13 of IDF elite special-operations force refuse to serve

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

That must explain the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

The Civil War wasn't about recognizing black people as human, idiot.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

That must explain the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

You are correct that it took 100 more years to give them equal rights ... before that they were regarded in disparaging ways similar to that of the savages :( our term for Native Americans


On July 22, 1862, Lincoln showed a draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. It proposed to emancipate the slaves in all rebel areas on January 1, 1863. Secretary of State William H. Seward agreed with the proposal, but cautioned Lincoln to wait until the Union had a major victory before formally issuing the proclamation. Lincoln's chance came after the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September of 1862. He issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22. The proclamation warned the Confederate states to surrender by January 1, 1863, or their slaves would be freed.

Some people were critical of the proclamation for only freeing some of the slaves. Others, including Frederick Douglass, were jubilant. Douglass felt that it was the beginning of the end of slavery, and that it would act as a "moral bombshell" to the Confederacy. Yet he and others feared that Lincoln would give in to pressure from northern conservatives, and would fail to keep his promise. Despite the opposition, however, the president remained firm. On January 1, 1863, he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. With it he officially freed all slaves within the states or parts of states that were in rebellion and not in Union hands. This left one million slaves in Union territory still in bondage.

Throughout the North, African Americans and their white allies were exhuberant. They packed churches and meeting halls and celebrated the news. In the South, most slaves did not hear of the proclamation for months. But the purpose of the Civil War had now changed. The North was not only fighting to preserve the Union, it was fighting to end slavery.

Throughout this time, northern black men had continued to pressure the army to enlist them. A few individual commanders in the field had taken steps to recruit southern African Americans into their forces. But it was only after Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation that the federal army would officially accept black soldiers into its ranks.

African American men rushed to enlist. This time they were accepted into all-black units. The first of these was the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Colored Regiment, led by white officer Robert Gould Shaw. Their heroism in combat put to rest worries over the willingness of black soldiers to fight. Soon other regiments were being formed, and in May 1863 the War Department established the Bureau of Colored Troops.

Black recruiters, many of them abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and Mary Ann Shadd Cary, brought in troops from throughout the North. Douglass proclaimed, "I urge you to fly to arms and smite with death the power that would bury the government and your liberty in the same hopeless grave." Others, such as Harriet Tubman, recruited in the South. On March 6, 1863, the Secretary of War was informed that "seven hundred and fifty blacks who were waiting for an opportunity to join the Union Army had been rescued from slavery under the leadership of Harriet Ross Tubman...." By the end of the war more than 186,000 black soldiers had joined the Union army; 93,000 from the Confederate states, 40,000 from the border slave states, and 53,000 from the free states.

Black soldiers faced discrimination as well as segregation. The army was extremely reluctant to commission black officers -- only one hundred gained commissions during the war. African American soldiers were also given substandard supplies and rations. Probably the worst form of discrimination was the pay differential. At the beginning of black enlistment, it was assumed that blacks would be kept out of direct combat, and the men were paid as laborers rather than as soldiers. Black soldiers therefore received $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes.

Black troops strongly resisted this treatment. The Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Regiment served a year without pay rather than accept the unfair wages. Many blacks refused to enlist because of the discriminatory pay. Finally, in 1864, the War Department sanctioned equal wages for black soldiers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

The Civil War wasn't about recognizing black people as human, idiot.

You know what... you need to watch the personal attacks... I almost stooped to your level

DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER TO CALL PEOPLE NAMES??
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

The Civil War wasn't about recognizing black people as human, idiot.

You know what... you need to watch the personal attacks... I almost stooped to your level

DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER TO CALL PEOPLE NAMES??

I find the spouting of ignorance just as offensive. Hell, ignorance is more damaging as some kid may have read your post and actually think it was true. I'll edit my post if you edit yours, k?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Hero:

Humility my boy, humility. It goes a long way to ensuring you have a long and fruitful life. :)

Perhaps in the spirit of the season you might just buck up and put a good face on?

-Robert
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,935
6,794
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dahunan
It took a Civil War for Americans to recognize that Black People are human too...

I hope they get Men of the Year award in Israel.

The Civil War wasn't about recognizing black people as human, idiot.

You know what... you need to watch the personal attacks... I almost stooped to your level

DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER TO CALL PEOPLE NAMES??

