faced of a dilema, in one hand it is an emergency, on the other hand, there could be a suicide bomber inside the car that can murder many Israeli civilians, what would you suggest to do to a car that wouldn't stop at the checkpoint?
i don't know what to make of it except there seems to be a lack of empathy on both sides...as well as justifications...
Yes, it is a dratfull situation, but all of these incidents are side effects and while the palestinians are trying to make out of this the main issue, it is not.
What palestinian casualties Israel have caused are "standard" (if it can be called) casualties in war. and I think that the palestinians civilians themselves understand it.
The main issue is the massive support for the violence, the main issue is the elected palestinian leadership. The palestinian must decide to lay down their arms, stop supporting terrorism, and start a peaceful negociation with Israel, with no violence.
This the only way they will acheive their goals. until a new leadership arrives and will be willing to work to a new state solution, with no violence - The violence will continue, and Israel will do as much as it can to be the winning side, with the less Israeli casualties as possible, and if it means that an ordianry palestinian cannot live a happy fullfiling life, so be it!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gev
I don't think you are an Israeli-hater, but judging by your posts, you are quick to beleive the palestinian side, and to disbeleive the Israeli side.
Gev, i would very much like to support israel without reservation but there are things that bother me & i haven't found satisfactory answers to them yet, i hope you can respect that.
when i have been on arab or pro-palestinian boards in the past & was critical of their positions, i was told repeatedly the same thing you say about me here, just flipped around: that i don't want to believe the arabs, but will believe "the jews. in fact, the 2 things i was told over & over was that my head was brainwashed by zionist propaganda & that my lips were in intimate proximity to the collective jewish behind.
all i know is that it's never wise to believe everything from anyone, so understand that i am trying to separate the truth from the wishful thinking.
I am an Israeli leftist, supported the Oslo accords and thought that peace was right around the corner.
Arafat and the PA has shattered this hope for peace for me and most of Israelies who beleived in it.
I and most of Israelies supported and still support the two state solution, when a peaceful and trust-worthy palestinian leadership arrives.
I'm here because I think Israel is doing now the right thing in order to defend it's civlians.
it's hard to say if i think it is doing the righht thing right now. if i were in your shoes, i would be inclined to say 'yes' out of fear & every lull in the violence to my people i would cling to as justification. but i am not there, & from over here it looks like these things that have been done may backfire w/ more intense civilian attacks in the near future.
I don't see a lot of difference, when looking at the current situation. only the circumstances that brought this situations are different. and ofcourse the US do not conduct the war in urban territory, as Israel is forced to do.
If it were, I think that there would be a lot more civilian casualties.
i don't support the bombing in afghanistan. ourresponse to 9-11 & al qaida was not completely legit, imo. at the least, we should've gone in as part of any internatinal police force & been accountable. as it is now, i still do not know how many civilians have been killed there by our forces & do not even know what kind of toll it actually had on a; qaida. it could be that we just took a chunk out of the taliban. for sure, there were atrocities that occurred, now we are hearing confirmation about those who were sufforcated in the containers, etc...
jenin was all but a fantasy; this seems to be a reality...
i think we hit them hard b/c it was an act of revenge, under the idea that it was a mission to "get the bad guys". what israel is dealing w/ is a group of desperate, aggrieved people who are fighting under the banner of nationalism; that's what i meant by different. and do you mean to say that palestinians, altho jerked about mercilessly by their own corrupted leaders, have not been shaped in the last 50 years by israel's policy towards them or their treatment of them? that doesn't sound completely right.
[/b]
The palestinians organizations have a clear interest of making all civilians "warriors of the intifadah" (the more they suffer the more the support they get)
While Israel has a clear interest of making a distinction between Civilians and Terrorists, thus making the population abonden the support for terrorism and the current Intifadah.
i don't think its all that clearl you can blame that all on the palestinias but the reality is that it's a circular problem , & with good reason, now that israel looks at all palestinians as potential criminals. still, w/ everything it does like the mass detainments, using human sgields, etc, ...these things plus the casualties that are incurred, i don't think they deter terrorism. i think they encourage & legitimize it for the palestinians. why is my argument wrong?
