Top Israeli Officer Says Tactics Are Backfiring

[Neomega]

Originally posted by Richard III


Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But to state them as the chief of staff is to imply that they are the military's beliefs. If he had resigned, and indicated that he was unwilling to serve in that position because he had something to say, that would in no way have interfered with (a) his ability to fulfill his national service obligations as they arose, and (b) his ability to express his opinion. Clearly, no one confused Barak with the armed forces just because he had served in them.

But fact is fact: when general officers start to make public arguments against the chain of command, in uniform, with the potential support of all sorts of armed men under their command, it leads, over time, to the perception that general officers are better suited to "protect order" than civilians are. A perception that generals historically don't handle very responsibly.

R.III

It's also a good sign that politicians and army are not in agreeance. Sometimes the impact of this can open the eyes of the populace, who usually assume by the silence from the ranks of the army that they agree with their leaders. If Yaalon? were to step down, he would be powerless to help the 130 or so concientious objectors who are refusing to fight, and could possibly be giving them up to Sharon as an example. IMO, if just one of those objectors have been pressed into service because they happened to be born in Israel, it nullify's Israels claim of being a democratic nation, since for a time, usually the very beginning of adult life, one is taken and turned into a soldier, whose very job description requires unquestioning loyalty.

And, what if a general officer is "better suited" to "protect order?" I mean, is it better to be right and silent or wrong and heard?
I am sure he knew he was out of line, and putting his neck on the chopping block.... Tom White resigned..... know who he is/was? Secretary of the U.S. Army. So he resigned in protest, but who was listening? What would have happened had he been forced down?

This Yaalon guy is making the statement of a lifetime, and I admire him for it.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Neomega
If Yaalon? were to step down, he would be powerless to help the 130 or so concientious objectors who are refusing to fight, and could possibly be giving them up to Sharon as an example.

My point exactly - if he were to step down, he would be "powerless." Right now, he is only "powerful" because he was entrusted with a post and free guns and the power to order thousands of men to do whatever he says. He was entrusted with that power with certain limits. Limit one is absolute, and must always be: the military is an arm of the constitutional authority of the civilian state, applied constitutionally, period. Anything else is, as I while note below, the beginnings of an authoritarian state. As an American, of all people, you should appreciate this better than anyone; the Revolution happened for a reason - and guess what, that was it, not taxes. The hand-wringing in the US about a standing army and the prominence of the third amendment are not coincidences.

Originally posted by Neomega
I mean, is it better to be right and silent or wrong and heard?

I've said repeatedly, if what he has to say is so urgently right, it would have cost him precious little to have said it as a private citizen. The rule is not designed to silence him; it's designed to silence his authority over the military while he speaks. The system has worked just fine for similar problems here, in the US, in the UK, and elsewhere.

Originally posted by Neomega

And, what if a general officer is "better suited" to "protect order?"

What if? It's called fascism, that's what if. It's how Turkey pretends to govern itself. It's what Paraguay, Argentina, Nigeria, Pakistan, Greece, Spain, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala and so forth have had to live with. Ask some of our Argentine and Chilean posters how they felt with the notion of generals playing politics while in uniform? It always ends that way; always.

And you may think I'm taking a big leap here, but I'm not. It doesn't take a big leap for men with guns to take power implicitly or explicitly, all the more so in a state like Israel where rationalizations of that sort of thing would be more easily made. It's fine to say "great" now when you agree with the guy, but what if you DISAGREE? What if, in Rabin's day, generals started saying, "he's sold us out by trying to make peace" as a "statement of conscience?"

You are being SO shortsighted. It's like those foolhardy liberals who love judicial activism because it's "progressive," and forget that judicial activism used to mean things like the Dred Scott decision. Endorse one kind, and you endorse the other.

R.III

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by Richard III


You are being SO shortsighted. It's like those foolhardy liberals who love judicial activism because it's "progressive," and forget that judicial activism used to mean things like the Dred Scott decision. Endorse one kind, and you endorse the other.

R.III

I understand your point, and am really debating for debates sake... I knew it was a weak argument to start, but sometimes I don't exactly like to call Israel a democracy, especially in an American sense... but another similar incident occured recently in America.... Boykin, so I know how it feels to have one of your generals balbbering.

