Reserve Generals (Israeli) Back Unilateral Withdrawal

Panel rejects reservists' sedition
By Gideon Alon

The Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday unanimously approved a motion condemning the refusal of Israel Defense Forces reservists to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. The committee also called on any officers or reservists thinking of joining the refuseniks to reconsider the matter.

The committee's decision stated that serving in the IDF and carrying out the difficult tasks that the army was forced to execute, as part of the defense of Israel and its citizens, was a duty, as well as a democratic, moral and legal value. According to the committee, these are preconditions of Israel's existence as a democratic and peace-loving nation.

The chairman of the committee, MK David Magen (Center Party), said that refusing to serve could have a severely negative affect on the national morale. He added that Israel must not hand the Palestinians any moral victories in a war that the country had been coerced into. According to Magen, the Palestinians would recognize divisions in the nation's collective morale, and this recognition would, in turn, increase their attacks against Israel.

Only three members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee participated in yesterday's meeting, with MKs Ran Cohen (Meretz) and Colette Avital (Labor) both backing the motion.

Opposition leader MK Yossi Sarid (Meretz), however, came out against the motion, saying that while his party rejected the phenomenon, the committee had no right passing motions on a subject that was purely a matter for each individual soldier's conscience.

Sheetrit blasts former A-G Ben-Yair

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit lashed out yesterday at former attorney general Michael Ben-Yair, who has expressed his support of reservists who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. The justice minister said that refusing to serve in the territories was a criminal offense and that it was reprehensible for someone of Ben-Yair's standing to support such a blatantly illegal act.

"Anyone who refuses to serve is a draft-dodger," Sheetrit said yesterday, "and with all due respect, Ben-Yair has not been involved in the army for many years. I really cannot fathom why he would write such a letter [expressing his support for the refuseniks]. This is extraordinary impudence from a man who was once attorney general. He does not seem to understand that what someone in his position says carries weight and significance in international circles."

Sheetrit was speaking in Katzrin, where he officially opened the newly-refurbished district court, which was renovated at a cost of NIS 130,000. Sheetrit also visited the magistrates' courts in Safed and Kiryat Shmona, where he announced that renovation work would be started this year on four more court buildings, in Safed, Kiryat Shmona, Afula and Hadera.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Haaretz is a mainstream Israeli publication – not quite as biased (or untrustworthy) as Antiwar.com. I searched several of the main Israeli news services and found no references to this story of yours, glynch. I did, however find references to it on three communist/socialist websites... Hmmm...

Even if true (and that is in some doubt, if it cannot be verified), all this does is raise the ratio from 150:400,000 to 950:400,000 - you've still got a long way to go before your "pacifist tide" overwhelms Israeli opinion.

And for the thousandth time, there will be no peace until the suicide bombings stop. That is a certainty - there is no room for debate on that with a Sharon government. Your "unilateral withdrawal" movement will never win, especially since it probably represents less than 5% of the Israelis' views.

Oh, and I wouldn't post too many Antiwar.com articles if I were you. They are generally not that credible (one reason I knew you'd enjoy the site)...

 

Despite the "who's wrong and who's right" debate on this board, I feel that there is no wrong here. In fact, I would argue that both sides (the Israelis and the Palestinians) are correct. Both want to rule over a land which they both have a right to.

The Zionists wanted to escape persecution, hate and violence in Europe which is why they fought for the Jewish State. However, they are now fighting to keep a land in which they are persecuted, hated and victims (and a land that they weren't asking for to begin with). The Palestinians are no less victims. Land that they had inhabited for years was given away by the British to someone else.

What is so sad is that for hundreds of years prior to 1948, the Jews and Palestinians both occupied this land in peace and harmony. Both have the exact same claims to it and both are willing to die for that cause.

Did anyone see the PBS documentary "Arab & Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land"? What an absolutely incredible work, IMO. Israelis and Palestinians who used to be friends and play with each other became murderers. What I found most interesting is that a Palestinian man, who's house had been ran sacked and his wife beaten, is now friends with the man who attacked his family and life.

I do not think that either side will simply say enough and quit the killing. Our professor asked us today "why can't one side take their injury and not retaliate and say enough." I don't think it would solve anything. The other side would see them as weak and eradicate them. They won't quit for the same reasons the US went after Afghanistan after 9/11.

Sorry this really had nothing to do with those articles, but we just watched that movie today and I really wanted to say something about it. That and I couldn't believe that we discussed this exact question (and decided that it would never happen) in class and then glych posts an article that said just that. Credible or not, I won't truly believe it until I see it happen.

