Israeli Army has Doubts

[a_unique_person]

If one truly believes the state is demanding something immoral, one can act to reform the state without betraying the state. To hold oneself above the state is simple narcissism. To cloak such a thing in a mantle of “morality” is a rather ugly affectation indicative of an immature mind.

Once again, what about the example of the American Revolution. Armed rebellion against the legal authority.

Or the Germans who obeyed the Nazi orders to round up and kill Jews.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, what about the example of the American Revolution. Armed rebellion against the legal authority.

Or the Germans who obeyed the Nazi orders to round up and kill Jews.

Saying that one should act to reform the state rather than betray the state presumes that the state can be reformed through citizen action. Neither monarchies nor dictatorships fit that description.

 

[a_unique_person]

Saying that one should act to reform the state rather than betray the state presumes that the state can be reformed through citizen action. Neither monarchies nor dictatorships fit that description.

OK, so Mai Lai was OK then? There was only ever one person found guilty, he was given house arrest, then pardoned.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

OK, so Mai Lai was OK then? There was only ever one person found guilty, he was given house arrest, then pardoned.

I'm a little vague on why you think the Mai Lai massacre is somehow connected to our discussion. To me, it seems a text-book example of the tragedy that can happen when you have the fear and stress of war combined with bad leadership. I don’t know how to create a single policy or guiding principle that will sanitize war, it is by its very nature ugly and brutal. Even so, sometimes war is the lesser evil.

I said earlier that if one wishes to protest the actions of the state, there are methods that are acceptable and those that are not. Speaking out, campaigning or demonstrating against the policy you don’t like are among the acceptable actions, failing to live up to ones obligations to the state are not.

In the example of the Mai Lai massacre, witnesses brought the events to the attention of the public and that led to criminal prosecutions. That you feel that those responsible for the massacre were not punished enough may point to a need to reform our system of criminal justice, but that's a different topic.

In the larger example of the Vietnam War, it was public protests within the United States that ultimately led to the end of the war. These are the sort of protests that are supported by a democracy that grants its citizenry the freedom of speech. Similar protests from within the military, even if you agree with their sentiments, are wrong because they do more than just push for a change in public policy; they also undermine the ability of the state to act in its own defense.

 

[demon]

Mycroft
"I don’t know how to create a single policy or guiding principle that will sanitize war, it is by its very nature ugly and brutal..."

Stop creating one for the Palestinians then.
They have every right to use every means at their disposal to rid themsleves of the occupying and invading forces that are overwhelming them.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
Stop creating one for the Palestinians then.
They have every right to use every means at their disposal to rid themsleves of the occupying and invading forces that are overwhelming them.

Stop creating one for the Israelis then.
They, Israelis, have every right to use every means at their disposal to rid themselves of the fanatic/genocidal forces that are a threat to their lives and security.

Except that they don't, do they? Every measure Israel uses to defend itself, no matter how non-lethal, draws criticism from the international community who applies the same double-standard you do.

 

[demon]

Mycroft
"They, Israelis, have every right to use every means at their disposal to rid themselves of the fanatic/genocidal forces that are a threat to their lives and security."

You would make a fine Mother Goose in a christmas panto. You are second only to Cleopatra as the resident drama queen on these forums. The idea that Israel is at the mercy of fanatical, genocidal forces that actually have a chance or a prayer to disrupt the ongoing modus operandi of fascist Israel is laughable and you know it. Let`s not leave out the US involvement here to the tune of billions of dollars in military aid and if you had an ounce of integrity you would walk away in shame at any attempt to defend Israel in it`s very own holocaust.
Do you cosy up at night with Goldhagen too?

"Except that they don't, do they? Every measure Israel uses to defend itself, no matter how non-lethal, draws criticism from the international community who applies the same double-standard you do."

