Israeli police target young people for refusing military service

Israeli police target young people for refusing military service

By Jean Shaoul
21 May 2009

Last month, in scenes reminiscent of a coordinated sweep on dangerous organised criminals, Israeli police mounted a country-wide raid of people active in Target 21, a draft resistance group, and searched their homes citing “incitement to draft evasion”. They seized computers and documents, and detained seven people for interrogation. The police branded the refuseniks, as those who refuse to serve in Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are called, as “draft shirkers”.

Timing the raid on the day before Israel’s Memorial Day for those killed in military action, the police sought to exploit the emotions of families who had lost loved ones in Israel’s wars and military assaults on the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours to brand the young anti-military activists as beyond the Pale.

The seven, who included a 70-year-old artist, a retired nurse and a 20-year-old activist, are suspected of operating Web sites that they claim actively promote “incitement to draft dodging”, an offence punishable under Israeli law by up to five years in jail. They were released after questioning on the condition that they do not associate with blacklisted activist groups.

The police followed this up with early morning raids on the homes of 10 activists from New Profile, a feminist group that has for more than a decade opposed the militarisation of Israeli society, seizing computers and interrogating the activists. When New Profile supporters turned up to protest outside a police station in Tel Aviv, the police beat their way through the crowd and made a further eight arrests.

New Profile and Target 21 (21 refers to the IDF’s code for those deemed unfit to serve) are two of the draft resistance groups that are now proliferating in Israel. They post tips on their Web sites about how to evade military service via medical or other exemptions. They insist on their loyalty to Israel and commitment to Zionism, limiting themselves to a call to the pre-1967 borders and co-existence of two states, Israel and Palestine.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/isra-m21.shtml

Of course, we aren't ducking missiles on a daily basis.

"Pre-1967 borders." Do they also apologize for breathing?

There's nothing moral or justifiable in what the IDF is doing, and there's nothing progressive in it. The Occupation is purely right-wing and so was Operation Cast Lead. Those young people would be giving up all their principles if they DID join the forces.

That would be an area Israel could realistically defend if necessary(it can't effectively defend the West Bank)and that would be what was realistically needed to get Palestinians to make peace.

Why hang onto anything taken in '67, when doing so clearly makes the situation much more unstable?

And, in what branch did you serve here?

"Pardon me comrade, may I see your papers" can't be far behind.

I get it. If you don't like the law you encourage breaking it. But if you like the law - you'd better be keeping straight!

Doesn't smell like democracy to me.

I guess that isn't the case in Israel.

I guess they need to force young people to act as bodyguards for the thuggish pogromist settlers.

Honestly, what a ridiculous assertion you make. The law in Israel is that everyone is conscripted at age 18. There are certain provisos, legal ways of deferment etc. - not just for the ultra-Orthodox, but for academics too.

If there is a law, one must keep it. If you break it, expect to be punished. That is democracy.

You don't like it? Vote for the parties who are against the draft (if you can find such a thing in Israel). No party? Found one and run for election. That's democracy.

These people are not engaging in "free association". They are inciting to break the law by encouraging people to avoid the draft. They got punished. Stop whining.

"to act as bodyguards for the thuggish pogromist settlers."

Ah, yes. Israel has no enemies at all. Israel doesn't really need an army. Only the settlers need protecting. Hizbollah doesn't really threaten the north of Israel. Lebanon is not really in a state of war with Israel. Syria doesn't really want the Golan back. Syria is not really aligned with Iran. Iran doesn't really want to destroy Israel. Hamas in Gaza only sends over roses and rainbows. Missiles? Whoever heard of such a thing. All of Israel's neighbours just love it. Love it to death.

It's very rare that I've encountered anyone but conservatives who have such a devout insistance that a law must be adhered to when that law is conscription...

Also, what's a ridiculous assertion is yrs in response to geek tragedy pointing out that conscripts have to act as bodyguards for the thuggish pogromist settlers. The West Bank is where many end up, and the comment wasn't about needing an army, but for some reason known only to yrself, you've created that strawman. Maybe it's because you take offense at the extremist settlers that you so vehemently defend here at DU being called thuggish, but it's a fact that troops are expected to 'protect' extremist settlers, especially when they're attacking innocent Palestinian civilians...

You pro-Palestinian guys are the first ones to accuse Israel of not adhering to international law regarding settlements. So suddenly when a law is Israeli and not international it is OK to encourage breaking it.

Why is my statement about GT's comment ridiculous? He asserts that conscripts are needed to protect settlers (I will ignore the disgusting epithets. Talk about generalisations!). I state that conscripts are needed for the IDF. If you can find something ridiculous in that claim I'd like to hear what it is. Do you claim that Israel does not need an army? That if it were not for the settlers all would be puppy dogs and rainbows?

Maybe you missed it, what with it being hidden in the title of the post? Or maybe you were busy thinking up stupid 'questions' that make sense only to you. Then again, you've always ignored my questions when I've asked you whether you support a two-state solution and to clarify yr very symnpathetic sounding comments about extremist thuggish settlers....

