Ex-Soldiers Break `Silence' on Israeli Excesses

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Haroon Siddiqui

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1217-21.htm

<snip>

There were pictures of Palestinians bound and blindfolded. There was a photo of a settler carrying an assault rifle with a decal on the magazine clip: "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out." Another was of graffiti on a wall: "Arabs to the gas chamber."

The exhibit drew 7,000 visitors and much media coverage.

Other soldiers who had served in the West Bank and Gaza came forward. More photos were gathered, as well as about 400 audio and video testimonies.

In them, soldiers talk about the total power of the occupiers over the occupied — throwing Palestinians out of their homes; making them stand for hours for disobeying the curfew or trying to bypass a checkpoint or even smiling or arguing at the wrong time, Shaul said.

[xultar]

1. Bravo for the soldiers for coming forward.

[IntiRaymi]

11. And Bravo for the soldiers for waking up from that moral slumber.

[cali]

2. That's a powerful

piece that neatly sums up the perils of occupation. As Shaul says there is no such thing as a benign occupation, and this one is compounded by the policy of settlements. Particularly appalling is the mind set of many of the settlers as evidenced by the photos.

Israel has done nothing about dismantling settlements dispite saying they would.

[oberliner]

4. Israel has dismantled all Gaza Strip settlements

August 22, 2005

GAZA SETTLEMENT ERA ENDS...

Residents of the last Gaza settlement bid an emotional farewell to their homes Monday afternoon, before boarding the buses that took them out of Netzarim and marking the end of Israel's settlement enterprise in tiny area of land between Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea.

http://www.peacenow.org/hot.asp?cid=1322

August 30, 2005

Bombing in Israel wounds two guards

A Palestinian bomber has blown himself up outside an Israeli bus station during the morning rush hour, critically wounding two guards, increasing tensions between Israel and the Palestinians in the wake of Israel's Gaza Strip withdrawal.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=14571

[cali]

13. Yes, but the argument

that Israel withdrew, and yet still maintained control of all ports, of all land and all air and land egress and entrance, is not without merit. That said, the Palestinian in Gaza still missed an opportunity.

[bemildred]

3. The Second Lebanon War.

You may be sure that a great deal of the "poor performance" of the IDF and its leadership in the 2nd Lebanon War was related to its engagement with the occupation, policing, and colonization of Palestinian areas. An army cannot hone its skills and morale on opponents much inferior in means to its own; and much less so on the helpless, the unarmed, and the innocent.

[The Magistrate]

22. Indeed, Mr. Mildred

This has been one of my chief hobby-horses over the years. It is axiomatic: no less an authority than Liddel-Hart views occupation duty as the most detrimental and corrosive duty a body of soldiers can be assigend to.

[bemildred]

23. Thank you Sir.

We ought to give credit to Mr. von Creveld too, among others. Warfare against well-armed and well- trained forces with sound organization and command is a completely different cup of tea from police and counter-insurgency work against populations that are none of those things, however angry they might be, and it continues to amaze me that the differences are ignored so casually.

I expect to be gone for some time, allow me to wish you a Happy Holiday and the best for the New Year.

-- B

[IntiRaymi]

5. You need racism to morally abet these actions

For instance:

In them, soldiers talk about the total power of the occupiers over the occupied — throwing Palestinians out of their homes; making them stand for hours for disobeying the curfew or trying to bypass a checkpoint or even smiling or arguing at the wrong time, Shaul said.

"We can play with them. This is the mindset from which everything flows."

Or, for instance:

There were pictures of Palestinians bound and blindfolded. There was a photo of a settler carrying an assault rifle with a decal on the magazine clip: "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out." Another was of graffiti on a wall: "Arabs to the gas chamber."

I wonder if you must corrode the human spirit in order to send soldiers out to Gaza in order to do this. I bet that THESE attitudes, of Israelis in the IDF, are a sign of Israel's loss of moral legitimacy.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have to revert to racism as a tool for the justification of these excesses.

[bemildred]

6. It is the absence of accountability that corrodes.

It is always so. People must be held accountable for the evil they do. You cannot have a separate group that may do as it pleases, with no redress, the result is always the same.

[msmcghee]

7. I know you are not refering to . .

. the unaccountable acts of aggression such as the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel or the sending of suicide bombers from the West Bank into Israel to kill Israeli civilians.

But, don't you think that's a form of unaccountable behavior that in this case has caused Israel to have to occupy the West Bank to defend against those particular unaccountable acts of aggression?

Further, if Israel does not choose to be in the West Bank but is forced to be there for its defense - but the militias choose to attack Israeli citizens with the intent to kill them - who's unaccountable acts of aggression are the cause of the conflict to start with.

Who's unaccountable acts of aggression, if ended, would end the conflict?

