A mission too far

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4408032,00.html

Monday May 6, 2002


Dear Ben Eliezer

I must put in writing the reasons that have led me to one of the most difficult decisions of my life - to refuse the call for reserve duty in the areas of Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], and the Gaza Strip.

This decision was difficult for two reasons. First and foremost is a matter of principle: I believe that living in a democracy offers equal parts privilege and obligation, and that it is my duty to adhere to the decisions made by majority rule, barring exceptional circumstances. The second reason is that over many years of reserve duty, I have not only served a very important cause, but also formed close bonds with the soldiers in my company and battalion. It is extremely difficult to imagine them serving on dangerous missions while I sit at home.

Despite this, the current situation leaves me no choice but to refuse. The citizen's conscience provides a critical foundation for the checks and balances inherent in a democracy. Israel has done more than grant citizens full rights to protest against injustices. By including the concept of "a clearly illegal command" in the code of military law, it has obliged its soldiers to refuse to carry out orders that are immoral or opposed to the values on which a democracy is based.

As I see it, this concept means that when a soldier is issued with a command opposed to his moral values, he must refuse to obey it, report the event, and ensure that such orders will not be repeated. A soldier who does not do so cannot escape being held morally responsible by claiming that he only carried out orders, but can expect to be tried for his actions. This law indicates that the military and the state see the soldier as an autonomous moral being, who must carry out commands only if they pass his moral scrutiny.

The most critical question that arises is "what exactly is an illegal command?" What is immoral as opposed to just inconvenient or unpleasant, and into which category does the current situation in the territories fall?

An order to fire on a child standing before a roadblock is clearly illegal. But if the order is to shoot above his head to chase him from the roadblock, does the emotional damage the shooting causes the child make the order illegal? Is it illegal to continually enter Palestinian citizens' homes in the middle of the night? Is it illegal to prevent the free movement of Palestinian citizens? Aren't the searches, the humiliation, our many mistakes, an indication that our treatment of the Palestinian population under our rule is clearly illegal?

Military law does not define what a clearly illegal order is, but leaves it to the soldier. My interpretation of the law does not limit it to orders involving attacking, killing or injuring people. Rather, it includes any command that, when obeyed, leads to humiliating human beings, robbing them of self-respect, and depriving them of the basic human rights protected under the UN declaration of human rights, a document signed by Israel.

I used to believe there was a purpose to my presence in the territories. I believed the solutions I offered would prevent problems. Today, I believe my presence cannot solve those problems and that the orders issued are illegal because they deprive the Palestinian population of its basic rights and freedoms.

Prohibiting Palestinians from travelling along roads without providing alternative routes, the never-ending delays at roadblocks, the many hours required to travel short distances, the humiliation, the destruction of homes, the incessant searches, the need to aim weapons at innocent women and children - all these actions turn the Israeli Defence Force into an immoral occupying force, and in these I refuse to participate.

These actions on the part of the IDF provide no protection to Israel. They protect only the settlements built on conquered territory, where Israel has no right to establish settlements. The friction with the Palestinian population is caused by the need to provide settlers with freedom of movement, not by the need to prevent suicide bombers entering Israeli territory. As long as Israel continues to hold the settlements, it will be forced to act immorally toward the Palestinian population.

In addition to the great harm we are causing daily to Palestinians, we damage ourselves as a society. Our society is based on moral precepts in Judaism, which states that "loved is a person created in God's image". Instead, we are raising a generation of violent young people immune to pain and human suffering, a generation who don't see in the Palestinian a human being, only part of a mass to be avoided and feared. We are raising a generation that stops pregnant women, old people and children from getting to hospital.

I am very sorry that things have reached this point. I would be very glad to serve the IDF on any mission entrusted to us, as long as its objective is not connected with subduing the Palestinian population under our rule.

Sincerely,

Captain Haim Weiss

Haim Weiss, 32, is a captain in the tank corps and served in the IDF for four years during his military service. He is completing a PhD in Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

flame as you wish if you want, good read though from someone who knows
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
I'd bet it's the real deal. Out of how many thousands of Israeli soldiers are fighting, it makes sense that at least a few of them would go public with anti-war views. Besides, I've heard of reservists declining to take part in military action before.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Dudd
I'd bet it's the real deal. Out of how many thousands of Israeli soldiers are fighting, it makes sense that at least a few of them would go public with anti-war views. Besides, I've heard of reservists declining to take part in military action before.


All supposition....prove it!
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
Actually this is something that has been getting coverage for a while. There's a growing list of IDF soliders signing their names to the anti-settlement position, some even high ranking.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Tominator, I don't know about this letter, but it would suprise me if it were not real. A few weeks ago NPR had a show with some of the objectors on it. The letter reflects the jist of what others I have heard have said.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
Well there were IDF soldiers on some TV show like 60 Minutes or 20/20, I forget, who were saying the exact same thing. It's hardly supposition.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Tominator, I don't know about this letter, but it would suprise me if it were not real. A few weeks ago NPR had a show with some of the objectors on it. The letter reflects the jist of what others I have heard have said.