But, not in the price of hurting Israel's security, if one Israeli dies because Israel was trying to be nice to palestinians, IT IS NOT WORTH IT.
The point I'm making is that innocent people do die in every war, in fact I urge you to find ONE war in all of history where civilians were not killed.
that thing in afghanistan is only called a war in the media, but it is not a declared war. they use the term "war against terrorism".
how could it possibly be a war when they only opponent these 2 powerful armies have are a handful of terrorists? has even one kid chucked a rock at those tanks that keep re-entering the territories? Why this war would be any different in that respect? remeber NATO bombings of yuguslavia?
The only difference that while the palestinians try to kill as many civilians as possible (women and children preffered),
The Israelies are trying to avoid as much civilians casualties as possible, but as in every war, there is no 100% success.
[/b]
How do you know that? Did you know that shehada was saved 6 times before he was bombed, because he was surrounded by civilians?
Did the US knew it was bombing a hospital, a wedding? what is the difference?
it's common sense that they knew what would happen when they hit that apartment complex at midnight in gaza, of all places.
they say tht 6 attempts were aborted, i don't know that for a fact, though, & neither do you. i don't believe everything my government or military says & you probably shouldn't either. i know that might make you mad, but surely you do not believe everything you are told by your authorities?
israel is a master at spying & assassinations; i don't think the KGB held a candle to you. i m not stating that as a paranooid, just as fact, i think your military could've well had shaheeda's goose cooked as they liked. might've even hit him inhis bed, in his room, with a rocket.
but the tonnage of bomb they used? and when it was given the greenlight? the timing....israel was racking up the deaths to their civilians, revenge was in the air, plus the supposed ceasefire b/w the palestinian groups that was supposedly imminent...sharon's government & hamas to me look likedifferent sides of the same coin: neither wants peace & they both work to sabotage it.
did the US know it was bombing a wedding? they may well have. there were men at that wedding that we suspected of ties to al qaida. was it right to do it? no way.
[/b]
Yes, things happen that shouldn't, and the IDF is investigating and repairing where it can, but sometimes it is not the IDF's fault, as I said the Hamas have tried to smuggle a suicide bomber inside a car with a pregnant woman, hoping that the soldeirs will not check the car as it was humanitarian emergency.
So the IDF is faced of a dilema, in one hand it is an emergency, on the other hand, there could be a suicide bomber inside the car that can murder many Israeli civilians, what would you suggest to do to a car that wouldn't stop at the checkpoint?
i don't know; disable the tires? maybe have a suystem whereby medical emergencies can be waved through under tight security & have an israeli ambulence drive them? i hope that alternatives can be thought of and implemented that take both the idf & the civilian unto consideration, though.
i realize the bind israel is in. i realize the threat to idf personnel (i realize that if you are a reservist that you feel this all pretty strongly). i know that the situation as of now is complicated & very dangerous.
but when i hear of multiple pregnant women gteting shot at checkpoints-- have all of them been running checkpoints? why would innocent people rush these checkpoints(i assume no bombs or foul play was found in anyof these instances afterwards? why would they feel the need to put themselves in great danger running these checkpoints?
isn't there a sysem to deal w/ medical emergencies, where you would maybe be pulled over & searched & cleared through?
my point ois that these casualties may not be necessary as thought.
when i hear things like kids getting shot, when i see thngs like the tank that fired on people, including children, getting food at a market...i don't know what to think.
there's a lot of arab propaganda, i agree, but there are also , i feel, instances of violence being perpetrated that defy valid justifications.
[/b]
Yes, it is a dratfull situation, but all of these incidents are side effects and while the palestinians are trying to make out of this the main issue, it is not.
What palestinian casualties Israel have caused are "standard" (if it can be called) casualties in war. and I think that the palestinians civilians themselves understand it.
The main issue is the massive support for the violence, the main issue is the elected palestinian leadership. The palestinian must decide to lay down their arms, stop supporting terrorism, and start a peaceful negociation with Israel, with no violence.