Judicial activism : another topic. But the judicial, IMO, is too weak. It was meant to protect the individual from the fascist/Republican/executive power and populist/democrat/legislative mob mentality, via determining whther laws are constitutional. In fact, I think the power was underscored in the constitution by making the appointments lifetime. A judge does not answer to the electorate, they answer to their concience. (sp?)

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Neomega


I understand your point, and am really debating for debates sake... I knew it was a weak argument to start, but sometimes I don't exactly like to call Israel a democracy, especially in an American sense... but another similar incident occured recently in America.... Boykin, so I know how it feels to have one of your generals balbbering.

What's the problem with calling Israel a democracy? If anything, it's more democratic than the US because all people have the same voting power regardless of their place of living.

 

[Richard III]

Um, ok!

I don't have problems with a strong judiciary; I have problems with a strong judiciary that invents laws or rights. I don't define judicial activism as saying "this man has rights," but as saying "this man has rights unwritten into the Bill of Rights that should really be there after all."

R.III

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by Richard III
Um, ok!

I don't have problems with a strong judiciary; I have problems with a strong judiciary that invents laws or rights. I don't define judicial activism as saying "this man has rights," but as saying "this man has rights unwritten into the Bill of Rights that should really be there after all."

R.III

I am not too sure. I see clearly how the 14th protects one's right to privacy, and if not that, the 4th should have it covered. We went over involuntary servitude and the draft once I believe. I really don't know where the judiciary has handed down an unconstitutional verdict.

Back on topic, stating an opinion is exactly what a judge is supposed to do while in uniform, and I'll agree, not a general in the United States military. I don't know the Israeli constitution well enough to say whther I think Yaalon should've kept his mouth closed, but I certainly understand the nature of power, and find it comical how a power granted by the republicans one year is used by the democrats the next, much to the Republican's chagrin.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Richard III

It's fine to say "great" now when you agree with the guy, but what if you DISAGREE? What if, in Rabin's day, generals started saying, "he's sold us out by trying to make peace" as a "statement of conscience?"

I've been following this thread and although I don't consider this guy a "traitor" I WAS wavering back and forth on the issue of him having the legal right to say what he did.

The above argument by RIII sealed the deal for me.

 

[superslug]

I've chopped up quotes out of chronological posting order. I do this not to try and misquote G-Man, but so that I may present my thoughts in an orderly fashion:

Originally posted by G-Man
The terminology is very much relevant.

Upon further reflection on this, I must concede some fault. My use of the term 'war crimes' was out of line. It would be more terminologically correct to say that I find the IDF's amount of collateral damage to be too high. The critical words there are 'too high'. I am arguing against quantity, not collateral damage itself.

Originally posted by G-Man The military tactics and weapons used are the most accurate and most advanced in the world.

The tactics are very much in dispute, not just by me but also by your own Chief of Staff. However, in saying the technology is the best in the world, I agree. Earlier in the thread, Richard III referred to the IDF as the 'most effective' military around. With this I do not disagree.

Originally posted by G-Man
The fact is that Israel has no other choice.

It's very easy to criticize a country without offering any alternative. How would you suggest the IDF should fight the terrorists?

Maybe so, but constructive criticism requires alternatives. People find it very easy to criticize Israeli military tactics, but without offering an alternative the criticism does nothing more than to cause hate.

The fact that other countries don't behave any better comes to show that infact there are no better alternatives.

Your line of reasoning is as repetitive as it is ridiculous. Your own Chief of Staff has suggested that there other choices, as there always are. Not once do you defend the current policies by their effectiveness, but always by an elaborate (albeit shallow) variety of the line "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"

You ask me for alternatives and suggestions? Have you not even considered Yaalon's? Stop construction on the wall. Destroy what portions have gone up, and begin permanent removal of the settlements. End the lockdowns and travel restrictions.

What these activities do achieve is laying the breeding grounds of more suffering, hence hate. The way Israel currently fights terrorists today increases the chances of terrorism tomorrow.

 

[NateDawgNY]

Nate, I think it's important to avoid what I call the standard where "the entire world has to be saved in every press release." I think some people DO forget about suicide bombers - or whatever you want to call them. But this is a thread about an Israeli's professional, moral and political decisions, not a Palestinian's. Post a news story about a Palestinian suicide bomber (which would be interesting, I suppose) and ask appropriate questions, and you might get more support for that concern then you bargaining for.