[IntiRaymi]

9. Nice try.

I don't see any Palestinians demolishing Israeli homes. Or bedouins demolishing Israeli homes.

Get back to me when THAT begins to happen.

[bemildred]

10. Those people are held accountable with some regularity.

Along with quite a few others who happen to be in the way. The settlers, on the other hand, are treated with kid gloves, no 500 pound bombs for them, no targeted killings of settlers who make trouble; and they receive the best possible protection against Palestinian retaliation. It is interesting to me that the citizens of Israel, who are usually the recipients of Palestinian violence, are so tolerant of the settlers provocatively squatting where they do not belong, who are not. Settlers find harassment of unarmed Palestinians much more congenial than military activities against well armed opponents. The notion that the occupation of the West Bank defends against anything at all is also fatuous; occupation, extended 40 years now, is not defense.

[msmcghee]

14. Looking at your reply . .

"The settlers, on the other hand, are treated with kid gloves, no 500 pound bombs for them, no targeted killings of settlers who make trouble;"

It seems to me that the settlers are not supporting or are part of armed militias that have vowed to kill all Palestinians on the West Bank until there are no more. I think that's why they are not subjected to 500 lb bombs and targeted killings by the IDF.

OTOH I understand that many settlers have been killed or injured by Palestinian sniper fire and other means. In one case Palestinian terrorists entered a settlement and simply went from house to house killing settlers including babies in cribs. I agree that there is very bad blood between the settlers and the Palestinians. I also agree that the IDF probably is partial to the settlers and unfairly so in many cases.

I see that as unfortunate and due to placing young IDF in the area rather than more experienced soldiers - but I don't think it is a direct policy of the GOI and I think the IDF tries to control it as far as possible. (I'm not totally sure about that and I'm open to counter evidence.)

I certainly can't see that as a reason why Israel should leave the West Bank and the wall and give up the material protection it has gained from that.

I may be wrong but it seems that it is irrelevant to you that Palestinians are attacking Israel from the West Bank and if those attacks were to stop, that it may be possible for the Palestinians to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel with borders that would be acceptable to both.

Again, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that many here in this forum are more interested in seeing Israel defeated somehow than in seeing any lasting peace between the parties. It seems obvious to me that the only way the Palestinians can get rid of the Israelis on the West Bank and take control of the territory themselves and thereby control all settlement and immigration - is to find peace with Israel and recognize Israel's existence.

But I never hear such suggestions here.

[bemildred]

18. Yes, yes, they are just well meaning "pioneers" whose affection for the

Arabs is misunderstood:

Lieberman: Jews, Arabs can never live together

"In his first interview to the foreign press, the newly-appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman told the British Telegraph Sunday that the best means of achieving peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs to live apart, including those Arabs who now live inside Israel.

Israel Our Home Chairman Lieberman stated that the Arab minority in Israel was a "problem" which required separation from the Jewish state.

"We established Israel as a Jewish country," he told the Telegraph. "I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country.
It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an (ethnically mixed) country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."

Lieberman said he believes that minorities are the biggest problem in the world, and asserted that in his opinion, Israel should follow Cyprus' model of national separation: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror."

"In his first interview to the foreign press, the newly-appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman told the British Telegraph Sunday that the best means of achieving peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs to live apart, including those Arabs who now live inside Israel.

Israel Our Home Chairman Lieberman stated that the Arab minority in Israel was a "problem" which required separation from the Jewish state.

"We established Israel as a Jewish country," he told the Telegraph. "I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country.
It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an (ethnically mixed) country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."

Lieberman said he believes that minorities are the biggest problem in the world, and asserted that in his opinion, Israel should follow Cyprus' model of national separation: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=153231

[IntiRaymi]

19. You are missing the point completely

The discussion is not about palestinian actions - it is about the possible racism that constitutes the basis for the actions of these soldiers, as well as others like them.

We can dive into the Palestinian actions elsewhere, but as far as this thread is concerned, it is the psychology of IDF soldiers that is at issue.

Stay on topic!

[cali]

20. Actually, no.

The main thrust of the article is about the dehumanizing effect of occupation on the occupiers, and the subsequent evils of such. Really, it's that simple. Did you read the entire article?

[Recursion]

30. In a sense you're right

Again, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that many here in this forum are more interested in seeing Israel defeated somehow than in seeing any lasting peace between the parties.

There's something to that, I guess. I want more than anything to see a lasting peace between the parties. From what I have seen, I don't think a lasting peace will be possible until Israel realizes the moral, legal, strategic, and logistical disaster its occupation and settlement programs have been. And sadly, I don't know of anything that will convince Israel of that other than being defeated militarily. Even that is only a possibility; for all I know military defeat might just send Israel even farther to the right. Sigh.

It seems to me that the settlers are not supporting or are part of armed militias that have vowed to kill all Palestinians on the West Bank until there are no more.