Why yr statement was ridiculous was because conscipts are used in the West Bank to 'protect' those thuggish and violent extremists (and as for yr taking offense about calling them what they are, I'll say the same to you that I'd say to someone who objects to Palestinian militants being called what they are - tough fucking shit if you can't handle the truth), and for the vast majority of those who refuse to serve, they make it very clear that their opposition to serving is due to the occupation of the Palestinians. I know there's refuseniks who have no problem serving, but refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories, and they're imprisoned as well when the Israeli govt goes through its sporadic coming down tough stages....

Your comment about Vietnam? I have absolutely no opinion at all on the subject. I grew up in England and was a child when the US withdrew. Unlike some people here, I do not comment on subjects I know nothing about.

As to your assertion - so what if conscripts are used to protect settlers? They are also used to protect Israeli cities, towns, borders, installations.

Regarding the draft evaders - as I have said, they are breaking the law. So, to quote your very fine words, tough shit if they get arrested. The OP was about Israeli law enforcement arresting people who incite to draft evasion. And as I said, if they break the law they should expect to be punished. I really can't see what is so controversial about it.

Again, you state that their fine high reasons for evading the draft are because of the occupation. But no one in Israel's law enforcement authorities really gives a shit why they're evading the draft. Perhaps they're just scared cowards. Perhaps they're against the occupation. Perhaps they're against the existence of the state of Israel and think it would be a good thing for it to be overrun by the Arabs. Who knows? Who cares? They're braking the law and that is the subject that I addressed.

As to what I think about a two-state solution. That is for me to know and for you to guess. It's none of your business and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. What I do know is that I live with the consequences, not you. So preach all you want. Water off a duck's back.

Wow. I've yet to meet a single person who doesn't have an opinion on the subject. It's not like it's an obscure topic or anything like that, and anyone who claims to know nothing about it mustn't know much about anything at all and have lived their life in some sort of cocoon...


As to your assertion - so what if conscripts are used to protect settlers?

It's not an assertion. It's a FACT that soldiers are used as bodyguards for extremist settlers. Are you really so enamoured of those thuggish settler terrorists that you fail to understand that for people who are opposed to the occupation, having to do that would be something that they'd do what they could to avoid? From yr comment, you appear to think those settlers have every right to have their bodyguards on hand while they attack Palestinian civilians....

Again, you state that their fine high reasons for evading the draft are because of the occupation. But no one in Israel's law enforcement authorities really gives a shit why they're evading the draft. Perhaps they're just scared cowards. Perhaps they're against the occupation. Perhaps they're against the existence of the state of Israel and think it would be a good thing for it to be overrun by the Arabs. Who knows? Who cares?

For someone who claims not to care, you sure can trot out rather pathetic opinions on why you think people are refusing to serve. And all that silly supposition despite the FACT that it's been made very clear that most who refuse to serve do so because of their being against the occupation. Gosh, and weren't you saying just earlier that you don't comment on subjects you don't know anything about? Sure changed yr tune halfway through yr post. Anyway, here's something which explains the refusal to serve:

We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.

http://www.seruv.org.il/defaultEng.asp

As to what I think about a two-state solution. That is for me to know and for you to guess. It's none of your business and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. What I do know is that I live with the consequences, not you. So preach all you want. Water off a duck's back.

Preach? Is that what you call asking someone on a discussion forum a question directly related to the forum? I don't really get why yr so defensive about what was a very simple question that not one other person in this forum has any issue with expressing their opinion about, but if you want to do some man of mystery routine and play silly buggers, don't go getting all bent out of shape when people come to their own conclusions based on yr posts and yr rather appalling generalisations of the Palestinian population....

if he is one of the settlers of which you speak. Regardless, while I can't be sure, the evidence leads me to believe that henank is not in favor of a two-state solution.

No one is resisting the draft out of cowardice. Even in Israel you could probably find a way to get out of it if you just didn't want to fight(you could spend years abroad in grad school or just plain leave).

And if you're against a two-state solution, you're admitting that you never want peace, because you know it is impossible to have a peaceful ending to this conflict WITHOUT a Palestinian state. You KNOW that the Palestinians can never be made to accept as permanent a choice between living in statelessness or living in exile. You know that...so why even pretend otherwise?

Do you want your descendants to be soldiers unto their tenth generation? Do you get off on perpetual war?

Everything that's happened is because they've been denied a state. The denial of Palestinian self-determination is why it's been impossible for the rest of the Arab to come to full peace with Israel(you know they couldn't have done so without a Palestinian state and that it was always unreasonable to expect elsewise).

Those young people are taking a moral stand. They'd lose their morality if they joined the Gaza war.

Israel wouldn't need a permanently militarized society if it didn't oppress the Palestinians

Two things.

1. Israel is still fighting proxy Arab leadership, supported regionally, that is heavily influenced by Mufti al Hussayni type ideology that you admittedly deplore. They will never stop oppressing Israelis (Jews).

2. The goal of occupation is not to "oppress" Palestinians.

Everything that's happened is because they've been denied a state.

Nonsense.