R.III-

Let me clarify my position, I was referring to the fact that people tend to forget (or maybe they don't know) that Arafat has death squads on the streets ready to kill any Palestinian who might be co-operating with the Israelis.

Originally posted by superslug. You ask me for alternatives and suggestions? Have you not even considered Yaalon's? Stop construction on the wall. Destroy what portions have gone up, and begin permanent removal of the settlements. End the lockdowns and travel restrictions.

1. I do agree with your position about the wall. I think construction should never have started on it in the first place.
2. Maybe you are not aware of the ramifications of removing all of the settlements. Do you know that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people living in those settlements? And there are some that would even be willing to fight the IDF to ensure that they remained.
3. In recent history, when Israel has eased up on the lockdowns and restrictions, the terrorists have just used that as an opportunity to commit more attacks.

So, sure we could go down those roads and see if it actually worked. Or maybe explore a viable alternative by removing Arafat and actually holding the Palestinian government responsible for actually dealing with the terrorists.

But, alas, I digress on that last suggestion, because at the root of it all is that the Palestinian government & terrorist organizations want all of Israel and not just the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I disagree with what he has to say, and with how he said it. The latter is the greater breach of professional conduct and protocol. As such, give him a blindfold and two cigarettes.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
1. I do agree with your position about the wall. I think construction should never have started on it in the first place.

I don't know if the following is a good idea, so let me throw it out for critique and feedback: If the wall were to be dismantled, what about using some of the money earmarked for it's construction (hence cash saved) to pay Palestinian labor to do the dismantling? Aside from the symbolic gesture, giving the Palestinians a venue to vent their frustration other than blowing people up might prove productive. Again, the wall coming down is my opinion, the labor an idea.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
2. Maybe you are not aware of the ramifications of removing all of the settlements. Do you know that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people living in those settlements? And there are some that would even be willing to fight the IDF to ensure that they remained.

What I'm suggesting overall is not a solution for total peace, but instead steps towards reducing the current tensions. De-escalation must happen before peace can be pursued, much less achieved.

Therefore, I'm not suggesting removing all of the settlements, at least not yet. I'm suggesting that all construction stop and removing the settlements begins. Switching the territorial expansionism from growth to retraction would be another significant gesture on the part of Israel.

However, destroying all of them would be a very bad idea for two reasons. First, it would deprive Israel of cards to play during the actual peace process. Second, more time is needed to determine how to handle your mentioned resisters. Hopefully, over the course of time I would hope some of them would realize that the settlements are doomed and simply cooperate. For those that don't, I truly don't know what to say.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
3. In recent history, when Israel has eased up on the lockdowns and restrictions, the terrorists have just used that as an opportunity to commit more attacks.

If either of the first two discussed suggestions were implemented, I would imagine there would be a reciprocal drop in the number of terrorist bombings, thus reducing the need for the lockdowns in the first place. I fully expect the restrictions would need to continue for a short time, but only for a while.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
So, sure we could go down those roads and see if it actually worked. Or maybe explore a viable alternative by removing Arafat and actually holding the Palestinian government responsible for actually dealing with the terrorists.

Removing Arafat would be a very bad idea. Even if Israel has by sheer power the ability to 'veto' who is the Palestinian leader, to remove Arafat would send a clear signal to many Palestinians that Israel is not serious about fully recognizing Palestinian statehood. Mind you, I am by no means endorsing Arafat, but I believe such a move would set back the chance for peace by as much as a generation.

Holding the Palestinian government accountable for the terrorists is something that I'm afraid would have to wait until later in the peace process. At the moment, they simply aren't capable or willing.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
But, alas, I digress on that last suggestion, because at the root of it all is that the Palestinian government & terrorist organizations want all of Israel and not just the West Bank and Gaza.

And the settlers don't? Regardless, this is another problem that would have to wait for solution until after a de-escalation. I do, however, believe that Israeli's and Palestinians living side by side in peace is possible. As a matter of fact, the majority of them do already.

 

[HannibalBarka]

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.