All of them? No, not all of them. Some of them certainly are. Calling a militia 'Matte Binyamin Bitahon' instead of 'Hezbollah' doesn't suddenly make it acceptable or legal.

[msmcghee]

31. What a thoughtful reply.

You say, "I want more than anything to see a lasting peace between the parties."

I have a lump in my throat typing this - but that is exactly what I want too. It bothers me that, even though I have tried several times, I can't express this clearly enough.

My experience in life - probably having the advantage of longevity rather than any particular wisdom - is that for peace, there must be a bright line regarding the use of force to get your way.

Ninety percent of the discussion in this forum is about how strenuously Israel defends the lives of its citizens - about whether the number of checkpoints or the wall's existence or the cruelty of the IDF on the WB - are excessive or not.

To me, the real discussion should be about why Israel is required to defend the lives of its citizens to start with.

My analysis of this conundrum leads me further to conclude that the effective underlying belief (the emotional form of belief that actually determines behavior decisions - not the words we use to describe our belief to others) of many members here - is that Israel should never have been granted the Partition by the UN.

This belief manifests itself in comments that continually justify whatever violent means that the Palestinians employ to rectify that wrong - statements that come down to, "What else can they do? Israel has taken away all their options for resistance.".

This happens from posters who will say that they accept the fact and justice of the Partition. I don't accuse them of dishonesty. They are being honest - both to their emotional belief in attempts by international bodies to resolve disputes - and to their emotional belief that Israel should never have been given the right to establish a state in Palestine.

I accept the reality of the Partition - I think the justice of it is no longer useful for discussion. It is a fact. Peace therefore depends on one thing. For each side to make the best of the situation and committ to living in peace with the other.

Only one side has refused to make that commitment consistently for 60 years. That's why I seem to many here as being biased against the Palestinians. I'm actually biased against the use of violence to solve disputes. The reason is that I see disavowing the use of force as the only possible path to peace.

[Recursion]

36. I'll come clean

I don't particularly accept or claim to accept the justice of the partition; the fact is of course inarguable, as facts tend to be. I don't think it was right for Europe, in a last dying gasp of colonialism, to take Arab land and give it to European refugees. I don't think it was right for Europe to, and I hope this frankness doesn't get this comment zotted, finish the then-recently-nearly-finished work of essentially removing central and eastern Europe's Jews, albeit in a much more humane form. Do the Jews deserve a homeland? I don't know if any people "deserves" a homeland in the 19th-century nationalist sense, though everyone deserves to live in a country with liberty, security, and dignity. If we had to carve out a Jewish homeland on occupied land, why not give them Bavaria? The nightmare scenario I usually see presented about the so-called "right" of return is that Israel will lose its status as a Jewish nation: I can't bring myself to care about that, any more than I can bring myself to care when people lament that America is losing its historically Christian society.

the real discussion should be about why Israel is required to defend the lives of its citizens to start with.

Palestinians are afraid that Israel wants to take the rest of their land and water. You really, really have to understand that they are honestly and sincerely (if mistakenly) afraid of that, and I really get the feeling that a lot of people don't. They really do believe that and it's hard for me to find a reason for them not to given what's happened in the past half-century. Palestinians kill Israelis because Israelis kill Palestinians. Israelis kill Palestinians because Palestinians kill Israelis. The suicide bombers and the IDF air strikes both take out legitimate and illegitimate targets, and both are killing far, far, far too many civilians. People play infantile "he started it" games, which carried to their logical conclusion would mean both sides should be attacking the British (or even the Romans).

You are (politely and thoughtfully) dismissive of the argument, "what recourse is left to the Palestinians?", but, well, what recourse is left to them? Obviously nobody here approves of violence, but they're locked up in what is essentially an internment camp and prevented from managing their own economic and social infrastructures (not to mention the fact that they are in constant danger of arbitrary arrest and/or assassination). If you have some secret plan to let their voices be heard and their grievances addressed, I would love to hear it and so would they.

That said, I've seen a lot of people more on my end of the spectrum claiming that if Israel returned to its 1967 borders, internationalized Jerusalem, and compensated the displaced refugees, that Palestine and indeed the whole middle east would become a peaceful place. This is ridiculously naive; frankly Palestine is not a concrete concern for anyone but the Palestinians (not even the Israelis, and that's a large part of the problem).

[msmcghee]

37. Thanks for your honesty. Few here have the inclination . . .

. . to examine their true beliefs so honestly.

"I don't particularly accept or claim to accept the justice of the partition; the fact is of course inarguable, as facts tend to be. I don't think it was right for Europe, in a last dying gasp of colonialism, to take Arab land and give it to European refugees. I don't think it was right for Europe to, and I hope this frankness doesn't get this comment zotted, finish the then-recently-nearly-finished work of essentially removing central and eastern Europe's Jews, albeit in a much more humane form."