This the only way they will acheive their goals. until a new leadership arrives and will be willing to work to a new state solution, with no violence - The violence will continue, and Israel will do as much as it can to be the winning side, with the less Israeli casualties as possible, and if it means that an ordianry palestinian cannot live a happy fullfiling life, so be it!
israelis & palestinians deserve to live inpeace. i feel for you both. i respect your views because you seem pretty well-balanced & you are living there & i & some others are just looking in.
and it is true that very frequently the ignorance on the palestinian side makes me angry & sickens me. it is also a true cliche that it is the people om both sides that suffer, the people who are buffetted by your government's policies & actions & by the actions of the various palestinian groups. the palestinians should be forced by international pressure to accept a new untainted council of statesmen to get them into decent negotiations.
the israelis should also be flexible enough to deal fairly w/ them & not let extraneous terrorist acts deter them--they will always go on independently until the palestinians can contain themselves or israel can successfully defend its boarders from the inside. i know this is a big sticking point--not dealing w/ them while terrorism is still going on--but it seems to me that the only way to disable the terror is to make it impotent with its own people.
court the palestinian people, give then a taste of real & concrete hope for a better future & it is all but guaranteed that they will reject the terrorism, but continued hardship on them will fuel more, i believe, no matter who you think is to blame for it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Mediocrates
08-26-2002, 05:04 AM
the israelis should also be flexible enough to deal fairly w/ them & not let extraneous terrorist acts deter them
I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. There is no such thing as extraneous murder.
If the police in the US simply threw up their hands and said "Screw those inner cities, we'll ignore them until they stop committing crimes". Then every city in America would have an LA-Rampart style PD and everyone would be screaming at their elected officials to fix it.
Originally posted by ruby
i don't know; disable the tires? maybe have a suystem whereby medical emergencies can be waved through under tight security & have an israeli ambulence drive them? i hope that alternatives can be thought of and implemented that take both the idf & the civilian unto consideration, though.
i realize the bind israel is in. i realize the threat to idf personnel (i realize that if you are a reservist that you feel this all pretty strongly). i know that the situation as of now is complicated & very dangerous.
but when i hear of multiple pregnant women gteting shot at checkpoints-- have all of them been running checkpoints? why would innocent people rush these checkpoints(i assume no bombs or foul play was found in anyof these instances afterwards? why would they feel the need to put themselves in great danger running these checkpoints?
isn't there a sysem to deal w/ medical emergencies, where you would maybe be pulled over & searched & cleared through?
my point ois that these casualties may not be necessary as thought.
Of Course there are things to improve that can be done, I wanted to show you the complexity of the matter.
I'm not sure about your answers though:
because the IDF know that the terrorists organizations would always take advantage of any hole in security, For example, an Israeli ambulance driver that comes in the territories would be shot dead.
You ask about a system of some sort? The palestinian will be hostile to any such idea as they would see it as reocupation or strengthening the occupation.
But still, I agree that some of the casualties were not neccessary and that the IDF and governemnt should find a way to avoid as many as possible.
It is a side issue, and when there is a real dicision to stop all violence by a palestinian authority, it will be stopped.
when i hear things like kids getting shot, when i see thngs like the tank that fired on people, including children, getting food at a market...i don't know what to think.
there's a lot of arab propaganda, i agree, but there are also , i feel, instances of violence being perpetrated that defy valid justifications.
Again, I agree there are some mistakes, there are even in some of the cases made intentionaly by individuals (which are being punished, ofcourse)
But, On my opinion, it is a side issue, and not the main issue, it does not add or deduce the lengthen of the conflict or the intesity.
I think it does give the palestinian a weapon against Israel in the international media, and perhaps with small amounts of assisting civilians to the palestinian terrorists.
the palestinians should be forced by international pressure to accept a new untainted council of statesmen to get them into decent negotiations.
Agreed.
the israelis should also be flexible enough to deal fairly w/ them & not let extraneous terrorist acts deter them--they will always go on independently until the palestinians can contain themselves or israel can successfully defend its boarders from the inside. i know this is a big sticking point--not dealing w/ them while terrorism is still going on--but it seems to me that the only way to disable the terror is to make it impotent with its own people.
All for it, unless it affects in any way the security of an israeli.
If you ask me, the measures that should be taken, and should have been taken before and in the Oslo agreement are:
1. Build a full Border, one that can hold a suicide bomber out of Israel. Until a full Border is built around the west Bank, and the Gaza border is improved, Israel should not pull out of the territories.