 

Treeman,

"Anyone who refuses to serve is a draft-dodger," Sheetrit said yesterday.

Some people might take that as a compliment.

 

Uh... treeman, any article that decribes the plan as 'sedition' in the title imediately raises concerns about it's fair, balanced views.

That having been said, I think I'm finally ready to admit that 'withdrawl' may not be a realistic option. I wonder, though, if Israel could, perhaps, utilise a plan involving withdrawl to legitimately take the moral high ground and impliment a military policy that might enable them to 'change the cognetive paradigm' of the Arabs, through total destruction of the culture of Hamas, and groups like it:

What would happen if Israel implimented a 'total withdrawl' from occupied lands, and basically told the Palestinian Authority that they were totaly autonomous, but that the smallest sign of agression would be seen as an act of war.

This would, at the same time, extract them from the nebulous position that they find themselves in, where they are, by virtue of international pressure, somewhat limited from doing anything decisive in Palestine, yet at the same time unable to withdraw due to security concerns.

It seems to me that the Israelies are in much the same position as the US is with Iraq (at least according to general public opinion, irrespective of the 'private governmental desires' against Iraq that you have argued for in the past). They have a problem that demands a total and final solution, but are forced to impliment a partial solution as a result of internal and external pressures. Unfortunately, it seems for both the US and the Israeli's, the partial solution only serves to further weaken their position.

The downside, of course, would be that the Israeli's would have to accept that they'd be attacked first, and to such a degree that they'd be placed in an unqestionable position of moral superiority. Also, the chance (nonexistant) chance exists that the Palestinian Authority would be able and willing to stop groups like Hamas from attacking the new Israel but, of course, while that would prevent them from ending the problem of Palestine by way of proactive action, it would in general end the very reason to have a war in the first place. Strategically, they'd be in a weaker position than now, but their stratigic position would be less important, at least in the short term.

 

But why should Israel withdraw? I see that they have just as much claim as the Palestinians.

Do they just get praise for taking the "moral high ground?" They would give up everything they have wanted and fought for.

Both sides are right. I think a plan has to come from both sides for anything to get done.

 

They might have an equal claim to Jerusalem, depending on how you look at it. They don't have an equal claim to most of the occupied territories, as I understand it.

 

The idea is that it might prevent some Arab countries -- like Egypt, whose government has a peace with Isreal, but for whom the general public view is anti-Israel, from being forced by public pressure to 'defend the poor, oppressed Palestinians' as a result of an Isreali attack.

 

In earlier times, both occupied the land. Both were peaceful neighbors. Both have religious interests in the land. Yes, the Jews left for a while, but who said they couldn't come back. In fact, they did come back before the Jewish State was named. It was not until it became Israel that there was a problem.


Here's the brief history. The Zionists wanted a Jewish State. They asked for other lands originally. Britian gave them Uganda instead. They didn't want that and were 'given' Israel. They did not simply go in and take it from the Palestinians. They really had no understanding that it might belong to someone else. England gave it to them. They think it's theirs.

How is their claim any less than the Palestinians' claim?

 

What? Are they stupid? They knew.

And Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish religion, the "land of milk and honey", this isn't the land they wanted?

 

Because before the artificial construction of Israel, the Palestinians had been there for centuries.

 

Actually....

In the '40's there were a number of Zionists who were in favor of persuing the other proposal for a Jewish state: the ones in North Africa. These were the 'ethnic' jews who weren't intrested in religious issues and who were intrested in a peacefull homeland for the Jews.

The religious Jews were the ones in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine, because of historic reasons, despite the potential for conflict with Arabs, who they understood saw Jeruslem as a (somewhat lesser) city of religious significance.

The historic and religious significance vs. the potential for lasting security were the original sources for any concern for the location of the Jewish state.

 

HayesStreet:

Draft dodger... LOL!

Ottomaton:

Excuse me, but 1) Haaretz actually is a fairly neutral publication (it's not state-owned, like the news the Palestinian side relies on) - you obviously have never heard of it (probably never read any Israeli news wires) and 2) it is sedition. Soldiers are not allowed to be conscientious objectors unless the order is to actually purposefully and specifically break a Geneva convention. They are disobeying orders - that is sedition.