Why are you so anti-palestinian ? do hate them ?
For your information a ot of Palestinian officials have publicly expressed their desagreement to PA regarding its politics and strategies.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by superslug
Upon further reflection on this, I must concede some fault. My use of the term 'war crimes' was out of line. It would be more terminologically correct to say that I find the IDF's amount of collateral damage to be too high. The critical words there are 'too high'. I am arguing against quantity, not collateral damage itself.

Too high? And how would you suggest it be reduced?

Originally posted by superslug
The tactics are very much in dispute, not just by me but also by your own Chief of Staff.

That is incorrect.

Originally posted by superslug
Your line of reasoning is as repetitive as it is ridiculous. Your own Chief of Staff has suggested that there other choices, as there always are. Not once do you defend the current policies by their effectiveness, but always by an elaborate (albeit shallow) variety of the line "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"

I defend them by the fact that there aren't other tactics. That's also what Ya'alon said.

Originally posted by superslug
You ask me for alternatives and suggestions? Have you not even considered Yaalon's? Stop construction on the wall. Destroy what portions have gone up, and begin permanent removal of the settlements. End the lockdowns and travel restrictions.

And how will this stop the terrorists? Every time Israel lifst roacblocks it only causes more terrorism. Every area not protected by the fence is threatened dozens of times more than areas protected by it. I'm afraid your strategy is completely ignoring the facts. And in any case it's a strategy, not a tactic.

Originally posted by superslug
What these activities do achieve is laying the breeding grounds of more suffering, hence hate. The way Israel currently fights terrorists today increases the chances of terrorism tomorrow.

Chances of terrorism? The more Israel gives, the more terror it gets. Every move Israel does in favor of the Palestinians ends with more terrorism. The Intifada started without the fence, without the roadblocks and restrictions and with an Israeli offer to remove settlments. As long as the PA won't fight terrorism terrorism will exist, and as long as this continues someone else needs to stop them from attacking Israelis.
There'll be terrorism tomorrow regardless of what we do. The question is how many it'll kill and injure, and these figures can be minimized - saving the lifes of tens of thousands of people.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by G-Man
Too high? And how would you suggest it be reduced?

Read the thread, you'll find them.

Originally posted by G-Man
That is incorrect.

The Chief of Staff didn't dispute the tactics? Did I miss the disclaimer naming the article and April Fool's Joke? It's November???

Originally posted by G-Man
I defend them by the fact that there aren't other tactics. That's also what Ya'alon said.

Again, you completely refuse to counter my own argument and instead merely repeat the same tired line without defending it, which I suspect is because you can't.

Originally posted by G-Man
And how will this stop the terrorists? Every time Israel lifst roacblocks it only causes more terrorism. Every area not protected by the fence is threatened dozens of times more than areas protected by it. I'm afraid your strategy is completely ignoring the facts. And in any case it's a strategy, not a tactic.

Originally posted by G-Man
Chances of terrorism? The more Israel gives, the more terror it gets. Every move Israel does in favor of the Palestinians ends with more terrorism. The Intifada started without the fence, without the roadblocks and restrictions and with an Israeli offer to remove settlments. As long as the PA won't fight terrorism terrorism will exist, and as long as this continues someone else needs to stop them from attacking Israelis.
There'll be terrorism tomorrow regardless of what we do. The question is how many it'll kill and injure, and these figures can be minimized - saving the lifes of tens of thousands of people.

And yet even with the fence, the roadblocks and the restrictions, the Intifada continues...and to just assume there will be terrorism tomorrow is blatant denial of your nation's responsibilities.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by superslug

Read the thread, you'll find them.

Where?

Originally posted by superslug
The Chief of Staff didn't dispute the tactics? Did I miss the disclaimer naming the article and April Fool's Joke? It's November???

The chief of staff didn't dispute the tactics, he simply pointed out their negative sides. As chief of staff he's responsible for these tactics, and had he thought there are better tactics he would've applied them.

Originally posted by superslug
Again, you completely refuse to counter my own argument and instead merely repeat the same tired line without defending it, which I suspect is because you can't.

I have countered your arguement. The fact is that these tactics are the most effective there are. You have failed to point out even one better tactic.

Originally posted by superslug
And yet even with the fence, the roadblocks and the restrictions, the Intifada continues...and to just assume there will be terrorism tomorrow is blatant denial of your nation's responsibilities.