I'd bet there are US Military Personel not convinced that their mission in other countries is completely legit. This does not mean that the mission's aims are not attainable or moral in their finality and that that individual has or may change that or other opinions in the course of that mission.

Media prints exerpts of one person's opinion and not the complete view of that person and some will jump all over that one opinion like it was gospel! Isreal is a democratic state unlike every one of their protagonists. They are somewhat free to state opinions without fear of state sponsored censor unlike any other country in the region.

The so-called quote seems a little, NO a lot, one sided and I've seen the like posted and received in emails hundreds of times without one shred of proof or reference includeing any type of biographical information on the supposed author.

People's opinions change with time and with the influence of their surroundings. Given the current situation in the Middle East do you not think there is considerable doubt and distress over the happenings? Ask any Soldier from any country and in any war!

It is human nature and a part of human's unique 'Godliness' that unlike the other inhabitants of this planet, are able to discern right from wrong and able to doubt oneself but carry on to the better although that might be evident at the time.

I digress, BOGUS person making the statement unless I hear him and see him say it!

My Mother gave me some very good advice. Believe in nothing that you hear about someone and only half of what you see. I've seen no proof what-so-ever!
 

junkyardDawg

Senior member
Oct 11, 2001
300
0
0
I don't doubt that there are some with these views in the IDF, there are opposing views in every society. strange that you never hear such from a Palestinian
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Isn't it nice to live in a country where you can disagree with the government and not get shot. Now only if the Palestinians could do that...
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Isn't it nice to live in a country where you can disagree with the government and not get shot. Now only if the Palestinians could do that...
The government doesn't have to do it...remember the story of Palestinians getting shot for dissenting (or being accused of aiding Israel)?

 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Isn't it nice to live in a country where you can disagree with the government and not get shot. Now only if the Palestinians could do that...
The government doesn't have to do it...remember the story of Palestinians getting shot for dissenting (or being accused of aiding Israel)?

I believe that most Palestinians are good people who work hard and want whats best for their families. Just like most Germans in Nazi Germany. Some people were Nazis, but most Germans, but however the Nazis controlled everything. Arafat is no different.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
some of the responses here =
rolleye.gif


sad sad sad how some people react to this
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
sad sad sad how some people react to this

It probably is a legitimate letter. I assuming that he is one of the "Refuseniks" I have heard about.
He probably will suck on a court martial. You have a right (actually an obligation in the U.S. military) to refuse an illegal order. Refusing a call up is cowardly. You cannot refuse an order in anticipation of a future illegal order that is not imminently illegal.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
sad sad sad how some people react to this

It probably is a legitimate letter. I assuming that he is one of the "Refuseniks" I have heard about.
He probably will suck on a court martial. You have a right (actually an obligation in the U.S. military) to refuse an illegal order. Refusing a call up is cowardly. You cannot refuse an order in anticipation of a future illegal order that is not imminently illegal.

all militery operations in palestine are illegal according to international law as far as I know so they have every right to refuse any order that involves palestine.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
all militery operations in palestine are illegal according to international law as far as I know so they have every right to refuse any order that involves palestine.

Do you really want to hang your hat on that statement? If you do, I will eat your liver (only on the forum). ;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
all militery operations in palestine are illegal according to international law as far as I know so they have every right to refuse any order that involves palestine.

Do you really want to hang your hat on that statement? If you do, I will eat your liver (only on the forum). ;)
allright, do you want it delivered by DHL or UPS? it might not be that fresh when you get it so I suggest you cook it before you eat it ;)

anyway
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020312/5/ktm1.html
and
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020502/ap_wo_en_ge/us_mideast_1706
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), who was in Washington Thursday conferring with Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) about the Arab-Israeli conflict, has called Israel's occupation illegal.

Bush did not, and only one president, Jimmy Carter, has called the occupation illegal.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), who was in Washington Thursday conferring with Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) about the Arab-Israeli conflict, has called Israel's occupation illegal.
Exactly how many divisions are available to Kofi Annan to enforce this so called international law?

Bush did not, and only one president, Jimmy Carter, has called the occupation illegal.
This would be the same Jimmy Carter that had the US sitting around like a befuddled child when Menachim Begin was allowing settlements in the occupied territories?
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
This would be the same Jimmy Carter that had the US sitting around like a befuddled child when Menachim Begin was allowing settlements in the occupied territories?

And the same Carter that is now taking Salsa lessons from Castro this week.

:)Don't worry Czar, I haven't forgot about your liver. :)
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
all militery operations in palestine are illegal according to international law as far as I know so they have every right to refuse any order that involves palestine.
Please quote the applicable international law regarding occupied territories. We're not even talking about a nation here since the so-called "Palestinians" refused that when they were given the opportunity.

BTW, I don't disagree with this "letter", although I have a feeling it might find its way to Snopes, but one letter does not a policy make. Sure, there is dissenting opinion on the part of some Israelis regarding actions in the occupied territories, but there is much more sentiment amongst Israelis that they are taking appropriate action.