Actually, I'd get ready to see something like this happen real soon anyway. Since the terrorists will not cease their activities, and Arafat is making to attempt to curb their activities, the Israelis are going to fix the problem themselves. They will likely totally destroy any and all terrorist groups, as well as remove Arafat from the picture. Afterwards, they can get down to the business of settlement of the issues and forming a plan to improve perceptions and live in peace.

That just can't happen as long as people are blowing up school buses - a strategic reality that glynch and his *tiny minority* of die hard pacifists fail to recognize.

You just described the Oslo process. This has already happened before. The problem has been that Hamas, Hizbollah, PFLP, etc do not recognize Israel's right to exist, and sent suicide bombers and hit men even after the Israelis pulled out (as they have repeatedly done). The Israelis keep getting sucked back in because the ******* Palestinian terrorist groups won't stop attacking them.

That's really why this whole "unilateral withdrawal" idea is just a sham - they have done it before. They have been trying to do so since 1993, but they keep getting attacked...

haven:

Depends on what you call "equal claim" If it was who is there first, then the Jews have that one. If it's who lives there now, then it's the Palestinians. If it's who did it belong to before the Isrraelis took it, then it is Jordan's.

There has never been a Palestinian state, so they actually have the least claim to it... But they do live there, of course, so it is effectively theirs (since Jordan ain't gettin' it back).

 

Ottoman,

You are right. The movement was called "Modern Political Zionism" though. It was a political and a religious move. Herzl proposed a site (which I can't remember off-hand, but I'll know it by Thursday) and it was rejected by the Brits. Uganda was offered and supported by some Jews and Herzl himself. Some Jews did reject it because it had no Jewish significance. And that is why Israel was chosen. They did overlook the fact that someone else might be there, according to my prof.

There was another group of Jews who didn't want the state formed at all. They didn't think man could form the Jewish State. They believed that God would send his messenger to take them to their state.

Like I said though, both have religious claim. Both have lived there, in peace I might add, for many many years. Treeman is right. There was never a Palestinian state. In that aspect, the Jews have a claim because they actually have a state. Before, it was Jordan.

 

How bad would it suck if you and your next door neighbor spent the last 50 years shooting at each other? Fact is, you'd probably both be hauled off to jail.

 

"Statehood," especially in that region, is a recent concept. And aren't Arabs and Israelis, genetically speaking, the same stock?

 

BTW, if anyone is truly interested in a way to realistically end the violence (that does not include unconditional withdrawal, but does contain a cessation of terrorist attacks), here's the Mitchell Report:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm

haven:

Genetic stock? Good Lord... I declare Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland to be mine, because I have their genetic stock in me! They're mine, I tell you! Mine!!!!

 

haven,

You're right. It was all ruled under the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years (with the exception of Iran and Egypt I believe for part of it).

As far as being from the same stock, I'm not sure, but I think it's possible. All Arabs are not Muslims and all Muslims are not Arabs. That I know.

Like I said before, they lived very long with peace together. The creation of the Jewish State is the problem. That says the Zionists have the right to rule the area. That's where the conflict lies. Neither groups minded sharing the land before the creation. However, I do not think they could go back to that now. This generation is being raised to hate the other group. If anything, it's probably going to become more extreme because all either side teaches is hate.

I feel like I have a very unbiased opinion. We are studying this as I speak. I did go in supporting Israel. Now, I still support Israel, but I support the Palestinians as well. Both are right. Both have equal claim.

You can place blame anywhere. It can be groups of the Ottoman Empire for making bad decisions which led to the fall. You can blame the British for causing the fall of the Empire. You can blame the Jews for leaving. You can blame the Jews for returning. You can blame the Jews for wanting a state. You can blame some of the Jews for not taking Uganda. You can blame the British for not giving them their first choice (still don't have it but I'll get it). You can blame the British for giving Israel. You can blame the Palestinians for claiming land that was not recognized by the West. You can blame the Arab nations for supporting the Palestinians.

Before all of this though, the Jews and the Palestinians did NOT hate each other. They lived together until 1948 in relative peace. The Jews did not ask for the state to hurt the Palestinians. The wanted to avoid hatred and violence in Europe only to incur hatred and violence in the Promised Land.

I would recommend that documentary to anyone who wants to further their understanding. It talks to people from both sides, from my generation to people living there pre-1948, immigrants to the land and natives.

 

glynch:

Actually, if you paid more attention, someone else would have shown you the site. An article from someone else was addressed to you in another post a few days ago... Apparently you didn't read the article.

Did you find a RedRevolution.org? Just curious...