As you read in a prior thread, there was cooperation between Jews and Palestinians before Mufti al Hussayni was installed against Palestinian will. Ever since then, thugs like him have been in charge and supported by terror leadership regionally. The reason there is no state is because Palestinians have unfortunately (not that you care) been at the mercy of this kind of leadership ever since the grand Mufti, a leadership that you know is, and has always been, despicable. Just as the Mufti destroyed all moderate opposition to his will, so has Palestinian leadership ever since (like Arafat and Hamas for example). How do you expect Israel to make peace with a regressive and murderous regime that kills off all its moderate factions most likely to cut a peace deal with Israel?

The denial of Palestinian self-determination is why it's been impossible for the rest of the Arab to come to full peace with Israel(you know they couldn't have done so without a Palestinian state and that it was always unreasonable to expect elsewise).

Please.

Mufti al-Hussayni, his comrades and his admirers in that region don't give a flying fuck about Palestinians or their national aspirations, and they never have. For all they care, Palestinians can remain in shitty refugee camps forever as their pawns. They want Israel destroyed, as they always have wanted and stated ad infinitum. Same meme as 80 years ago with the Mufti. No peaceful 2-state solution. They will never give up Right of Return, meaning YES they want 2 states, but with the Israeli state they want Right of Return in order to make that Arab majority (with Iran/S.Arabia proxy leadership) and therefore no more Israel as we know it.

Those young people are taking a moral stand. They'd lose their morality if they joined the Gaza war.

These young people may be willing to live with the repurcussions of a unilateral withdrawal from the W.Bank. They may not mind grads and katyushas dropping on Tel Aviv. They may not mind something worse than OCL once Israel is forced to respond against the W.Bank as they did Gaza recently. But most people who want to live in peace do mind. There is nothing moral about refusing to defend innocent Israelis.

I'll ask you point blank right now.

Was Gaza withdrawal 2005 the moral thing for Israel to do considering the rise of Hamas and recently, OCL? Think about it before you give some knee-jerk response. Has Gaza withdrawal been good for Palestinians? Seriously.

Now consider the W.Bank and the inevitable repurcussions on Palestinians there once the IDF withdraws. Hamas will take charge (you think that's a good thing?) and rockets will fly but this time into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel's military response will be MUCH stronger...bottom line, not good. Is that a preferable situation to you? Would you take moral responsibility for such a situation - if all your friends and family lived in that area, you'd be just fine with Hamas ruling your family and friends, bombing your family and friends in Tel Aviv, etc..?

to produce a POSITIVE change in "the Palestinian leadership". They can't be beaten into being better.

But then, you live in Boston, so probably all you know about the current situation is what you read on Ynet and in Commentary.

In any case its not just about that, its also about protecting Israels citizens. Israel has been under threats since its begining, its surrounded by Arab countries who outnumber Israel 100-1 and have waged numerous wars. Before their was an occupation Israel was still targeted with threats, terrorism and war. The occupation is due to Israel defending itself in the first place. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and immediatly more rockets were fired taking advantage of the better position to hit targets in Israel. Various Palestinian groups including the elected Hamas still call for the destruction of Israel and say there will never be peace. The Palestinians cant even agree among themselves or have the ability to control all the factions to make a peace. Pulling to the green line leaves all Israels population centers in range of rockets
Why should Israel pull out under fire and give its enemies even better opportunities to attack with the ability to put all the major population centers in range when there is no group able to deliver and enforce a peace and a major portion that does not want peace anyway. What have the Palestinians done to show the Israelis that there is nothing to worry about if they take such a risk because given Israel long history of wars waged to destroy it and countless terror attacks it certainly has reason to be skeptical and cautious as any country would. Whatever Gaza was the fact that the rocket fire immediatly increased as soon as Israel pulled out does not show Israel that there is nothing to worry about.

Obviously you never lived in a country that lived under threat since its begining, that was surrounded by enemies that outnumber it 100-1, that fought numerous wars forits very existence, that has been subjected to unrelenting terror attacks year after year and that is under unrelenting rocket and mortar fire on its communities. No country would tolerate what Israel has but its easy for you to say they should when you just get what you know from some anti Israel, politically biased or ignorant source. You dont have to worry about you family or children coming under attack so its easy for you to advocate putting others at risk and judge them as well.

But what YOU aren't getting is that it's the inflexibility and the recklessness of the Israeli government's actions towards Palestinians that have cause this as much as anything else.

The "settler movement" that started putting Israeli civilians into the Occupied lands(in violation of international law) was invented in 1973 by Ariel Sharon, the same man who pulled the settlers out of Gaza three decades later.

Sharon used and endangered those people for short-term "security" objectives, and in doing so created an insane religious/colonialist mentality among them that has cost the lives of more IDF troops than you'd care to think of. Those settlers have been the best recruiting officers Hamas and "the martyrs" ever had.

The "separation wall", which supposedly offers such great protection to Israelis, was unconscionably designed to run though Palestinian areas and cut off innocent Palestinians from parts of their own property. It has stoked anger among the people living near it that will inevitably explode in horrific ways unless the injustices visited on them are brought to an end and apologies and compensation are provided.

