Originally posted by rmsharpe
If he was an officer for the Palestinians, he'd be issued the standard 9 grams of lead every dissenting officer gets.
Originally posted by rmsharpe
If he was an officer for the Palestinians, he'd be issued the standard 9 grams of lead every dissenting officer gets.
Originally posted by superslug
I'm going to comment on both the issues that will inevitably arise, albeit independently:
In times of all out war, officers should not publicly criticize their government's actions. To do so would be disloyal and treacherous. However, this is not a case of all out war, he's complaining against methodology of repression and occupation, and he's right to do so.
As far as the thread starters presumed intended issue, being the possibility of Israel hurting itself, then I would say most definitively yes.
Quite the contrary. His duty as a military officer is to protect and defend his country from threats to it's security and safety. He considers Israel's policies to be a threat to Israel, therefore he is acting out against those policies. His actions illustrate the depth of his loyalty, not the betrayal of it.Originally posted by leha
His behaviour is at least not ethical.
By speaking out publicly, no matter how morally justified I think it to be, he risks serious political consequences. He has put himself in a situation where those priviledges are now at risk. That being the case, I can only conclude that his beliefs are more important to him than his financial benefits.Originally posted by leha
Serving in IDF at his post and rank he got VERY good money from country. He has no guts to leave army because then he will lose many previleges connected to his service .
I care nothing for hypocrisy. However, it is an element in all humans, especially at that level in any national government.Originally posted by leha
...but showing the whole world he is good guy from one side and taking all sweets from other makes him nothing but ***hole .
Originally posted by superslug
Quite the contrary. His duty as a military officer is to protect and defend his country from threats to it's security and safety. He considers Israel's policies to be a threat to Israel, therefore he is acting out against those policies. His actions illustrate the depth of his loyalty, not the betrayal of it
By speaking out publicly, no matter how morally justified I think it to be, he risks serious political consequences. He has put himself in a situation where those priviledges are now at risk. That being the case, I can only conclude that his beliefs are more important to him than his financial benefits
You also suggest cowardice is present in this individual, and yet he has created a situation and propelled himself into political danger. Such actions are usually either committed by the courageous and/or the stupid, which are quite separate from cowards.
Originally posted by andrewgprv
Leha would you say that a General in the German Army during WWII would have done the ethical thing by not speaking up against Hitler's policies?
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
As a civilian I can tell you that what that general did was absolutely correct. Jesus Christ I hate it when military persons come and demand to be listened to only because they are in the military or have been in the military.
Wake up call. For every soldier killed in combat ten civilians die from direct consequences of combat. And yet somehow the soldier who does the killing is more 'trustworthy' than any civilian. Not this time pal. No No.
Originally posted by leha
So, on one hand you think that what he did is right ( military person came and demanded to be listened to only because he is in the military ) , on the other hand you hate it ?
Could you elaborate , please ?