And as far as reactions in this thread goes, what were you expecting? We'd all sit around and suddenly smack our palms to our heads saying, "Of course, why couldn't we see this before? My god, someone has a dissenting opinion! They must be right!"

If you remember, we had dissenting opinion in the U.S. about actions towards Bin Hidin and Afganistan following the World Trade Center attack. Some foolish people wanted to negotiate peace with terrorists, claiming that we needed to better understand these misguided people. I'll happily thank our government for not changing their policy on one person's stupid opinions.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Please quote the applicable international law regarding occupied territories. We're not even talking about a nation here since the so-called "Palestinians" refused that when they were given the opportunity.
reason for their refusal, think you are talking about this one
map of the proposal
Reasons given by Jewish Voices Against the Occupation
http://www.jvao.org/FullAdText.htm
Why no Palestinian could accept Barak's "Generous Offers":
* Barak reportedly offered the Palestinians 90% of the Occupied Territories. But with the West Bank "settlement blocs" (10%) and land in the Jerusalem area that Israel would "annex," together with a "security zone" stretching along the Jordan River and southward, over 25% of Palestinian land would remain under Israeli control. (Remember that the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem comprise only 22% of pre-1948 Palestine.)
* Israel would also supervise all border crossings in and out of Palestine, control its air space and main water supply, and indefinitely retain military and civil control of the "security zone."
* No viable state could result from this offer: Israeli "settlement blocs" would incorporate Palestinian villages with about 90,000 inhabitants and much of the West Bank's fertile land. These "blocs" would cut the Palestinian state into three separate segments connected only by narrow strips of land.
* Barak's offer addressed neither the question of the 61 Israeli settlements located within the future Palestine nor the issue of Israeli control over the 300 miles of bypass roads built throughout the Occupied Territories.
* Barak reportedly offered Palestinians sovereignty over some outlying Jerusalem suburbs and administrative control over other neighborhoods near the city center, but no details were supplied. Israel would exercise sovereignty over Haram Al-Sharif, Islam's third holiest site.
* Palestinian refugees would renounce the right to return from exile (except to the Palestinian state) or to be compensated for their losses and suffering.
* At the Taba talks in January 2001, Barak made offers that were possibly more acceptable to Palestinians, but political developments in Israel made it impossible to pursue negotiations further.

BTW, I don't disagree with this "letter", although I have a feeling it might find its way to Snopes, but one letter does not a policy make. Sure, there is dissenting opinion on the part of some Israelis regarding actions in the occupied territories, but there is much more sentiment amongst Israelis that they are taking appropriate action.
I saw on the local teletext last week I belive that about 60% of Israelis are against these "appropriate actions"

And as far as reactions in this thread goes, what were you expecting? We'd all sit around and suddenly smack our palms to our heads saying, "Of course, why couldn't we see this before? My god, someone has a dissenting opinion! They must be right!"
I'm surprised only over those who automaticly thought this was fake, nothing else.

If you remember, we had dissenting opinion in the U.S. about actions towards Bin Hidin and Afganistan following the World Trade Center attack. Some foolish people wanted to negotiate peace with terrorists, claiming that we needed to better understand these misguided people. I'll happily thank our government for not changing their policy on one person's stupid opinions.
one person? far from it
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=784459
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Czar, no, I'm not talking about Camp David or anything else following the Six Day war. I'm talking about the rejection, by the Arabs along with a complete refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a state of Israel, of UN Resolution 181 regarding the partition of the Palestinian region. Had they accepted this partition plan, there would now be a nation of whatever the refugees called themselves, assuming their loving Arab brethren would allow them to be a nation, which is highly doubtful.

I would also refute your estimate of the Israeli population against "appropriate action". I'd like to see what context you are referring to. I'm talking about military retaliation for suicide bombing; what are you referring to?

And you posted this letter from one person. I'm assuming you expected reaction regarding one person's letter and one person's opinion. Is this just to say that "Look, here is another one that doesn't agree with Israeli politics."? I'll agree, here is another that doesn't like the political situation, but he is just one person. If you had posted a letter signed by 60,000 persons, then that would be open to greater discussion.

Look, I don't so much disagree with you, but I'd like to see your references to international law stating that military action is illegal. I think the Israelis have made many mistakes but my perspective is from what they did following the Six Day war and onwards, not just recent actions. However, it is with recent actions that we must be concerned. I agree with you that the Israelis continue to make mistakes, no contention with you there, but I also know the Palestinians provoke many of those mistakes.

Talking about the settlements, it's easy to say pull out; much harder to just do so. And what about Palestinians living in Israel? Are they forced to leave to go to their new Palestinian home. What about the "Right to Return"? If the Israelis can't live in the new Palestine then surely the Palestinians have no right to exist on Israeli land.

I do agree that as long as Sharon and Arafat hold the respective reigns, no peace is likely to come and in the meantime, this senseless killing is what we get to watch on the 11:00 news. Pretty sad any way you look at it.