If you keep provoking a people, any people, anywhere, keep that people in a state of subjugation, deny that people the right of self-determination(a right Palestinians could only have in a state in Palestine), you will create more and more rage among that people.

As to your World War II example and the others, there is a massive difference between this case and the situations you mentioned.
In the previous cases, outright military defeat of the "enemy" was possible. Here, it isn't and it will never be.

The interests of the Israeli people lie in having the conflict end. The interests of the Israeli military-industrial complex lie in having the conflict go on forever, because that military-industrial complex, just like the one in the states, knows it would become irrelevant and unnecessary if Israel were at peace. It's that military-industrial complex that is Israel's true enemy, NOT the Palestinians.

It's time for Israelis to stop trusting the people who aren't on their side: their own "leaders". The leaders want this misery to just keep going on.

Simple question, Ken.

If al Hussayni were allowed to keep governing the PA territories until his death in 1974 (and his hand-picked successors were still alive today ruling) do you believe peace would be as possible as now, less possible, impossible?

Just asking.

If life weren't be continually being made worse for those followers in the way it is now. If people are perpetually harassed, provoked, regimented, goaded, they are going to respond to this in ways that are less and less pleasant. Who wouldn't?

Al-Husayni is dead now, and he no longer matters.

charge of Palestinian territories until his death in 1974.

And you think I'm unrealistic and extreme.

Stop digging him up already.

Whether it's Hamas, Arafat, or Hitler's Mufti in charge of Palestinians and terrorizing the Jews of Israel, it hardly makes a difference to you. Israel is to blame.

The Mufti was not a proponent of Palestinian nationalism, and in NO WAY would have worked towards a 2-state peaceful solution (believing that is a joke) but this was my point in bringing the hypothetical situation up. His "successors" - even if not directly handpicked by the Mufti - like Arafat (his nephew who adored him) and Hamas (fellow Muslim brotherhood members like al Hussayni) aren't that significantly different ideologically from al Hussayni and are backed by the very same regressive forces in the Arab world NOW as al Hussayni was back then, which unfortunately, as long as the situation remains unchanged, makes even regional Arab peace with Israel a VERY remote possibility:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=275245&mesg_id=275353

So if the Mufti were left in charge and Arafat/Hamas were his handpicked successors (yes, just a hypothetical Ken) Israel is still to blame, right?

And here's a REAL eye-opener that will make your blood boil regarding the Mufti and his Western supporters (by John Loftus - same guy who connected the Bush family to Nazis)...

http://www.tuks.nl/docs/John%20Loftus%20-%20The%20Muslim%20Brotherhood,%20Nazis%20and%20Al-Qaeda.pdf.

Kinda explains Israel's animosity (some terror attacks) against the Brits back in the 1930's-40's, doesn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After all, this is what Israel has been dealing with well before 1948. Are we to pretend none of that is relevant?

It would be enough to have them serve at the Lebanon border or the Golan Heights, or at posts that are actually within the Israeli border.

Why should anyone have to serve in the Occupation or the Gaza War if they feel it that what's being done there is morally wrong? In serving in those places they'd be obliged to blindly do anything their commanders told them to do and check their conscience and morals at the door, just like any other army makes its troops do.

Militaries would fall apart if that were the case.

If they feel what is being done is immoral than they should refuse to serve and face the consequences. Choosing to do what they only agree with is not an option.

really be any worse than letting the Ultra-Orthodox avoid military service entirely by pretending to be "going to yeshiva"?

Why should religious extremism exempt a person from serving in the war machine but not individual conscience?

territories and inside Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (likely places to see bombs/rockets and the next OCL due to withdrawal)?

I dont like religious exemptions to the degree they have in Israel at all.

Selective refusal of military service or duty is not an option for any military. It is not the same as recieving military exemptions that are for specific conditions layed out in a codefied law. Israel also gives exemptions for those going to college, trade or technical schools as well some other reasons. Once you complete yeshiva, college or other further education the deferment for those reasons is no longer applicable and you can then be conscripted. The IDF also has brigades that consist of ultra orthodox with many being formed and consisting of the yeshiva class they were in. During an education deferment no one is allowed to work to earn money.
While it is most certainly abused, the IDF has a high percentage of religious soldiers, your "pretending to be going to yeshiva" blanket accusation is false as most do no pretend and it is unlawful to do so and is prosecuted when discovered. Israel has actually hired PI's to check out people who have claimed religious exemptions as in this article.

Israeli army uses PIs to spy on suspect dodgers
Israel's army is hiring investigators to spy on suspected draft evaders, catching them doing decidedly unreligious things.
http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/03/18/Israeli_army_uses_suspect_dodgers_5405.html
In any case it has no bearing as selective refusal is nothing like a lawful deferment.

Israel also recognizes someone who is a concientious objector or pacifist and grants exeptions to military service on those grounds but that is because they are against any violence for any reason not for selective reasons.

Selective refusal cuts both ways, do you support those who refused and refuse to carry out the Gaza disengagement order or to evict settlers because they do not agree with it?
They also believe they are following their concience.
How about those who dont want to serve in some situation because they dont like it,its too dangerous,they are afraid or they are just plain cowards so they just claim they dont believe in it. You would have a hard time getting anything done as well as major morale problems.