But when you do admit that - it actually allows a better discussion to take place IMO. I can understand your feelings on that. The pros and cons of what happened and the motivations of the parties are arguable.

Would you agree though that it's not important whether I agree with you or not as to which party is most aggrieved. It seems that the way to solve problems that exist in the present is to ask what can be done from this moment forward, since the arrow of time only flows in one direction and nobody gets a do-over?

And if that is the case, is not the choice then for each side to either accept the status quo and make the best of it - or, allow each side to engage in the fullest possible hostilities according to their energy and armaments without limit and with an aim to decide once and for all which side will dominate the other? Is it not true that virtually every nation presently in existence is sitting on land that used to belong to another state or another tribe and that there was a war at some time that determined the present ownership?

It seems this is by far the most common method historically. Wars are engaged and when one side kills enough of the other that they don't have the means to continue, only then it stops and a new order appears and becomes the reality, going forward. Watching Iran and Syria I think that's the path that they would prefer and that they are waiting for the moment when they think they'd have the best chance of succeeding.

But if that is the case, which approach do you prefer?

Of course, there's the current interminable lower grade hostilities that could just continue perpetuating the pain and enraging both sides. However, I suspect that this is not a stable course and that it must at some point swing to one pole or the other.

I fear that Israel's reluctance to engage in all-out hostilities as most other western nations would have done by now under any similar circumstances - has only postponed the inevitable.

Sixty million human lives were tragically ended by the worst possible violence in WWII on both sides. Now, a few years later we are closest allies with both Germany and Japan. But it took sixty million dead and trillions of dollars that could have gone toward vastly improving the human condition throughout the world.

Is that what it's going to take to determine whether Israel remains in the ME or not? Is there some better course that could be followed where those deaths and wasted resources could be avoided? If so, what do you think it is? How much is it worth to the world to avoid those millions of dead innocents?

I'm not saying I know the answer - just that I'm pretty sure that is the question.

[Recursion]

42. Wow... actual discussion...

I had thought that was banned in I/P :sarcasm:

Thank you, seriously, for such well-reasoned responses. Let me try to be 1/10th as reasonable and well-thought-out as you have been:

Would you agree though that it's not important whether I agree with you or not as to which party is most aggrieved. It seems that the way to solve problems that exist in the present is to ask what can be done from this moment forward, since the arrow of time only flows in one direction and nobody gets a do-over?

I think the obsession with the past is locking the Levantines into a self-destructive game that benefits only the wealthy and powerful in outside countries. If one were to somehow "weigh" the grievances of each side one would find no scale strong enough to support their weight. This is too often the strategy of both sides: to somehow imply that their faction has suffered more and so is more deserving of the land.

Here is a simple fact: too many people live in the Levant. There is not enough water or arable land for them. This is a fact I find indisputable and I don't intend to argue with it (ie, if you disagree feel free to make your case, but I don't see the need to respond in defense of what seems to be a self-evident fact). The horn of Africa is in the same condition. In both places, you find desperate, brutal fighting where, were there enough water and arable land, there need be none.

Your point about the arrow of time is well-made. One can no more wish Jews or Arabs out of the Levant than one can wish that the Romans had not reduced Masada 2 millenia ago (which, indeed, one would have to in order to wish the absurd hypothesis).


But if that is the case, which approach do you prefer?

Myself? I would prefer to see the Levant unoccupied. Its residents have proven themselves incapable of civilization.

[pelsar]

43. its not a resource problem....

water?...israel already has several sea water to fresh water converters working.....there was talk of bringing in water from turkey (cheaper than the converters), furthermore the acquifers in the westbank and in gaza are under the palestenains as well as israel.

Nor is arable land the problem. Drip irrigation "made the desert bloom"....and there is lots of open land there (it may destroy the local habitat, but thats something else). Furthermore israel is "leaving the agricultural society" for more industrial, and buildings dont really care on what kind of land they sit, the settlers for the most part dont farm and they themselves sit on hilltops, not great for farming, but good for strategic reasons.

the problem is one of culture.......

[eyl]

45. "incapable of civilization"

that's a rather sweeping statement, given some of the things Europe and the US have gotten up to, and not that long ago....