Actually I`m not going to advocate a double standard here, I haven`t in any of my other posts concerning the Zionazis and their "suicide bomber" opponents in the Occupied Territories. It`s a war ok? Reap what you sow.
In a fairer world, the odds would be fairer too.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm a little vague on why you think the Mai Lai massacre is somehow connected to our discussion. To me, it seems a text-book example of the tragedy that can happen when you have the fear and stress of war combined with bad leadership. I don’t know how to create a single policy or guiding principle that will sanitize war, it is by its very nature ugly and brutal. Even so, sometimes war is the lesser evil.

I said earlier that if one wishes to protest the actions of the state, there are methods that are acceptable and those that are not. Speaking out, campaigning or demonstrating against the policy you don’t like are among the acceptable actions, failing to live up to ones obligations to the state are not.

In the example of the Mai Lai massacre, witnesses brought the events to the attention of the public and that led to criminal prosecutions. That you feel that those responsible for the massacre were not punished enough may point to a need to reform our system of criminal justice, but that's a different topic.

In the larger example of the Vietnam War, it was public protests within the United States that ultimately led to the end of the war. These are the sort of protests that are supported by a democracy that grants its citizenry the freedom of speech. Similar protests from within the military, even if you agree with their sentiments, are wrong because they do more than just push for a change in public policy; they also undermine the ability of the state to act in its own defense.

One person was tried, given home arrest, and pardoned. The whole legal process that was followed was a sham. Put it on TV for a big show, then when it has been forgotten, unwind it all.

However, I am glad you agree with me that people subjected to the stress of military action start going ratty. Given that these soldiers were only there for a defined, short amount of time, you can imaging what a military occupation of over 30 years is going to do to people. Maybe drive them to do such acts as suicide bombing, etc.

Given that such people are committing terrorist acts, you can wonder why so many IDF members are speaking out against the occupation. They know that Israelis are being killed, but still do not want to be a part of a military action that is against their moral principals.

Do you know why the holocaust was created? It was not because the Germans were after a hi-tech solution from the start. At first they resorted to the usual means of killing of people which was to just corrall the victims up and shoot or otherwise kill them all. The problem was that perpetrating sustained acts of brutality takes it's drain on people, no matter how fanatical. The mechanised means was invented to remove one level of horror from those carrying out the executions.

The IDF members who have to personally harrass the Palestinians with arms and force have had enough. They don't want to do it any more. One way of getting around this has been to employ militias to carry out the dirty work. There are not enough of these, however, to go around.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, I am glad you agree with me that people subjected to the stress of military action start going ratty. Given that these soldiers were only there for a defined, short amount of time, you can imaging what a military occupation of over 30 years is going to do to people. Maybe drive them to do such acts as suicide bombing, etc.

Of course you’re overlooking a great many other factors. How suicide-bombers are glorified, their pictures hung is schools, shops and mosques. How the families get their debts paid off and then receive a monthly pension. How their political and religious leaders make public speeches glorifying these “martyrs”. With all these other factors, I’d expect suicide-bombings from the youth of the suburbs of Boise Idaho.

These people are the authors of their own destruction. If anything, that makes it even more tragic than if they were simply the innocent victims of oppression. Just think how nice it would be if they had achieved statehood back in 1998 by living up to their obligations under the Oslo plan.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course you’re overlooking a great many other factors. How suicide-bombers are glorified, their pictures hung is schools, shops and mosques. How the families get their debts paid off and then receive a monthly pension. How their political and religious leaders make public speeches glorifying these “martyrs”. With all these other factors, I’d expect suicide-bombings from the youth of the suburbs of Boise Idaho.

These people are the authors of their own destruction. If anything, that makes it even more tragic than if they were simply the innocent victims of oppression. Just think how nice it would be if they had achieved statehood back in 1998 by living up to their obligations under the Oslo plan.

The shift to religious extremism has only been a relatively recent phenomenon. For a desperate people, it have appeared to offer a solution, unfortunately.

Don't blame the Palestinians alone for the Oslo failure. The rate of terrorist attacks dropped significantly during that time. The real problem was that the issues that were put in the too hard basket to be solved at a later date were never resolved. For example, right of return, compensation, settlements, provocation from Zionist extremists, Arafats inability to actually rule a state. It is not that simple to just blame the Palestinians.