2. Go into negociations, and start with some pilot territories (like the Gaza plan being made now), to check the intentions and the ability of palestinians to contain these territories.
Other possiblity: Bring a neutral or a freindly Arab force to contain these territories, until the palestinian can do it.
3. Evacuate All settlements in Gaza, and some isolated Settlements in the West-Bank, while in negociations. This will benefit Israel for it will be easier to defend the the new border in the West-Bank and Gaza. and the palestinians will have lesser checkpoints and it would be easier to move around the territories.
4. negociate into to a long term agreement (not so long) that in the end establishes a palestinian state, Muslim part of jerusalem as capitol. Refugees will be compansated and will be allowed to become citizens of the new palestinian state, but not Israel's.
5. an Important part of the agreement: The palestinians will have a fully independent state except for the Army, and border control,
the palestinians will not be allowed to establish an army, and will be carefully watched for weapon smuggling, it could be changed in time (very long time).
I think that these steps will insure the security of Israel, and if a new palestinian leadership would turn out to be another Arafat, it would'nt affect the security of Israel as much as it did now.
court the palestinian people, give then a taste of real & concrete hope for a better future & it is all but guaranteed that they will reject the terrorism, but continued hardship on them will fuel more, i believe, no matter who you think is to blame for it.
I will add to Mediocrates comment on that, and say that I onced beleived it too. And many Israelies too.
The Oslo agreement was genuine, I think that majority of Israelies and Palestinians beleived it was, and still there were some of the deadliest suicide bombings in Israel when the hope for peace was in both people.
I beleive that if there is hope, or not to the palestinian people, it does not matter - I as an Israeli will suffer from Terror attacks, and this is what I care about.
When a palestinian leadership would contain the area with the help of a good border and maybe an international force, there wouldn't be terror attacks.
What you ask of me is to compromise my security, and then SOME of the palestinians MAYBE will not attack Israel. it is not acceptable, and wouldn't be acceptable by any citizen of any country.
I have an Army and it is the only thing I would be dependent on, a terror attack would occur only because the Army didn't defend me well, not because a palestinian get up in the morning in the wrong side and decides to blow something up.
NewsGuy
08-26-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by ruby
...but i guess any one w/ some criticism for israel is an 'enemy' in your view.
I don't know where you're getting this mistaken impression from, but it's pretty clear from looking at what I've written that you're way off base.
secondly, it's probably been said before to you, no doubt, but you seem to lump every palestinian into the terrorist catagory.
Again, far from reality.
I get the impression that whoever criticizes terrorism is, in your skewed view, automatically "lumping" people together and "sad" somehow, as you wrote. In reality, looking for excuses for terrorism, as you are doing apparently, is a sad state of being, as is lumping together all terrorism opponents.
israel is an occupying force, & unfortunately in those circumstances, soldiers should be taking the brunt of any violence.
that's just how it is.
We can disagree whether or not Israel is an occupying force or whether the Palestinians are squatters occupying the Jewish homeland. But objectively, most of the victims of Palestinian terrorism are not soldiers but rather, civilians in pizza shops, in shopping malls, in buses and in a college cafeteria.
You should ask yourself why your bias leads you to think so little of the Jewish civilian casualties of the Palestinian Jihad, to the point that you don't even have the simple decency to mention them in this context.
Still, you're entitled to your opinion, but at least be more open about it instead of wrapping it in some pseudo-humanitarian Leftist babble. You apparently care nothing for the thousands of victims of the Palestinian Jihad-genocide war against the Jewish citizens of Israel. That speaks volumes about your own bias.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
the israelis should also be flexible enough to deal fairly w/ them & not let extraneous terrorist acts deter them
I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. There is no such thing as extraneous murder.