That wasn't a personal attack, He just appended his name.
 

ogmios

Member
Jul 28, 2003
29
0
0
So, what's gonna happen to those 13 soldiers? I read the article, but I don't see the word "court-matial".
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Does the word deserter, or conscionable objector ring a bell? Either way, they are likely to be treated harshly by the courts.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: ogmios
So, what's gonna happen to those 13 soldiers? I read the article, but I don't see the word "court-matial".

Ya'alon (IDF Chief of Staff ) told Army Radio on Monday that those who signed the letter could be thrown out of the army. "Each one (of the signatories) will be called in to talk to his commander, the severity will be explained to him and he will be given the chance to back down," Ya?alon said. "If he doesn't, he will be thrown out of army reserve duty."
ie. Refute or get kicked out. No need for a court martial

 

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
<haaretz text>
Thirteen members of a top commando unit who announced their refusal to serve in the Palestinian areas will be kicked out of the army if they do not back down on their decision, the IDF Chief of Staff said Monday.

The letter - signed by Sayeret Matkal soldiers and officers - was delivered Sunday to the Prime Minister's Office, which refused to comment on the content of the letter.

Ya'alon told Army Radio on Monday that those who signed the letter could be thrown out of the army. "Each one (of the signatories) will be called in to talk to his commander, the severity will be explained to him and he will be given the chance to back down," Ya?alon said. "If he doesn't, he will be thrown out of army reserve duty."

Army spokesman Brigadier General Ruth Yaron said Monday that, although Israel is a democratic country, the reservists should not use the prestigious unit as a platform to express their views.

Among the 13 signatories are nine who still do reserve service in Sayeret Matkal, while the most senior is an officer with the rank of major.

"We say to you today, we will no longer give our hands to the oppressive reign in the territories and the denial of human rights to millions of Palestinians," reads the letter addressed to the prime minister, " and we will no longer serve as a defensive shield for the settlement enterprise."

One of the signatories, who would only give his name as "Moshe," told Israel Radio on Monday that he felt an operation he participated in to track down Palestinian militants in the West Bank served no purpose.

"I saw that nothing changed as a result of the operation and we look much worse than we did a year or two ago," Moshe said. "What should I do, just sit with my arms crossed? ... Or say, 'Gentlemen, I'm not going back there."'

Although Sayeret Matkal - the IDF General Staff's elite special-operations force - is rarely involved in operations in the territories, the announcement carries weight because of the group's standing in Israeli society.

In 1972, Sayeret Matkal commandos, led by former prime minister Ehud Barak, raided a Sabena plane hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. In 1976, the elite troops carried out a daring operation at Entebbe airport in Uganda to rescue some 100 hostages on an Air France plane hijacked by terrorists.

Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Yuval Steinitz said Monday that the phenomenon of refusal emanates from a terrible failure by all of Israel's governments. Israel Radio quoted him as saying that had criminal proceedings been opened against the previous refuseniks, the spread of the refusal phenomenon would have been prevented.

Political figures who served in the elite army unit sharply criticized the announcement. Barak, who served as commander of Sayeret Matkal, called on signers of the letter to "immediately" retract their decision. According to Barak, it was a grave mistake, but "it's not too late correct it, and it's important to do so."

"In a democracy there's no place for refusal because it is the elected government that issues the orders to the army. As much as we are divided over the hesitant and confused policy of Sharon's government which is endangering Israel, it is essential that this battle be waged in the public sphere, and for the army to defend all of us. Every soldier has the right and the obligation to refuse an blatantly illegal order, but I am convinced that the IDF, under Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, would never lend a hand to the giving of blatantly illegal orders to soldiers, including those in Sayeret Matkal."

Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who served in the elite unit, said Sunday that "if people base their military service on their political opinions, be left-winged or right-winged, we won?t have an army or a state left. It is time to stop using military service as a political axe."

MK Matan Vilnai (Labor), a major general in the reserves who served as deputy commander of Sayeret Matkal, also criticized the letter. "Refusal is a phenomenon that must cannot be accepted in any manner. It cannot be denied that we are not speaking of a few isolated instances, but rather a phenomenon that stems from the feeling of lack of purpose in government policy."

"Refusal harms society's strength," said MK Dan Yatom (Labor), a major general in the reserves who served in Sayeret Matkal. "I condemn any form of refusal. No person or group has the right to determine which missions are to be carried out." According to Yatom, "The government of Israel must be attentive to the distress expressed by such quality groups as the pilots and Sayeret Matkal, and to respond appropriately."

Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim said on Monday "the soldiers infected with this 'leprosy' of refusal must be stripped of their military aura and tried for disobedience and even, I would say, incitement to mutiny. It doesn?t matter if they're pilots or extolled special unit soldiers. I think all of this credit given to elite units?we respect and appreciate all soldiers in uniform, the army marches also on its cooks, mechanics store men, and these people have no right to use their unit to receive a different sort of treatment."

"This phenomenon worries me as a citizen more than as deputy minister of defense," Boim added.

Meretz MK Yossi Sarid said on Monday "as long as the occupation and oppression persist, I suppose that the phenomenon of refusal, which I see as negative one, will become contagious among military units, especially throughout the elite forces."

"The army can enact disciplinary measures against the refuseniks," Sarid added, "The new refuseniks know by now that hard times are ahead for them, they saw the treatment that the pilots received, and yet they nevertheless decided to take a stand, which is a telling sign of their internal conviction."

MK Ophir Pines (Labor) said that in light of the letter, a serious discussion should be held on the issue.

Minister Effi Eitam, Chairman of the National Religious Party, said that he sees the letter as a break in Israeli society and that he expected the wave of refusal to grow.

Meretz MK Roman Bronfman called the letter a brave step intended to save israel from the occupation, while MK Shaul Yahalom (NRP) said that jail was the proper place for the signatories.

The Sayeret letter is the third such public declaration of reservists refusing to serve in the territories since the outset of the current intifada. In early 2002, the "Courage to Refuse" movement released a letter signed by reservist soldiers and officers refusing to serve in the territories, which to date has over 570 signatories. In September of this year, a group of Israel Air Force pilots announced their refusal to carry out air strikes in the territories.

</haaratez text>
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who served in the elite unit, said Sunday that "if people base their military service on their political opinions, be left-winged or right-winged, we won?t have an army or a state left. It is time to stop using military service as a political axe."
This is laughable on so many levels. Benji is the penultimate political partisan. Furtheremore, morality and political opinion rarely coincide . . . except the claims by various political hacks that they have a monopoly on moral superiority.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's a shame when societies consider loyalty to a country more important than loyalty to humankind.

Humankind includes terrorists, rapists, and murderers. I, personally, don't wish to be "loyal" to HUMANkind. I have standards for people to whom I'll be loyal and they include not supporting terrorism.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who served in the elite unit, said Sunday that "if people base their military service on their political opinions, be left-winged or right-winged, we won?t have an army or a state left. It is time to stop using military service as a political axe."
This is laughable on so many levels. Benji is the penultimate political partisan. Furtheremore, morality and political opinion rarely coincide . . . except the claims by various political hacks that they have a monopoly on moral superiority.

He's right and you're wrong. The military has a different code of conduct. These reserves shouldn't use it to further their political interests. If they want to protest, they should quit, then do so.

With all that said, I agree with their statement. Although it should be done outside of the confines of the military infrastructure.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Dari
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.


I never even meant for my words to mean that the Civil War was fought for Black People.. BUT you cannot deny that Black People were viewed MUCH differently in the wake of the Civil War... That is all I was saying. AND... during the Civil War there was a piece of paper created call the Emancipation Proclamation



 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.


Why do you find it insulting?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.


Why do you find it insulting?

Because Lincoln didn't give two squirts of piss about the slaves. They were a political after-thought. But history remembers Lincoln as if he actually gave a damn.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.


Why do you find it insulting?

Because Lincoln didn't give two squirts of piss about the slaves. They were a political after-thought. But history remembers Lincoln as if he actually gave a damn.



And that's insulting to you?
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: Dari
I find it insulting when people say that Lincoln's intentions were to free the slaves. He wanted to maintain the Union. In fact, Abraham Lincoln recommended to Frederick Douglas that the slaves should be sent back to Africa. Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here. Hell, they literally built this country. Lincoln doesn't deserve as much credit for the emancipation of slaves as most people give him.

Douglas rebuked him and made it quite clear that African Americans had every right to be here as anyone here.
True.
Hell, they literally built this country.
Umm no! they actually helped build this country along with every other nationality and ethnic group that came to this country in the past 200 yrs or so. Don't know where you got your American history education but to make the outrageous claim that African Americans literally built this country is ridiculous. Yuo are right on the primary part though. The civil war was fought to preserve the union. Abolishing slavery was more of an attack on the souths economy as part of the civil war.