 

[Troll]

AUP, you and others often mention the Israelis as being teh "invaders" or the "occupiers" of the land. Can you tell me who 's land it is that they are occupying?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The shift to religious extremism has only been a relatively recent phenomenon. For a desperate people, it have appeared to offer a solution, unfortunately.

A solution to what? What does it get them?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't blame the Palestinians alone for the Oslo failure. The rate of terrorist attacks dropped significantly during that time.

Liar. The death rate doubled. You yourself posted statistics that prove it.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The real problem was that the issues that were put in the too hard basket to be solved at a later date were never resolved. For example, right of return, compensation, settlements, provocation from Zionist extremists, Arafats inability to actually rule a state. It is not that simple to just blame the Palestinians.

It's truly Orwellian of you to claim that these other issues somehow prevented Oslo from working when they took no action on the very first issue; the cessation of terrorism.

 

[a_unique_person]

A solution to what? What does it get them?




Liar. The death rate doubled. You yourself posted statistics that prove it.



It's truly Orwellian of you to claim that these other issues somehow prevented Oslo from working when they took no action on the very first issue; the cessation of terrorism.

Bullsh!t. The rate did drop, after an intial period of time. The figures I supplied clearly showed that.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Bullsh!t. The rate did drop, after an intial period of time. The figures I supplied clearly showed that.

Your figures showed that for the three years following Oslo, the Israeli death rate more than doubled. Then, only after intense pressure from the United States and the international community, the Palestinian-Authority rounded up some of its rivals and put them in jail. They were never charged with any crime or brought to trial.

The whole process was a sham. Put on for a big show, then the moment it was convenient it was all undone.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your figures showed that for the three years following Oslo, the Israeli death rate more than doubled. Then, only after intense pressure from the United States and the international community, the Palestinian-Authority rounded up some of its rivals and put them in jail. They were never charged with any crime or brought to trial.

The whole process was a sham. Put on for a big show, then the moment it was convenient it was all undone.

Can you read?

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.19/ed.html



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By the Numbers
The biggest rise in terrorism began in September 2000 with the outbreak of Palestinian violence known as the second intifada, when the Oslo accords, as most everyone agrees, collapsed. In the three years since then some 830 Israelis have been killed by terrorists. In other words, terrorism exploded not when the Oslo accords took effect, but after they broke down.

But that, too, is only part of the truth. Some 60 Israelis were killed during the first five months of the intifada, or 12 per month, while Ehud Barak was Israel's prime minister. In the 31 months since March 7, 2001, when Ariel Sharon took over, the death rate has exploded to nearly 25 per month, or about 770 deaths in all.

Three per month under the Oslo accords. Twenty-five per month under the Sharon plan. Those are the numbers.

Maybe you are getting your intifadas mixed up. Oslo say, after an intial period of five months, a huge drop in terrorism.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Can you read?

Maybe you are getting your intifadas mixed up. Oslo say, after an intial period of five months, a huge drop in terrorism.

Do we have to have this argument again? Can't we just cut & paste the old one?

To begin with, those 216 people killed in the 15 years before Oslo. Most of them — 120, to be precise — were killed in a four-and-a-half year period between January 1989 and August 1993, during the first Palestinian intifada. During the 10 years before that, terrorists were killing Israelis at a rate of less than one per month. Between January 1989 and August 1993 the rate tripled to 2.8 per month.

So we have a ten-year period where the death rate is abut 1 person per month. Then we have the first intifada where the death rate jumps to 2.8 per month.

But that in itself is slightly misleading. During the accords' first three years, from 1993 to 1996, terrorism deaths rose to 5.8 per month.

So after a peace agreement the death rate more than doubles compared to an intafada. The increased violence lasts for three years before international pressure forces the Palestinian Authority to take action.

I'll also point out that the death rate dropping after the Palestinian Authority finally took action also proves they had the ability to do so all along, but simply chose not to.