If the police in the US simply threw up their hands and said "Screw those inner cities, we'll ignore them until they stop committing crimes". Then every city in America would have an LA-Rampart style PD and everyone would be screaming at their elected officials to fix it.
my wording was clumsy; i meant the terrorism by the various groups, unrelated to a governing or policing body.
your inner city example is incomprable to the situation there.
urban crime does not compare to a well-organized guerrilla-type warfare that the terror groups in the territories are working. and they are all bound under the same ideal of nationalism.
the pal authoritiy has to be radically rehauled, outside forces should be in there too to monitor & make sure the job gets done properly this time around...
no one needs to "throw up their hands". israel should concentrate on defending her boarders & at the same time be laying down serious negotiations & policy that will bring about a better life for the palestinians---i am maintaining that this is how you defeat terrorism, not thru force.
like gev said up above, they should be monitoring & working w/ the palestinians to make sure that they are correctly cleaning their house of the terrorists at the same time. concrete promises that are followed thru will do more for stoping the terror than what is going on now---holding all palestinians responsible for the terrorist acts---that to me is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. when peace planning is disrupted, that is exactly what they desire.
so 2 choices are:
weather terror attacks & keep coming down hard on the palestinian people, b/c what? does anybody really believe that will weaken the terrorism?
or weather the attacks & keep moving forward to a future livible solution, whereby weakening the terror support.
who can completely stop terrorism? who?
if you can't stop terrorism, then you have to try to subvert it.
sooner or later, you have to subvert it or it will go on forever...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gev
Of Course there are things to improve that can be done, I wanted to show you the complexity of the matter.
I'm not sure about your answers though:
because the IDF know that the terrorists organizations would always take advantage of any hole in security, For example, an Israeli ambulance driver that comes in the territories would be shot dead.
i am aware of that, am also aware that they are known to kill their own for their cause; i was just trying to say there may be other solutions to try.
Again, I agree there are some mistakes, there are even in some of the cases made intentionaly by individuals (which are being punished, ofcourse)
But, On my opinion, it is a side issue, and not the main issue, it does not add or deduce the lengthen of the conflict or the intesity.
I think it does give the palestinian a weapon against Israel in the international media, and perhaps with small amounts of assisting civilians to the palestinian terrorists.
[/b]
my question is: what is the frequency of these blunders? it icannot be just a side issue b/c it fuels & justifies the violence from their perspective.
[/b]
All for it, unless it affects in any way the security of an israeli.
If you ask me, the measures that should be taken, and should have been taken before and in the Oslo agreement are:
1. Build a full Border, one that can hold a suicide bomber out of Israel. Until a full Border is built around the west Bank, and the Gaza border is improved, Israel should not pull out of the territories.
2. Go into negociations, and start with some pilot territories (like the Gaza plan being made now), to check the intentions and the ability of palestinians to contain these territories.
Other possiblity: Bring a neutral or a freindly Arab force to contain these territories, until the palestinian can do it.
3. Evacuate All settlements in Gaza, and some isolated Settlements in the West-Bank, while in negociations. This will benefit Israel for it will be easier to defend the the new border in the West-Bank and Gaza. and the palestinians will have lesser checkpoints and it would be easier to move around the territories.
4. negociate into to a long term agreement (not so long) that in the end establishes a palestinian state, Muslim part of jerusalem as capitol. Refugees will be compansated and will be allowed to become citizens of the new palestinian state, but not Israel's.
5. an Important part of the agreement: The palestinians will have a fully independent state except for the Army, and border control,
the palestinians will not be allowed to establish an army, and will be carefully watched for weapon smuggling, it could be changed in time (very long time).
I think that these steps will insure the security of Israel, and if a new palestinian leadership would turn out to be another Arafat, it would'nt affect the security of Israel as much as it did now.
i agree
I will add to Mediocrates comment on that, and say that I onced beleived it too. And many Israelies too.
The Oslo agreement was genuine, I think that majority of Israelies and Palestinians beleived it was, and still there were some of the deadliest suicide bombings in Israel when the hope for peace was in both people.
I beleive that if there is hope, or not to the palestinian people, it does not matter - I as an Israeli will suffer from Terror attacks, and this is what I care about.
When a palestinian leadership would contain the area with the help of a good border and maybe an international force, there wouldn't be terror attacks.
i agree but i still maintain that you cripple the cause, maybe not kill it altogether, but that's a start.
What you ask of me is to compromise my security, and then SOME of the palestinians MAYBE will not attack Israel. it is not acceptable, and wouldn't be acceptable by any citizen of any country.
i didn't ask that. but as the overwhelming force militarily in the situation, you will always be asked to have more of an even hand when dealing with civilians or exposing them to harm. [B]
Mediocrates
08-26-2002, 05:02 PM
my question is: what is the frequency of these blunders?
