Israeli commandos refuse to serve in W.Bank, Gaza

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2137389.htm

<snip>

"Thirteen fighters in Israel's most celebrated commando unit have publicly refused to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they believe the army's operations there are immoral, Israeli media reported on Sunday.

The commandos announced their refusal to serve in a letter sent to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has come under increased pressure to halt efforts to quash a three-year-old Palestinian uprising and instead engage in peace treaty talks.

"We will no longer be party to an oppressive rule in the territories and the disregard for the human rights of millions of Palestinians," the 13 Sayeret Matkal reservist commandos wrote in their letter, according to local television stations.

"We will no longer be a defensive wall against settlements," added the letter, in a reference to Jewish settlements in lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war."

but I'm sure that Sharon has the same mentality as Bush: they must
be "terrorist sympathizers"... :eyes:

and run 'em down, eh?

Either that or shoot 'em in the head; after all, the IDF can get away with it like usual

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

</snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/374325.html

Mr. Sharon's sudden interest in "unilateral separation".
You can't have an (effective) army without willing soldiers.
One of the reasons the US was forced out of VietNam was the
erosion of the US Military caused by it's misuse in that conflict.
It took most of a generation to rebuild it, and Mr. Bush seems
intent on undoing that work once again.

Mr. Sharon has been misusing the IDF in a similar way in pursuit
of his half-wit agenda in the territories.

It would be interesting to know what Martin van Creveld, the first
fellow I remember to have suggested a wall, would think of the
present situation. Here, from a year and a half ago, is a little
perspective:


Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is
Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer
Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military
operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the
Palestinians.
---

WORLD IN FOCUS
Interview with Martin van Creveld


Broadcast: 20/3/2002
Interviewer: Jennifer Byrne

Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is
Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer
Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military
operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the
Palestinians.

Transcript:
Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on
Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to
this, Martin... how is it that the mighty
Israeli army - one of the world?s most
powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with
its tanks, with it?s missiles, can be losing to
this relatively small, relatively under-armed
if fanatical group of Palestinians?

Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as
happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years.
Basically it?s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are
strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are
going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you
are going to become cowardly - it?s only a question of time. The same
happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to
the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in
Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same
happened to so many people that I can?t even count them.

Byrne: : Martin you used the word ?cowardly? yet what we?ve seen
tonight - these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads - these aren?t
cowardly people.

Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are
idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove
themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against
someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose
situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your
opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are
an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and
for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli
army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done
what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm,
it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by
definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are
fighting the weak, then anything


http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s511530.htm

His comments are most apt to the situation. There is a real moral disintigration to the sort of duty the Israeli army must perform in the territory overrun in '67, that cannot be avoided, as it is inherent to the task itself.

You are right, it seems to me, about this sort of thing having some effect on current government statements, as the possibility of a soldier's strike spreads from infantry reservists to the air forces and the special services. Making such statements is so large and grave a thing that it must be supposed each man who does speaks the secret heart of many, many more.

in the current situation too. :-)

The disconnect in values between why you feel you should be there versus your own perception of what you are actually doing. The great disconnect is fighting to defend hearth and home as opposed to potentially dying for a cause only ephimereally relevent, or even worse - to enrich someone else at your expense. The greater this disconnect the duller the sword as troops are not going to be putting themselves at risk and are increasingly likely to look out only for themselves.

L-

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup: Thumbs up from me too!