I suggest you'll compare march 2002 to any of the latest months. Ofcource the intifada continues. These measures aren't aimed at stopping it, they're aimed at reducing its damage. I don't see how an assumption based on three years of experience - including Barak's failure in using the tactics you suggest - have anything to do with our responsibilities. A country's foremost responsibility is to defend its citizens.

 

[superslug]

Before I take my turn in the ping-pong match, I would be very interested in knowing if anyone besides G-Man and myself is even continuing to read this thread. If so, I won't mind continuing my end of the discourse. If not, I'm done...

 

[NateDawgNY]

Holding the Palestinian government accountable for the terrorists is something that I'm afraid would have to wait until later in the peace process. At the moment, they simply aren't capable or willing.

Super-
Why do you not think that the Palestinian government should be held accountable for reigning in the terrorists? According to the "Road Map" their controlling the terrorist organizations is part of the deal.

As for Israel making gestures of peace, they just recently released almost one hundred Palestinian prisoners, many of which had a hand in terrorist attacks.

Basically I would say that the bottom line in this issue is that for any progress to be made towards peace the Palestinian government needs to step up to the plate minus Arafat.

Israel has already taken steps forward, it's time the Palestinians did the same.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
Super-
Why do you not think that the Palestinian government should be held accountable for reigning in the terrorists? According to the "Road Map" their controlling the terrorist organizations is part of the deal.

Should the Palestinian government be held accountable for reigning in terrorists? Without a doubt, absolutely, unequivocally! In this thread I have been obviously critical of Israeli actions, but that has been the topic. Their case however has been one of doing some wrong things for the right reasons. In the case of Palestinian terrorists however, it is a case of pure evil.

The moral obligation of fighting terrorists does fall to the Palestinian government. However, in reality, I do not believe they will have the motivation to do so until after a first step is taken by Israel. It is greatly unfortunate, but it is also true.

It is a simple case of inertia. Israel is a single entity, and more able to take the first step toward deescalation. In the case of Palestine, Arafat's organization has not nearly as much power/influence as Israel's government. You also have a myriad web of terrorist organizations, and so Palestinian organization gets bogged down in quasichaos and political entrenchment.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
As for Israel making gestures of peace, they just recently released almost one hundred Palestinian prisoners, many of which had a hand in terrorist attacks.

I'm not entirely sure what to say on this particular point. On the one hand, releasing terrorists could be seen as ultimately self-defeating. I also feel that these occasional prisoner releases are sometimes done as much to appease internation critics as it is the Palestinians.

However, any attempt at a gesture is a positive indication. I would also not be shocked to discover that Israel is covertly convincing some of these released prisoners to serve as informants, which could be a subtle but successful tactic.

Originally posted by NateDawgNY
Basically I would say that the bottom line in this issue is that for any progress to be made towards peace the Palestinian government needs to step up to the plate minus Arafat.

Again, I say that Arafat should not be removed by Israel. If he were, I believe the Palestinians (and indeed some of the international community) would consider his replacement to be an Israeli puppet, further thwarting the peace process.

However, I do believe that every attempt should be made to strengthen and diversify his government in any way that dilutes and detracts his personal power until he is nothing more than a posterboy and figurehead.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by G-Man
The chief of staff didn't dispute the tactics, he simply pointed out their negative sides. As chief of staff he's responsible for these tactics, and had he thought there are better tactics he would've applied them.

Had he applied other tactics, he would have done so against the wishes of his superiors. I do think he should lose his commission based on what he said, but to have acted out would have been an act of insubordination, which is much worse.

Originally posted by G-Man
I have countered your arguement.

With what? Your broken record player of "there are no other tactics"? In order to prove that, you must disprove all other tactics. To date, you have not done so for a single one.

Originally posted by G-Man
The fact is that these tactics are the most effective there are.

Okay, so suddenly your tactics are not "the only" ones, but now "the most effective" available. This of course implies there are less effective tactics available, meaning that there are indeed other tactics available.

I'm certainly pleased to see you making a fraction more sense, even if it involves waffling on the issue.

 

[NateDawgNY]

Super-
Well, with the clarification you have given, it looks like you and I are mostly in agreement on these issues.

Let me clarify something though - when I talk about the removal of Arafat from power, I realize the ramifications of the Israeli government doing so. It would be preferable if he was removed through international and internal pressure.