[pelsar]

39. I"m impressed.....

not just with your honesty but the combo of "lack of naivety"


I don't think it was right for Europe, in a last dying gasp of colonialism, to take Arab land and give it to European refugees

I've seen a lot of people more on my end of the spectrum claiming that if Israel returned to its 1967 borders, internationalized Jerusalem, and compensated the displaced refugees, that Palestine and indeed the whole middle east would become a peaceful place. This is ridiculously naive;

now let me add a few aspects that is also part of the "equation". The larger arab world that continues to dehumanizes israel via its media to the point of absurdity (zaras blues eyes-a tv program in Iran, protocols of zion playing in egypt, and the usual blood libels in saudi arabia etc). Add to that, the fact that that larger arab world doesnt even like the Palestinians and is obviously just using them, and failure of the Palestinians to make something positive with gaza.

and yes many Palestinians really do believe (as do people here) that israel really wants all of "palestine" if not all of the middle east.
______________________

since you do write that you cant find a reason israel doesnt want Palestinian land and water, perhaps i can offer some simple facts?
israel pulled out of the sinai, when egypt said "no more war". Israel pulled out of Lebanon, Israel pulled out of Gaza, Israel and Jordan came to terms. Each of those geographic borders shows israels intent. More so the reactions from the various societies was clear. Those with a weak leadership, continued to attack israel (Lebanon, gaza) those with strong could protect the border (Egypt, Jordan). Its should be clear to all those who arent naive that if israel would pull out of the west bank today, its "reward" would be kassams and mortars on jerusalem, etc.

you ask: what are their alternatives?...well a quick look at their history clearly shows one thing: their current strategy is nothing but a failure. The lives have gotten more and more miserable and their land keeps shrinking. They've been using the same strategy and its doesn't seem to work....that too should be obvious.

There are always alternatives...and given that most of the israelis are for a Palestinian state (during the pullout of gaza no more than 140 soldiers requested not to participate, one went to jail-showing how little power the settlers actually have), the "trick" is to take advantage of them.

Along those lines, the expressions of hate from the larger arab world is part of the poisoning. Its not so much that me as an israeli is bothered by it, its what it does to the arab/Palestinian citizen. It teaches them from their media that the war must go on....and that is the real problem.

the Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Sheikh was quite honest when he said: It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego

[breakaleg]

40. If what you say is true, why is Israel continuing to expand the settlements?

Already it's been decided by Israel that certain settlements are to large, established or whatever, that they will remain. It follows from that that what Israel really wants is more time to pass so even more settlements fall into that category and ultimately, they will get more land.

And it's not enough to say that you disagree with the policy of settlement establishment. Let's talk about what those settlements mean and what statement it sends to expand them.

[pelsar]

41. its called real politics....

with no real reason to withdraw from the westbank, most of us in israel have no real interest in the settlements....we see no real reason to start paying the heavy political price that it will cost the israeli society for their removal with nothing to gain. (in fact, just as the settlements in gaza became training bases for the various jihadnikim, it would be reasonable to assume the same would occure in the westbank.)

if the settlements are frozen....so?...will the palestenians stop with their suicide attempts?, stop shooting?....gaza made that answer all to clear. They wont......

the settlements are not the issue, lebanon and gaza should have made that obvious.

[breakaleg]

47. That doesn't address the question.

The actions of Israel with regard to settlements directly contradicts the claims they make regarding their intentions for peace and a settlement.

I'm not interested in how you feel about them.

[pelsar]

50. why would israel give the palestenains better military positions?

if israel were to leave the settlements, the palestenains, would then use those positions to shoot missles at israel.

that is exactly what happened in lebanon and gaza and most likly would happen in the westbank.....so why would israel do such a foolish thing?

one only has to look back to the initial gaza withdrawl a year ago, the lebanon withdrawl 6 years ago, the 2nd gaza withdrawl a mere weeks ago (40 kassams since the 'cease fire)....history is pretty clear on the what happens when israel withdraws.....

[breakaleg]

55. So you are admitting that Israel does not intend to disband their illegal settlements?

Save the excuses. I've heard them before and they are no more believable this time, than they were the last 100 times.

[pelsar]

56. of course not....at least not now

we're not suicidal...nor are we that dumb.....nor do we need excuses to defend ourselves.....expecially not from those in europe and elsewhere......

Unlike those how close their eyes, and ears and only listen to what they want to hear, we actually listen to the arabs and we actually watch what they do...and we dont look down upon them as some kind of "misunderstood child."....

[breakaleg]

17. This thread is about the actions of IDF soldiers in the occupied territories.

Why can't you stick to the topic? You deliberate attempts to deflect attention elsewhere are laughable. It is very telling that you can't find fault when the soldiers themselves are admitting to their wrongdoings.

[cali]

38. That's just a ridiculous

and obnoxious attack on a thoughtful and RESPECTFUL discussion between two people with diametrically opposed views, who are honestly expressing what they believe. God knows, that's rare enough in I/P. All you want to do is attack someone.


In case you haven't noticed, threads often meander off topic. In fact, I'd say that it's as common as not. Surely you don't run from thread to thread chastizing people for not staying on topic.

Just blechh to your interference.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

16. The question is, how prevalent is this kind of behavior? Is it only a few or

is it more widespread? I think it's been noted at this forum that it's the youngest soldiers that serve in the occupied territories and they would likely more susceptible to slipping into this kind of thing.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. "I wonder if you must corrode the human spirit...