Good question, any ideas? what per what?
Originally posted by NewsGuy
I don't know where you're getting this mistaken impression from, but it's pretty clear from looking at what I've written that you're way off base.
you called me a palestinian supporter. i have never called myself that, have never said i thought their causes were legit, but you obviously jumped to that conclusion about me, so you pretty much tossed me out of your camp & into the other one.
I get the impression that whoever criticizes terrorism is, in your skewed view, automatically "lumping" people together and "sad" somehow, as you wrote. In reality, looking for excuses for terrorism, as you are doing apparently, is a sad state of being, as is lumping together all terrorism opponents.
you shouldn't have gotten that impression, i never said i supported terrorism in any way, anywhere.
you consistantly seem to fail to see the distinction b/w criticism & praise, support & attack.
We can disagree whether or not Israel is an occupying force or whether the Palestinians are squatters occupying the Jewish homeland. But objectively, most of the victims of Palestinian terrorism are not soldiers but rather, civilians in pizza shops, in shopping malls, in buses and in a college cafeteria.
You should ask yourself why your bias leads you to think so little of the Jewish civilian casualties of the Palestinian Jihad, to the point that you don't even have the simple decency to mention them in this context.
it is a given that i am in sympathy w/ israeli citizens & mourn their murdered, when have i ever given you the idea that i do not?!! i know israelis intimately, not palestinians, so really, i find it crude of you to paint me as some kind of anti-israeli monster.
their welfare means the world to me, i want them to live long, full lives w/ a sense of security & i just don't see how it will ever come to be w/ the way things are running from both sides now.
i hear that the force expended has led to a decrease in bombings, but then another one happens on the heels of that utterance. if it does stop the problem, then great!!!! but i don't see it working, don't see that my israelis have anything more positive to look forward to in their lives by way of an alleviation of more of this .
i don't need an explanation of why it is bad to get blown to bits & you shouldn't suppose that if i have criticism, if i have questions, that it lessens my feelings for israeli victims. it does not!!!
i am trying to see if there is a solution to this mess. just like anyone, maybe even in something that was missed so far in your calculations..
Still, you're entitled to your opinion, but at least be more open about it instead of wrapping it in some pseudo-humanitarian Leftist babble. You apparently care nothing for the thousands of victims of the Palestinian Jihad-genocide war against the Jewish citizens of Israel. That speaks volumes about your own bias.
and you are entitled to hate me; as you wish.
but don't you dare purport to know where my heart lies .
Mediocrates
08-27-2002, 06:10 AM
True enough but I think taking the tack of an expanded version of the Hippocratic Oath serves nothing.
"First do no harm"
Ok, but then what? For myself, the objection I have to that general point of view is that nannyism doesn't lead anywhere. We all agree that slipping in a puddle of blood is not something one would want to become desensitized to. Fine. But there really is a greater good and a further goal. To say that, if only the IDF reduced border delays to avoid harming people who honestly need help.... is a goal. It's not a solution. I think that the 'left's' position and voice would be heard if it offered something beyond "all you people are bad, stop being bad". It seems to always fall short of an actual plan. And by that I mean the legitimate 'left' not the crypto Hamas supporting revolutionaries who'd love to see all the roads of Israel paved with Jewish headstones.
5-alef
08-27-2002, 09:30 AM
just to show to how much trouble we've gone to assist a man with a wounded child.
a palestinian man appeared in a roadblock with a kid who fell from second story of the house.
we've called OUR ambulance, loaded them and arranged a taxi from Ramallah to meet us in another road block and transfered them to it.
in the meanwhile our 2 medics treated this kid on the way.
and thats not an exeption, but a rule.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
True enough but I think taking the tack of an expanded version of the Hippocratic Oath serves nothing.
