|
Grex > Agora47 > #227: Elite Israeli soldiers refuse oppression orders | |
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
Elite Israeli soldiers refuse oppression orders
| 
Dec 22 13:25 UTC 2003 |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3339785.stm
Thirteen reservists from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit wrote to Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon saying they would not be part of a 'rule of
oppression'.
Three months ago, 25 pilots refused to take part in Israeli bombing
raids.
In their letter, the soldiers said they would no longer participate in
the defence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
'We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through carrying
out the missions of an occupation army ... In the past, we fought for a
justified cause [but today] we have reached the boundary of oppressing
another people,' the letter said.
|
| 70 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 1 of 70:
|
Dec 22 13:40 UTC 2003 |
There seems to be subtle changes in the tenacity with
which Israel has held onto settlements in the territories.
Israel is looking ahead, at the demographics, and see they'll
be another 1960s South Africa if they continue the present
course. Better to negotiate while they can.
So, maybe, just maybe, there has been a shift toward
resolution of this conflict.
|
klg
|
|
response 2 of 70:
|
Dec 22 17:10 UTC 2003 |
We anxiously await the headline stating that "Palestinian Terrorists
Publicly Refuse Orders to Bomb Innocent Israeli Civilians - and Live to
Tell About It."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 70:
|
Dec 22 17:40 UTC 2003 |
Whereas the rest of us anxiously await the headline:
Amateur KLG Stuns Philosophical Community -
Proves Two Wrongs DO Make a Right
|
twenex
|
|
response 4 of 70:
|
Dec 22 17:51 UTC 2003 |
<twenex snickers>
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 70:
|
Dec 22 18:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 70:
|
Dec 22 19:20 UTC 2003 |
Arafatboy?
|
sj2
|
|
response 7 of 70:
|
Dec 22 20:32 UTC 2003 |
The soldiers who rebelled aren't general conscripts. They are battle
hardened commandos and pilots. They must've also very well known the
consequence would be a court-martial and possible jail. Their families
too. So the orders they refused must've been really sickening. Hundreds
of elite soldiers refusing orders is no joke for an army. Remember that
just a few weeks back four retired top intelligence and military
officials denounced Sharon's ways.
|
lk
|
|
response 8 of 70:
|
Dec 23 08:25 UTC 2003 |
Yawn. They were RESERVE officers not on active duty at the time.
They didn't refuse any "really sickening" orders.
That was your bias speaking. Presuming the worst as an expected value.
There is also another bias at play here, which is why this (and similar)
stories have received so much press. The presumption that someone
speaking out against his own must be right. Yet does Justice Thomas
speaking out against affirmative action mean that it is wrong?
Do women who are against feminism prove that it is bad?
Do "cured" homosexuals mean that all gays should be "reformed"?
The bulk of Israel's forces are reserves. It is a people's army.
klg's point was that Israel tolerates a diversity of opinion.
Thus it is no surprise that a small number of troops (out of about
1 million reserves) would voice political objections.
Peace will come when Arab leaders are willing to compromise rather
than view that as surrender of their dream to "throw the Jews into
the sea".
For more on this theme, by an Egyptian writer, see:
http://www.heggy.org/culture_of_compromise.htm
|
sj2
|
|
response 9 of 70:
|
Dec 23 10:34 UTC 2003 |
And you seem to have a bias that says everything that Israel does is
fair and good.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3137392.stm
In their statement, released on Wednesday, the pilots said: "We,
veteran and active pilots... are opposed to carrying out the illegal
and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the
territories."
They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent
civilians."
======================
"Really sickening" were my own words but what the soldiers stated
wasn't far off either.
======================
One of the rebel pilots told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper that he felt
like he had "come out against his family".
"I was proud to belong to the organisation called the Israel Air
Force, and today I am ashamed," said the pilot, a Blackhawk helicopter
captain named Alon.
"This is an organisation that carries out actions that in my eyes are
immoral and patently illegal."