When they did take action, instead of filing charges against the terrorists and having trials, they were just locked up without charges. Later, they were all realeased and the violence skyrocketed. To paraphrase your own words, The whole process was a sham put on for a big show. The moment it was convenient it was all undone.

 

[a_unique_person]

Do we have to have this argument again? Can't we just cut & paste the old one?



So we have a ten-year period where the death rate is abut 1 person per month. Then we have the first intifada where the death rate jumps to 2.8 per month.



So after a peace agreement the death rate more than doubles compared to an intafada. The increased violence lasts for three years before international pressure forces the Palestinian Authority to take action.

RTFL again.

To begin with, those 216 people killed in the 15 years before Oslo. Most of them — 120, to be precise — were killed in a four-and-a-half year period between January 1989 and August 1993, during the first Palestinian intifada. During the 10 years before that, terrorists were killing Israelis at a rate of less than one per month. Between January 1989 and August 1993 the rate tripled to 2.8 per month.

The rate of killing did rise following the signing of the Oslo accords, but not by much. The architects of the accord predicted that rejectionists would resort to terrorism to try and halt the progress toward peace, and they were right. From September 1993 to September 2000, the death rate was 3 per month.

But that in itself is slightly misleading. During the accords' first three years, from 1993 to 1996, terrorism deaths rose to 5.8 per month. In late 1996, following a series of horrific bus bombings and a pitched gun battle between Israeli and Palestinian troops, heavy American pressure was brought on the Palestinians to begin honoring their agreements, and for the next three years deaths dropped to just over 1 per month.

As expected, those who rejected Oslo among the Palestinians did their best to scuttle the peace moves. This has been expected. If you look at Norther Ireland, a similar pattern shows up. As soon as there are moves for peace, a minority tries to ensure these moves fail. After that the rate of terrorism drops. What did you expect, all of a sudden, after 30 years of military occupation and land theft, all would be sweetness and light? The US is still fighting the civil war in many areas.

 

[Troll]

RTFL again.



As expected, those who rejected Oslo among the Palestinians did their best to scuttle the peace moves. This has been expected. If you look at Norther Ireland, a similar pattern shows up. As soon as there are moves for peace, a minority tries to ensure these moves fail. After that the rate of terrorism drops. What did you expect, all of a sudden, after 30 years of military occupation and land theft, all would be sweetness and light? The US is still fighting the civil war in many areas.

Fighting bigotry and racism or the civil war? One seems to have pretty much ended already or are you suggesting that we're still fighting over slaves? Or are you just being a complete idiot and grasping at straws. I'm kind enough to give you a choice, but according to your postings you're not bright enough to see reality

 

[a_unique_person]

Fighting bigotry and racism or the civil war? One seems to have pretty much ended already or are you suggesting that we're still fighting over slaves? Or are you just being a complete idiot and grasping at straws. I'm kind enough to give you a choice, but according to your postings you're not bright enough to see reality

You haven't seen the Confederate flags flying around the South? The war is over, but many in the South still resent what happened, and as our friend Hammegk shows, many still think the blacks were better off as slaves.

Norther Ireland is still inching forward, in a process that is going to take a long time, just as Israel and Palestine still have to. Even if a cast iron agreement is signed by all, there will still be killing and bitterness for hundreds of years to come.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
RTFL again.

What does RTFL mean?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As expected, those who rejected Oslo among the Palestinians did their best to scuttle the peace moves. This has been expected. If you look at Norther Ireland, a similar pattern shows up. As soon as there are moves for peace, a minority tries to ensure these moves fail. After that the rate of terrorism drops. What did you expect, all of a sudden, after 30 years of military occupation and land theft, all would be sweetness and light? The US is still fighting the civil war in many areas.

One might expect a temporary increase in terrorism, but for three years? And that the increase is in relation to an intifada...!

And your argument misses the point: The Palestinian Authority was supposed to arrest the terrorists and charge them with their crimes. No, you don't expect thirty years worth of animosity to go away overnight, but you do expect them to live up to their agreement. They didn't.

Your comment about the civil war is ignorant beyond belief. Even by your standards, it’s astonishing.