"First do no harm"
Ok, but then what? For myself, the objection I have to that general point of view is that nannyism doesn't lead anywhere. We all agree that slipping in a puddle of blood is not something one would want to become desensitized to. Fine. But there really is a greater good and a further goal. To say that, if only the IDF reduced border delays to avoid harming people who honestly need help.... is a goal. It's not a solution. I think that the 'left's' position and voice would be heard if it offered something beyond "all you people are bad, stop being bad". It seems to always fall short of an actual plan. And by that I mean the legitimate 'left' not the crypto Hamas supporting revolutionaries who'd love to see all the roads of Israel paved with Jewish headstones.
i don't think a solution is going to drop from the heavens.
it's obviously going to come about from a series of steps, both large & small, & from both sides.
i was just wondering if part of the problem as to why there has not been real progress made might be found in some of the details.
didn't gev say he was a leftist?
he had a plan that seemed reasonable.
Originally posted by 5-alef
just to show to how much trouble we've gone to assist a man with a wounded child.
a palestinian man appeared in a roadblock with a kid who fell from second story of the house.
we've called OUR ambulance, loaded them and arranged a taxi from Ramallah to meet us in another road block and transfered them to it.
in the meanwhile our 2 medics treated this kid on the way.
and thats not an exeption, but a rule.
it's a natural impulse for most to help out in dire situations, especially when children are hurt. it's not to be taken for granted, tho, considering.
Originally posted by ruby
i am aware of that, am also aware that they are known to kill their own for their cause; i was just trying to say there may be other solutions to try.
my question is: what is the frequency of these blunders? it icannot be just a side issue b/c it fuels & justifies the violence from their perspective.
I say there will always be an excuse and a reason for terrorists to attack, and when Israel responds or tries to defend itself in whatever intense, it will fuel more violence.
There are two conclusion that can come up from this:
1. There is no military solution to this problem, but the military can contain the problem, and reduce the intensity, so we must continue in that way, until there is a political opportunity to reach a solution.
2. Israel should do more in dealing with terrorists, and families of terrorists.
Originally posted by ruby
i didn't ask that. but as the overwhelming force militarily in the situation, you will always be asked to have more of an even hand when dealing with civilians or exposing them to harm.
I still think that a palestinian Intifadah supporter accepts the faith of suffering from Israel as a result of it.
Originally posted by gev
I still think that a palestinian Intifadah supporter accepts the faith of suffering from Israel as a result of it. Or, as an activist, maybe he even wants it: it strengthens his grip on the population...
judicial meanz
12-22-2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by 5-alef
just to show to how much trouble we've gone to assist a man with a wounded child.
a palestinian man appeared in a roadblock with a kid who fell from second story of the house.
we've called OUR ambulance, loaded them and arranged a taxi from Ramallah to meet us in another road block and transfered them to it.
in the meanwhile our 2 medics treated this kid on the way.
and thats not an exeption, but a rule.
People who have never been in challenging situations, combat, or terrorism and experienced life or death rest pass judgement quickly, and analyze extensively from armchairs. They never seem to form a stand from all that analysis, just a series of self propagating lines of dissent. This is readily apparent here from what I have seen.
I have been slammed for being a veteran more than once on this board, usually by hairbrains with no common sense or worldview other than their opinions. They dont understand that these arrogant opinons are aired at the cost of military blood, nor do they care.
I hev been accused of to much exposure to DU rounds (mess up my brain) and being an automaton. My military and myself were not combat challenged enough for some, because the only true war to them was WWII. They havent spent a day in uniform, or lost a friend in combat, but they can judge very quickly.
I am an American Jew who has served my country for over 24 years, Regular and Reserve. I have a Ph.D, and my full time job is being a judge in a criminal court. Before that I was a police officer, and I worked 3 jobs to get through college. I have saved more lives than I have taken, but I have done that too.
I am an officer, and I lead young troops. I have seen war in 5 conflicts personally. I may be going off again. If I had to, I would also go to serve for Israel. I also refuse to obey unlawful, illegal, or immoral orders, and have done so in the past. I will in the future if need be. I can think, and I have done it well enough to succeed in my life and become wealthy. Have they?
In my opinon, the IDF is one of the most discplined, courageous, and highly moral militaries in the world. I think you guys do a superb job with a rotten deck of cards. Urban combat is not the place to cut your teeth, and you guys face it every day.
Having to endure constant propaganda and criticism from people whose only insurmountable problem is the walk to the refrigerator is out of line. I feel for you. We get it too, constantly.