Hundreds of Israeli reserve soldiers have chosen prison over military
service in the Palestinian territories during the last three years of
Israeli-Palestinian violence.
"We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through
carrying out the missions of an occupation army ... In the past, we
fought for a justified cause [but today] we have reached the boundary
of oppressing another people," the letter said.
As for *tolerating* diversity of opinion.
"These soldiers should be stripped of their uniform and face judgement
for their disobedience and rebellion, regardless of the unit in which
they serve, whether they be pilots, cooks or mechanics," Mr Boim told
public radio.
But I guess thats in line with Army regulations.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 70:
|
Dec 23 12:32 UTC 2003 |
It's in keeping with US law: "A person who is found guilty of attempted
mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or
sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-
martial may direct" (Article 94, Uniform Code of Military Justice).
I found it at
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#892.%20ART.%2092.%20FAILURE%2
0TO
%20OBEY%20ORDER%20OR%20REGULATION
"au" is the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.
Article 92, "Failure to Obey Order or Regulation," is also worth looking at:
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order
or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by
any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to
obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Note that death is not included as a penalty.)
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 70:
|
Dec 23 14:28 UTC 2003 |
However, it is arguable whether these soldiers would be subject to
that provision, because they argue that the orders they are refusing
are illegal and immoral, both of which are legitimoate justification
for refusing an order. What's left is to adjudicate the legality
and morality of the refused orders.
By the way, I think that #8 is fairly reasonable and should not be
discounted despite the well-known biases of its author.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 70:
|
Dec 23 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Hmm. My last statement above should read:
By the way, I think that #8 is fairly reasonable and should not be
discounted because of the well-known biases of its author.
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 70:
|
Dec 23 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Court-martials are basically kangaroo courts, aren't they? From what
I've heard it's practically unheard of for the defendent to win.
|
bru
|
|
response 14 of 70:
|
Dec 23 15:17 UTC 2003 |
Kangharoo courts? The only kangaroo is you. There are laws that must be
maintained, proceedures that must be followed, just as in a civil court. They
are different than in a civil court, but they are there.
Besides, teh defendenta regularly win on JAG! :-)
|
slynne
|
|
response 15 of 70:
|
Dec 23 16:08 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I heard a story on the radio recently that ever since the
Milgram experiments, it is much easier for a soldier who refuses to
obey an illegal order to make their case. Also that the US army has
training tapes on how to disobey an illegal order. *shrug* I dont know
if that is true.
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 70:
|
Dec 23 16:11 UTC 2003 |
FWIW, I think the radio story I heard was discussing this article:
http://url.rexroof.com/403
(www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/ptoarticle/pto-20020301-000037.asp)
|
klg
|
|
response 17 of 70:
|
Dec 23 17:32 UTC 2003 |
We wonder whether the soldiers' moral objections are their true
reasons - or if they are the way they rationalize their psychological
reactions to their long years of high stress duties. Subconsciously,
the mental toll to which they have been subjected may be leading them
to act for individual self-preservation - in spite of the logic that
would seek to preserve the nation at the expense of some individuals.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 70:
|
Dec 23 17:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 19 of 70:
|
Dec 23 17:43 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:17: That's a really roundabout way of asking if they're cowards.
|
twenex
|
|
response 20 of 70:
|
Dec 23 17:46 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, and if the welfare of the nation was Top Priority for everybody,
we'd all be Communists. And it would work.
|
tod
|
|
response 21 of 70:
|
Dec 23 18:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 22 of 70:
|
Dec 23 18:58 UTC 2003 |
Re 13: No, courts-martial are not "kangaroo courts." Not in the US, anyway.
The judge is a trained lawyer, the prosecution can use a lawyer only if the
defense also has one, and all of the usual protections available in US courts
apply. There are also appellate courts, up to and including the Supreme
Court.
And no, not all trials result in convictions. I don't know what the
conviction rate is, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 70:
|
Dec 23 19:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 24 of 70:
|
Dec 23 22:02 UTC 2003 |
("Non-judicial Punishment", Article 15 of the UCMJ.)
|