In any case the religious exemptions are controverial and under constant debate. If I was Israeli I would not like the scope of military exemptions the ultra orthodox get and would want it to be more restrictive. So while I would have a problem if I was Israeli, as most Israelis do, with the religious exemption, it is in no way a support for having selective refusal and I would in no way support the selective refusal of service that you seem to think is OK.
Any way yo look at it
It is a prescription for chaos.


some info

In Israel's fractious parliamentary political system, ultra-Orthodox parties wield political power disproportionate to their community's size, which has been estimated at less than 20 percent of Israel's Jewish population. Despite their power, it would be difficult for ultra-Orthodox politicians to muscle passage of a law favorable to them through the Knesset because most Israelis--secular and religious--serve in the army at some point in their lives.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_36_115/ai_53542650/



It started out as an ad hoc arranement but has since been codified

YESHIVOT
On the establishment of the State of Israel the heads of the yeshivot came to an agreement with the Ministry of Defense that their students would be exempt from military service, on grounds of recognition of the duty to help in the spiritual rebuilding of Judaism after the Holocaust. This agreement had no legal validity but was an ad hoc arrangement according to which the yeshivah students were regarded as receiving deferment for the duration of their studies. The arrangement was viewed with mixed feelings by the public, even including religious circles, and many yeshivah students interrupted their studies in order to do their military service. In a number of yeshivot there existed various arrangements that combined yeshivah studies with active service, particularly in the framework of *Naḥal.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_21249.html


The Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that refusal to serve was legal on the grounds of unqualified pacifism, but "selective refusal" which accepted some duties and not others was illegal. The court said that allowing selective refusal would "weaken the ties that bind us as a nation". The court also said that the refusal to serve in the territories is selective refusal and not conscientious objection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military


Defense Service Law
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/defenselaw.html

Israeli Army, a National Melting Pot, Faces New Challenges in Training Officers
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/world/middleeast/31israel.html


Shas slams IDF plan to decrease Haredi exemption from army
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963683.html

IDF enlists exempt Haredi youth who feigned mental illness
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/877804.html

Knesset passes bill granting military exemptions to yeshiva students
According to the Tal Bill, yeshiva students will be granted an exemption from military service as long as they continue to study at least 45 hours a week, and are not employed. At the age of 22, a yeshiva student will have to choose between continuing studies, or joining the work force and fulfilling shortened military obligations. The law is in effect for five years, and it will come up for a new Knesset debate six months before it expires.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/1272.htm


According to army figures, 8 percent of the exemptions from military service are given to people registered as strictly Orthodox yeshiva students. Other exemptions are given to Israeli Arabs and to people found unfit for service.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/10/world/israel-s-supreme-court-ends-yeshiva-student-exemption.html

if the occupation/settlements end in the W.Bank, we see from the Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 models that extremist militant terrorists (still supported by regional leadership) will keep attacking Jews Israelis but this time in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The moral and primary obligation of the govt of Israel is to protect Israelis (Arabs within the green line suffer from Hamas/Hizbullah rockets too) from a very real threat that is not going away anytime soon.

We know the primary goal of the PA govt, and their goal (to keep the "struggle" going) is not in the best interests of moderate Palestinian people - our friends.

As an alleged supporter of Palestinians, Violet, I cannot see why you'd want to subject the Palestinian population to a fate worse than what they presently endure under occupation. Hamas would soon take over the W.Bank, bring sharia law, further militate the population, fire rockets and grads into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and there would be more OCL's. More Palestinian deaths, destruction, human rights violations, etc. This is not a move towards peace at all. Forgive me, but I just don't see the morality in such a position from someone who claims to support Palestinians. Please explain if you're able.

I don't know why you appear to think otherwise when there's been articles in this forum showing that is the case. So I guess they're all lies....


If you want to get into a discussion with someone to try to justify a support for the occupation continuing as it is, go find someone else instead of replying to my post and trying to discuss something I wasn't talking about in my post. If you yet again need the reason why yr not someone who rational and constructive discussion can be had with, I'm happy to repost what I've said to you in several other threads about it...

btw, I'm not sure why you haven't taken the time to read the forum guidelines, but it's against the rules to use the term Jew to mean Israeli, and I've noticed that you have a regular habit of doing just that by doing this *Jews Israelis* when you refer to Israelis. Just a suggestion that you can choose to disregard, but maybe you should read the forum guidelines and not do stuff that's not allowed....

For someone with strong views on the topic, you don't like when those views are challenged - do you? Why?

FWIW, I'd love for you to re-post why you don't believe you can have rational and constructive discussion with me. Let's try to rationally discuss that, okay?

You popping up and going off on a tangent in reply to a post of mine where I was discussing how soldiers have to protect extremist settlers isn't the main point....

I shouldn't be surprised that you can't remember something that I and others have said to you on more than one occassion. Strange, seeing how when I've said it in the past, you've replied to my post, which I would have thought meant you'd read my post. Oh, well. I should go back and find one of the many times I've said this to you and bookmark it so I can just send you to where it's been said before so I don't have to repeat myself.