Hats off to you guys!
May G-d bless each and every one of you and grant you peace, long life, and many children and grandchildren.
j_stanford
02-22-2003, 01:19 PM
Israel is in a similar position to the Spartans. The Spartans conquered Messinia and enslaved them. The slaves were called helots and they outnumbered the Spartans ten to one. The Spartans created a society based entirely around the military to keep the helots under control. Israelis have a similar problem with the Palestinians.
NewsGuy
02-22-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by j_stanford
Israel is in a similar position to the Spartans. The Spartans conquered Messinia and enslaved them. The slaves were called helots and they outnumbered the Spartans ten to one. The Spartans created a society based entirely around the military to keep the helots under control. Israelis have a similar problem with the Palestinians.
That's completely out of touch with reality. Israel did not "conquer" the Palestinians, and certainly never did "enslave" anyone at all. On the contrary.
The Jewish people of Israel are a tiny minority among 22 Arab enemy states who have repeatedly launched wars to ethnically cleanse all Jewish life from the Middle East. Fortunately, the Arabs lost the wars, and Israel survived.
But now, the Palestinians are brutally occupying large parts of the Jewish homeland and are waging yet another war of genocide against the Jewish people. Fortunately, again, Israel seems to be winning this latest war as well.
Where did you get the bizarre comparison to the Spartans, anyway?
sharonbn
02-23-2003, 07:12 AM
the last large scale enslaving of one nation by another was done by the European white people in north America in the 18th and 19th cent, and in Belgian Congo and South Africa until the beginning of the 20th cent.
Imperialism is not equal to enslavement. For example, the British ruled India until 1946 but did not "enslave" the indigenous population.
The issue of the occupied territories in Israel is even more complex since the Palestinians were NEVER the rulers of the land, so Israel did not conquer "Palestinian" land. Land ownership did not change after the war, meaning the Palestinians still OWN the land they reside upon.
There is ZERO comparison between the ME and the abovementioned Spartan story.
j_stanford
02-23-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
That's completely out of touch with reality. Israel did not "conquer" the Palestinians, and certainly never did "enslave" anyone at all. On the contrary.
The Jewish people of Israel are a tiny minority among 22 Arab enemy states who have repeatedly launched wars to ethnically cleanse all Jewish life from the Middle East. Fortunately, the Arabs lost the wars, and Israel survived.
But now, the Palestinians are brutally occupying large parts of the Jewish homeland and are waging yet another war of genocide against the Jewish people. Fortunately, again, Israel seems to be winning this latest war as well.
Where did you get the bizarre comparison to the Spartans, anyway?
I didn't mean that the Israelis enslaved or conquered the Palestinians. I meant that the Spartans formed a military state because they were outnumbered by Messinians and needed to protect themselves. In the same way, Israelis are outnumbered by Arabs and need to protect themselves. You took the comparison to literally.
wellofvow
02-24-2003, 12:44 AM
I tried to send a "private message", but was told that this avenue has been disabled. I am only semi-computer-literate, so my apologies.
I wanted to bring to people's attention a "discussion" site sent to me by a cousin of mine in the States.
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/yay.htm
It is entitled "Yea is Yea and Nay is Nay; Anything Else Smacketh of Evil." Jared Israel comments, posted on February 17, 2003
Apparently, Jared Israel experienced an epiphany when the Arab Big Lies were not only ignored when exposed as lies, but were pumped up to even more outrageous levels. Part of this epiphany was that after he published an even-handed discussion, 3 offerings from the pro-Palestinian side, 3 from the pro-Israeli side, he says that he received dozens of furious emails for *allowing* the pro-Israeli side to present their side!! A major wake-up call which this one person, a solid Left-winger, heard, but apparently not many others. It seems to me (OK, my hobbyhorse again) that Jared Israel has recognized what many others have not: that the Bill of Rights extends to everyone, and not only to those whose opinions agree with yours.
He also exposes Noam Chomsky for the arrogant, rabid inciter that he is. This evil man is a racist of such proportions that I cannot grasp why he is not in jail. But that is another story.
danholo
02-24-2003, 07:26 AM
That was an interesting read. Thanks.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.