... in order to send soldiers out to Gaza in order to do this."

I would think there surely must be some mechanism, probably institutionalized, nationwide, fear mongering and other kinds of propaganda, by which a numbing or corrosion of spirit is achieved. The natural human tendency to empathize with and try to remedy or alleviate the suffering of others must be overcome somehow. History has often shown this to be the work of master propagandists who, over a period of time, usually years, succeed in dehumanizing the target population in the minds of their own citizens, particularly those sent in to do the dirty work.

Clearly, and fortunately, as evidenced by these courageous former IDF soldiers, it does not work on everyone.

[IntiRaymi]

15. There are several US Army studies that address this particular issue.

LTC David Grossman (author of 'On Killing') mentions them in his book, and also states that they have remained classified. What he does mention is that there was a change in the training techniques employed by the US Army, after WW2 - motivated by the perceived inability of conscripts to 'Shoot to Kill.'
The kill ratios in Viet Nam resulted being far, far higher (about 3x) as a result.
You absolutely MUST dehumanize the enemy, in order to kill him/her...especially in a situation where your survival is not at stake - as in when you are merely a member of an occupying force.

[pelsar]

21. From an IDF reserve soldier.....

The soldiers in the westbank are mixed between reserves those doing active service. The IDF prefers the younger ones because they have a less developed "moral value system". and are more concerned with the orders and "getting the job done" social pressure and making a mistake, as opposed to an older more experienced soldier with a more developed moral system.

The reserve soldier will see his own kids/mother when he looks at a Palestinian kid/grandmother waiting in line or 4 hours in the son...and will probably do something about it on his own, the younger active service kid wont.

Its the reservists that form the bulk of the values of the society and the IDF doesnt want them out there in the westbank "causing trouble." On the other side, its understood that when there is a security alert, its the younger ones that will check all the Palestinians including grandmothers and kids for potential bombs, which have been found, whereas the older reservists might and do hesitate.

The long term problem is what it does to the values of the younger soldiers vs kassams and mortars on Jerusalem and other Israeli cities. Pre Gaza pullout the discussions were "hot and heavy"...since israel has pulled out of gaza twice with the same result (kassams) its pretty clear what a pullout in the westbank will bring. (and lebanon if one needs a further example), consequently until the Palestinians get a strong leadership that accepts israel, those kids are going to have to stay put.

how prevalent is the behavior?....though there are no stats its generally accepted to be centered around Hebron, with specific units having a higher rate of cruelty than others.

[UndertheOcean]

24. "" The IDF prefers the younger ones because they have a less developed "moral value system" ""

That sentence is just so chilling ....

[pelsar]

25. why?....

kids with less experience in life see things differently... A 35yr old with a couple of kids at home, a mother in the hospital etc looks upon the palestenains in the checkposts very differently than an 18yr old kid fresh out of high school after 8 months of army training behind him, which consists of mainly discipline, running and shooting up things.

The older guy tends to question orders (and in fact some may very well be a lawyer) and may argue all through the night with any and all commanders...the younger kid wont.

[UndertheOcean]

26. But shouldn't there be a "Moral education" program of some sort ?

Why not keep the young ones out , limit them to community service.

[msmcghee]

27. I think pelsar was implying . .

. . that young recruits who did not have some moral reservations about who to search and who not to search - would provide better protection for Israeli citizens from terrorist attacks.

This is good for Israel of course - and bad for Palestinians. But war is a bitch. That's another reason why people should not start them.

The alternative is to put experienced soldiers with perhaps some moral reservations about searching older people, or pregnant women, or whatever, at the checkpoints.

That would be bad for Israel - more bombers get through to kill Israelis. It would be good for Palestinians. Old people and pregnant women would have it easier perhaps. And it would be good for some other Palestinians like suicide bombers who would be more likely to achieve their goals.

If you were an IDF commander, would you make the choice for more Israeli citizens to get killed - or for more Palestinians to suffer long waits at checkpoints manned by angry and rude kids?

Those are the kind of choices faced by real people in real wars where their own family's lives and the survival of their nation are at stake. Those are not the choices faced by armchair posters in discussion groups with nothing at risk themselves.

[UndertheOcean]

28. What are you talking about , that vast majority of checkpoints are between West Bank cities and

villages , rather than between the west bank and Israel..

How would searching pregnant women and old men there help Israel , and how did suicide bombers get into this.

For checkpoints on the green line between the occupied territories and Israel I agree that security must be a priority , but those checkpoints are in the minority

[msmcghee]

29. It was my impression that the checkpints in the WB and the wall . .

. . were together deemed responsible for the large reduction in suicide attacks against Israel over the last several months.