The reason it's not possible to have rational and constructive discussion with you is because yr consistantly abusive, hold view which are extreme, constantly attribute things to posters who have replied to you that aren't what they said at all, and don't show any interest in civil or constructive discussions with other posters. Yr the pro-Israel version of some US antiabortionists I've encountered online who are so cemented in their POV that they see anyone who disagrees with that view of being full of hatred and seem to think they're *winning hearts and minds* over to their POV by their behaviour....

btw, seeing as how yr not capable of any sort of rational discussion, and I came to that conclusion after giving you a chance to show otherwise, what you need to do is address yr own behaviour, not sit there and say yr going to try to discuss what I just told you (yet again) 'rationally'...

on edit: Just coming from a current thread where you appeared attributing views to me I don't hold and yet again falsely labelling me an anti-Zionist, I'm wondering if yr idea of *rational discussion* is where you get to insist that you know other posters stances and that they themselves don't. In that case, we should just all hand our DU accounts over to you so that you can be us and post what you'd like us to say and then you can reply to them and have a *rational discussion* with yrself that way...

but if you'd like to try, once more, to have a rational discussion minus the snark and personal attacks, I'm all for it.

I'll throw you a softball for starters. You believe I hold extreme views on I/P. What are these extreme views, Violet?

...yet that's 'fighting fire with fire'. Uh, yeah, of course....

And, no. I don't want to waste my time 'discussing' anything with you. If yr unclear about why, go back and reread the posts in this and the other thread...

So is the notion that the Occupation somehow gives the Palestinian people a chance to change that leadership and is in some twisted way beneficial to them.

And so is the notion that continued settlement construction has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of continued Palestinian leadership.

And especially so is believing that the ONLY reason that Palestinians have any problem with what the Israeli government does to them is that that government claims to be "Jewish". This implies that, if it were other Arabs or the Ottoman or evangelical American "Christians", the Palestinians would be perfectly happy to be treated this way.

And finally, the claim that the "Jordan is 'the Palestinian state' and the implication that the Palestinians should settle for moving there" which is an argument you've made in several threads, is wicked extreme. In fact, very few people IN ISRAEL actually make that argument. Which you'd know if you didn't live in Boston.

And it's as if you believe that, were it not for this "leadership", the Palestinian people would have been perfectly happy to settle for statelessness and more and more settlers or moving to Jordan.

If the occupation were in any way about changing Palestinian leadership, I agree it won't work. You're 0 for 2 now.

Finally, you got one right here! But Arafat was leader of the PLO before there were any settlements, and as we unfortunately know, any Palestinian leadership must be in some way accountable to regressive and hateful regional Arab leadership (which doesn't care about their own people, let alone Palestinians - like homeless refugees used as their pawns to destroy Israel). So you got that one right (why I'm extreme I don't know) but you're now 1 for 3.

Being Jews is not the only reason Palestinians have a problem with the Israeli govt, so you're wrong again, 1 for 4 now. The fact that they are Jews makes the situation at least 10x worse, however. Palestinians weren't happy with the Ottomans or Egypt/Jordan, but they were occupied and treated like crap nonetheless. People like yourself apparently have no problem with other Arabs doing the occupying, even if it's 10x more brutal than anything Israel can muster (see Lebanon, which is occupied by Syria/Iran, or Jordan which is ruled by the minority Hashemites over the majority Palestinians).

I didn't write Jordan is "THE" Palestinian state, only that it is "A" Palestinian state with a Palestinian majority in which Palestinians were given the bulk of the British Mandate (arguably they should have had their own leadership instead of Hashemite leadership). And I didn't write that Palestinians should move there. Now you're 1 for 5.

Maybe if you didn't live in "Alaska" reading CounterPunch all the time you wouldn't be so confused about my views. :eyes:

Still not seeing what's so extreme about my views, Ken. To believe my views are extreme, Ken, it helps if you actually knew what they are so that you're not setting up easy strawmen to counter.

You've clearly and strongly implied that the problems with that leadership and the choices that leadership has made are a justification for continuing the leadership. And you've also acted as if there's been no change in the approach made towards Israel by other Arab countries, when, truth to be told, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon have all made significant moves towards a more accommodating position and even Syria has signaled at least the willingness to talk. Turns out the "unrelenting Arab campaign to destroy Israel" isn't actually all that unrelenting. In fact, to paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there's a "whole lotta relentin' goin on".

And you're reversed the reason why Palestinians have reacted more harshly towards the Israelis than they did towards the other Arabs or the Ottomans. The truth is, they've reacted more harshly towards Israel than towards the other states because Israel treated the Palestinians more harshly than the others did. The Ottoman just taxed them. They didn't drive them out of their homes.

And it wasn't ME saying the only reason Palestinians have a problem with the Israeli government was that Israel claims to be Jewish. It's been you, over and over again, using the "they hate Jews" meme. And I do have a problem, just so you know, with how Palestinians have been treated by other Arab countries. They shouldn't have been kept in the refugee camps. But you're delusional if you think that letting the Palestinians out of those camps would have meant they'd have accepted permanent exile or only returning to their home if their home remained stateless.