Here's one of several articles focusing on the wall (which is part of a strategy that includes checkpoints) from a fairly well balanced source:

http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm

The "security barrier" (Apartheid Wall) - A "security barrier" being built inside the West Bank cuts off Palestinians from their lands and from other towns, and destroys olive groves and other property according to Palestinians. The route of the fence has been changed several times under international pressure. Today (October 2005) it includes about 7% of West Bank territory on the Israeli side of the barrier. An International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory ruling declares the barrier to be in violation of international law. Since the barrier was built, Israeli casualties decreased dramatically, and the IDF claims that it is vital to preventing terror attacks. An Israeli Supreme Court ruling declared that the fence is not illegal in principle, but that the route must be changed to optimize the balance between security and humanitarian concerns. More about the Security Barrier ("Apartheid Wall")

Here's a graphic that shows thwarted suicide attempts in yellow and successful in red.



Note to mods the ref for this is only in jpg form. There's no page listed.

As you can see the average attempts per month has gone up quite a bit since 2002 but the successful attempts have dropped since the the addition of checkpoints that the construction of the wall began.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. there were NO suicide bombings until April 6, 1994 in Afula well after

Israel started to implement its draconian closure polices (started in 1991 but greatly extended and essentially made permanent on March 30, 1993) which completely crippled the Palestinian economy; and well after Israel already started to embark on the most massive settlement expansion program in its history.

BTW I am no way defending suicide bombings anymore than I am defending Israeli land confiscation and use of state terror to secure it. Suicide bombing like land confiscation and state terror are immoral and counterproductive. But surely cause and affect relationship occur on all sides.

[eyl]

48. Your point?

Their were plenty of terrorist attacks (other than suicide bombing) prior to that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. actually terrorist attacks coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territories

accelerated with the implementation of draconian policies such as closure and embarking on the most massive settlement expansion and land confiscation in Israel's history -- .

Zbigniew Brzezinski's remarks from the "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" conference

By Zbigniew Brzezinski

link: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html


Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.

Let us not kid ourselves. At stake is the destiny of a democratic country, Israel, to the security of which, the well-being of which, the United States has been committed historically for more than half a century for very good historical and moral reasons. But soon there will be no option of a two-state solution.

Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering.

Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa -- the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If we want to prevent this the United States above all else must identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace.

All public opinion polls show that and the majority of the Palestinians, and I believe the majority of the Jewish community in this country which is liberal, open-minded, idealistic and not committed to extremist repressions. "

link to full article:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

[eyl]

32. I've often seen the argument

that obviously the checkpoints aren't motivated by security, since most of them are inside the West Bank. That argument misses the reason the checkpoints exist*.

The checkpoints have several related functions:

1) They give the IDF more opportunities to intercept an attacker. Were the checkpoints solely on the Line, there's one point at which he may be caught (unless there's advance intelligence so the police may set up roadblocks)
2) They serve to intercept materiel or personnel in transit - for example, bombs being transported from one Palestinian town to another in preperation for a future attack.
3) They serve to make travel more difficult. This seems obvious on its face, but should be considered more carefully. First of all (and this also relates to #1), you have to understand that the distances in many places between the Green Line and Israeli towns is very small - which means there's little time to make any intercepts, and little margin for error (for example, you can reach the Israeli town of Kfar Saba from the Palestinian town of Kalkilya in around 20 minutes or so on foot, IIRC). Checkpoints force any potential attacker to go out of his way to avoid them, making it take much longer for him to reach his target and giving the Israeli security forces more time to catch him.

*Mind you, I'm ignoring here the fact that the IDF is also responsible to prevent Palestinian terrorists from attacking settlemetns, in which case checkpoints on the Line are obviously ineffective

[UndertheOcean]

33. But why should Illegal settlements get protection ?

I believe that your last point is the one that makes more sense , the checkpoints INSIDE the WB are there to protect the settlers...

So all those Palestinian civilians , children , old men , women , are humiliated and harassed every time they travel just to make the life of the 200,000/some settlers easy , gobbling up most of the water and the resources...

How fair is that ?

[eyl]

34. You missed my point

the entire point of my post is that there are reasons besides the settlements that there are checkpoints inside the West Bank.

[pelsar]

35. good write up...

and it does a good job of explaining why the younger soldiers are prefered for that duty.