I'm a little puzzled by why you put it in quotation marks that I live in "Alaska". Why would I pretend to live there if I lived somewhere else? Do you think I live in the guest room at the presidential palace in Damascus or something? It's simply silly of you to act as if I'm lying about my physical location.

I've occasionally read Counterpunch, but I'm much more likely to read Tikkun, and the website of Uri Avnery(who, unlike you, actually lives IN ISRAEL and who, unlike you, served in the Israeli military), and the reports from Jewish Voice for Peace. I also keep up with what people like Amira Hass, who also lives within range of the rockets.

and it would be nice if that leadership were to change, become more moderate, install democracy with civil rights, etc...but that's not going to happen (which will always cause problems b/w Arab states and Israel). The Palestinians in charge before Arafat came back 20 years ago were the MOST likely people to cut a peace deal with Israel but they were killed by Arafat's goons almost immediately after he took power (b/c they were too moderate and accomodating - maybe they would have signed a peace deal - YIKES). You cannot pretend that Palestinian leadership doesn't have a profound impact on the conflict, Ken, and neither can you honestly say that Palestinian leadership really represents its people's best interests (as if Israel is the major impediment towards peace).

As for regional Arab leadership and their ties to Israel - it's a VERY cold peace, Ken. Check this very recent poll out, where 71% of Egyptians wish for peace with Israel and 58% wish for Israel's destruction:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=windows-1256&langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.name/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D24575&tbb=1&rurl=translate.google.com

Interpretation:
Peace means Israel's destruction. If you checked out MEMRI and looked at Egypt's state-run hate media, you'd see why 58% are brainwashed into that kind of thinking.

And you REALLY have to do some research on Ottoman rule/occupation as well as Egypt/Jordan brutal rule/occupation to see that they were at least 10x worse than anything Israel can muster. I can't do all your homework for you, Ken. Let me know what you find. Of course, if you think Hamas rule in Gaza is less oppressive than Israel's, no amount of evidence will convince you you're wrong.

As for the "hate the Jews" meme (and I use that for emphasis sometimes, just as I did "Alaska"), simply see Mufti al Hussayni. Did he have a problem with Jews? Was he not revered around the Arab world? If you're going to argue that Palestinians aren't responsible for the Mufti (and I agree to a large extent) then at least admit that his despicable behavior was accepted enough by regional leadership - ergo, the problem that remains til this day with "Jews".

As for the refugee camps, WHY do you believe Palestinians are still caged up there, Ken? Are they being used as political pawns meant to flood and destroy Israel, or not?

If the Israeli government was actually serious about there being a different leadership for the Palestinians, it would do the sane thing and release Marwan Barghouti. The man's secular, he's not corrupt and the polls show he'd win the next election for the PA presidency if allowed to stand in it. Releasing Barghouti would be a step that actually made sense, rather than continually tightening the Occupation when you know doing so achieves nothing.

so that he could continue to kill more, you'd be for that?

He's not going to be killing and campaigning at the same time.

And the reality is, you're going to have to get the cooperation of those you consider killers if the conflict is to end. The Ulster Unionist population decided that it was better to have Martin McGuinness sitting as deputy government leader than have him keeping the armed struggle going. There is now pretty much peace in Northern Ireland.

And Shamir killed people too, as did Begin. And as did Moshe Dayan and Ariel Sharon. You can't say for certainty that none of them killed anyone but armed combatants.

And unlike Hamas he can't possibly be considered a person who simply "hates Jews".

Barghouti should be released. If you want a better Palestinian leadership, at the moment, he's the only hope. There's no one else who has any support. Abbas is permanently discredited and the Palestinians mainly voted for Hamas as a protest against Fatah's corruption and Fatah's inability to get a Palestinian state.

And people kill in wartime. Ask the IDF soldiers who killed Palestinian families. You can't honestly say that EVERYBODY they killed was a terrorist. Yet, there's a good chance one of them will be prime minister of Israel someday.

Are you honestly saying the Palestinians have no legitimate grievances about the creation of these settlements?

pulls out of the W.Bank?

And among people whose land isn't being stolen.

You know the kassams and grads can't be stopped by continuing the Occupation. You know the Palestinian leadership can't be changed for the better by continuing the Occupation. You know the Occupation creates a situation that's at least as dangerous as any that would exist if the Occupation ended?

Or at least you would if you didn't just learn all you know by reading Ynet and Commentary in your home in Boston.

I prefer to take the word of people who actually live in the situation:

People like Uri Avnery, Tom Segev, Amira Hass, Neve Gordon.

it's always been up to Palestinian leadership backed by regressive regional Arab leadership - from Mufti al Hussayni to Arafat and now to Hamas, and they will never stop resisting. That type of leadership, since the Mufti's days 90 years ago, kills moderate Palestinian opposition that criticizes or questions "resistance" against Jews. Whether there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who want the conflict to end when occupation stops is irrelevant, Ken, because Hamas/PLO do not speak for moderate Palestinians who want peace with Israel (just like the Mufti did not speak for Palestinians back in the 20's.

The most obscene thing in your argument is the notion that the Occupation is somehow beneficial to the Palestinian rank-and-file.

because even if they did, so what? There's no democracy there, militias rule, and regional (regressive and hateful) Arab leadership will force themselves and their warmongering views on any new leadership. It's a sad situation and I don't know of any great solutions for it.

As for "the Occupation is somehow beneficial to the Palestinian rank-and-file", I simply believe it's the lesser of 2 evils and that no matter what Israel decides to do, it's a catch-22, that's all. Until recent Palestinian leadership took over with Arafat, the Palestinian territories were much better off between 1967-90 (law and order, jobs/economy, free speech, etc..) and that's a fact, Ken.

I didn't say it was wrong to try to convince Palestinians to have a different leadership. What I said was that it was hopeless to get them to do so by making the Occupation worse and adding to the daily misery of the lives of ordinary Palestinians. There's a huge difference between that and the first line of your post, shira.

And even if the Occupation had had some positive effects in the past, it can never be beneficial to Palestinians again. You can't go from benign despotism to malignant back to benign.

Your analysis of this whole situation is still based on the notion of stalling for time and hoping things will be different in the future or at least hoping the Occupation will be unremovable in the future. Please tell me why you don't think such an approach us utter futility.

I didn't say it was wrong to try to convince Palestinians to have a different leadership. What I said was that it was hopeless to get them to do so by making the Occupation worse and adding to the daily misery of the lives of ordinary Palestinians. There's a huge difference between that and the first line of your post, shira.

so how do you propose Israel deals effectively with Palestinian leadership like the Mufti, Arafat, or Hamas? How would you have handled such leadership over the years? Instead of telling me what you would NOT have done, propose what you WOULD have done please.

And even if the Occupation had had some positive effects in the past, it can never be beneficial to Palestinians again. You can't go from benign despotism to malignant back to benign.

check these quotes out please:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256706
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256707

if those quotes are accurate, you'd be against the will of the Palestinian people - who only want law and order back, jobs, more civil freedoms, etc..?

Your analysis of this whole situation is still based on the notion of stalling for time and hoping things will be different in the future or at least hoping the Occupation will be unremovable in the future. Please tell me why you don't think such an approach us utter futility.

I don't wish at all for the occupation to be unremovable in the future. Olmert offered a deal to Abbas similar to the Clinton Parameters just last year that Abbas rejected - and that would end the occupation. Abbas rejected it. Tell me please, do you believe Abbas (and Arafat 9 years ago) failed their people - whose suffering at the hands of Israel should have ended by now - and should have accepted a deal for their own state?

My analysis, again, is simply that occupation is the lesser of 2 evils in an obvious catch-22 situation. Your solution (immediate withdrawal from the W.Bank) would lead to almost immediate war (kassams and grads on Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and the inevitable IDF response). I'm sorry, but I just cannot see any progressive merit in your position.

Why on earth do you think that?

It's never been possible to humiliate Palestinians into moderation at any time in the past. Why can't you see that it's impossible for that to happen in the future?

Nothing good comes from insisting on "winning".

So you'd support the Fugitive Slave Act? You'd have refused sanctuary to Central American refugees fleeing Reagan's war in the 80's?

YOU'D HAVE THROWN THE BOOK AT OSCAR SCHINDLER?

It belongs to them.

If the law says "you must serve in an army taking part in an illegal military occupation, that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians in the last couple of years", then I think that the moral obligation to break it is stronger than the moral obligation to obey it.

In all but the most extreme of cases, I think that even bad laws should be obeyed. I think that conscription to the IDF is one of the most extreme of cases.

Why do you insist on forcing these people to give up their consciences and ahandon their principles? Israel's survival no longer depends on militarism. It depends on not oppressing the Palestinians.

to unjust laws?

I can see both sides of the issue but I don't know where I stand on it at the moment.


Would have been nice to read an unbiased article about it.

.
.
.

Who would fight the wars?

OMG

NO MORE WAR?

what a crazy idea . .


:freak:

they had a chance; kill a bunch of Jews, etc. Is that what you are hoping for?

Please retire that lie now.

And no, forcing them to move to Jordan could never be a moral option. Transfer is no longer acceptable in the modern world.

I responded to your claim that it's not about PA leadership wanting no Jews in Israel. I agree that they will accept some Jews in Israel, but as dhimmis living as subordinates to Muslims, just like Jews elsewhere in Muslim ruled lands. You went completely off topic with your response. Do you disagree with me?

.
.

I hope for NO MORE KILLING people unless you are going to harvest them.

YEAH - we gather, feed and slaughter millions a year to feed us.

Other species, maybe every one of them is more advanced than us humans.

Instead of blending in to our environment, we've been fighting it all the way.

Momma Nature is gonna win

Go with her

or lose

A variant of that became an antiwar slogan during the Vietnam War.

was the refusal of the citizens to join the army.

n/t.

pretty sure the bulimia was only practiced by the elites.

Many Americans burned their draft cards in the 60s and America did not collapse, though the Vietnam war ended.

I admire and respect the Israeli conscientious objectors. I think it is inevitable that they face some consequences - and that makes their statement stronger than if they faced none.