[Recursion]

49. The settlements, not the nation, are at stake

You could keep terrorists out of Israel with checkpoints on whatever you consider the border of Israel to be (eg, the green line, or something between it and the wall, or something between it and the partition; I don't really care). The problem is it sounds like you're saying anywhere Israelis are illegally squatting on confiscated land, that too is "Israel". And that is a confirmation of the Palestinians' worst fears. If the checkpoints are, as pelsar was saying, intended to make it easier to intercept attackers heading towards the settlements, you are saying that destroying the Palestinian economy is an acceptable price for protecting illegal squatters. So they're creating a bunch of young, unemployed, humiliated, and angry men and women dispossessed of their land -- and doing it to "prevent terrorism". Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Seriously, what would you do in the Palestinians' situation? Somebody puts a settlement on your olive grove, and when you're going to the hospital because you got sick stop your ambulance and search it, delaying your treatment, or when you're driving back with your shipment for your market they search your truck and half your produce is ruined, all to protect the same people who kicked you out of your olive grove. It gets back to my question: I can see as well as you can that the attacks on Israeli civilian targets have not achieved much success for the Palestinians but as far as I can see it's the only thing that even has a chance of changing Israeli behavior. War, as you say, is a bitch, and it sucks for a lot of people, and civilians always die because we don't have set battles anymore. The Palestinians consider the settlers to be living on their land. They want them to leave. So they attack both the settlers and the soldiers guarding them. That's war. People who are shocked, shocked, that rockets are raining down on them need to leave a war zone. When was the last time rockets hit Tel Aviv, or Beersheeba? When was the last time a suicide bomber hit those towns? (I honestly don't know; I usually hear about them in Jerusalem.) And the Israelis have the great advantage of being allowed to leave the war zone, unlike the Palestinians in their Bantustan.

[pelsar]

51. you forgot the history.....

since 48 israel has been attacked on various fronts from various countries and groups.....all with various motivations....destroy israel, kill jews, take back some of the land, take back all of the land, conquer the land and divide the spoils etc.....

within that history are the palestenains....after each attack (i'm being general here) or attacks, their lives have gotten steadily worse and worse. From having some freedom of movement to almost none....Of course their bitter. Even when israel left gaza, Egypt helped keep them "down" but keeping their part of the border closed.

The problem however is not the settlements.....even though it seems to be some kind of general understanding (like everyone believing the world was flat), history has shown that they are not the problem. The two latest examples of Hizballa attacking israel and the continued attacks from gaza, both after israeli with drawls makes its clear that the real problem is israel itself.

you mention the Palestinians being bitter.....i'm sure they are. Interesting enough there are a few who realize that the problem cannot be blamed wholly on israel but on themselves (hamas spokesman-Dr Ghazi Hamad). Those checkpoints came AFTER the suicide bombers started. Previous to that, previous to intifda i, they had freedom of movement that included all of israel. The wall came AFTER the suicide bombers still couldnt be checked with the checkpoints.

its part of the understanding that they're are consequences for ones actions. Suicide bombers produces checkpoints and walls, and a host of other negative things for their own society. Should the Palestinians be bitter?..yes, more than anything they should be pissed at the "leadership"...the ones that organized a society that celebrates those who created the "suicide bomber" cult, that has made their lives so miserable.

the thing is: the wall and checkpoints obviously make for very mad Palestinians and infact suicide and bomber attempts are up...but their success is way way down. So from an israeli point of view, i would rather have lots of very mad Palestinians and fewer successful bomb attacks, than less pissed Palestinians but more dead israelis.

[msmcghee]

52. Here's a link to an interesting article I came across on this.

http://emperors-clothes.com/israel/karsh-occ.htm

There are no citations but the facts cited can generally be checked against UN records, etc. Even granting that the author has a bias toward Israel, there is obviously some truth to his general assertions.

Excerpt:

The story that is still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbours.

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 per cent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world -- ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew some what more slowly, the rate was still high by inter national standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $ 165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

(snip)

The whole article is worth the read IMO.

[pelsar]

54. because.....

When was the last time rockets hit Tel Aviv, or Beersheeba? When was the last time a suicide bomber hit those towns?

israel, unlike the palestenains, has a very different culture. Way back in 48 and previous to that, Jewish/israeli villages, cities, citizens were attacked....the Israelis, a society made up of people from all over the world, many straight out of the camps (with all their psych problems), took what they had and developed a modern liberal democracy, all while at war, with the the threat of total annihiliation always hanging over them. Seems to me if anybody has the right to be "pissed" its the israelis.

the palestenains didn't.....all they have done it seems is to keep on attacking (no thanks to their "friends" in the neighboring arab states)......They may get mine (and others) sympathy on a personal level, but not on a national level.

What should they do?....heres an idea, stop shooting at each other, stop shooting at israelis, and start making a real society out of gaza for starters.....(israel has now left TWICE, and the kassams still keep coming down)

[eyl]

44. Moral education only goes so far

I'd say it's maybe more to do with maturity than anything else.

And the :young ones" - the conscripts - are preferred for other reasons; they tend to be in better training and physical fitness then ther reservists (for obvious reasons), they can serve for a long time in place giving them more experience there, and a conscript's man-hour is much cheaper than a reservist's (much less than for someone who's gone career military)