Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel troops admit Gaza abuses

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's clear that Israel didn't agree with the terms of the first one, and if it isn't agreeable with them they have the right to negotiate. The Camp David Accords of 1978 provided a better solution for the Israelis.
    Um, Israel scuppered a full peace agreement with Egypt as, and I quote from the Israeli government response to the peace initiative, "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines". Egypt accepted every condition of the agreement. So if Israel withdrew to its pre-June 1967 lines it would have had full peace and recognition with Egypt for the last 28 years and the Yom Kippur war would never have happened. Also it could have lead to a wider agreement since Jordan and Lebanon were part of the same process.

    As for the 1979 Camp David Accords; Israel never fully complied with its obligations under the agreement which bestowed more responsibilities on the Israelis towards the Palestinians under it. Saying that it provided a better solution for the Israelis is nonsense
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you think it is acceptable to attack a nation on a Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) a holy day in their calendar without prior notice?
    No, but I think removing the cause of the war like what was offered in 1971 is a better option. Also Israel wasn't attacked. Areas occupied by Israeli from June 1967 were attacked with the objective or retaking them. Saying that Israel was attacked is disingenuous.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for the Golan yes it was seized in 1967 for security purposes as it is a good vantage point for any attacker to come down from. Hence why the Syrians nearly defeated Israel in 1973. It's incredibly interesting how the battle actually was carried out, many Israeli commanders were sacked by Golda Meir for not acting quick enough.
    I can understand the military advantage of holding the Golan Heights but why then has Israel settled people there and tried to annex it?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There needs to be assurances between Israel and Syria before the Golan Heights will probably be returned. I think it is natural if one nation invades another and gets defeated that there would be the risk of losing territory for a certain period of time. Having said that I do hope that Israel will return the Golan dependant on the percentage of Israelis it would affect there.
    There have been negotiations between Syria and Israel with regard to the Golan. They've primarily failed due to Israel wanting to retain sole control over the Sea of Gallilee. Netanyahu has also previously said that he would never return them and settlements continue to be built. Not a good sign for progress though.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The past history has much to do with the present, an attitude of mistrust has formed through past events such as the Yom Kippur War from the past, and the last two intifadas. It's important in realising that this is a two sided conflict.
    I've already covered Yom Kippur. The intifadas are legitimate uprisings under international law (although some of the tactics against Israeli civilians used in the second intifada are not). They are uprisings by an indigenous populations in the fight for self-determination, a non-derogable jus cogens norm right under international law.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, I'd agree with you that they should be avoiding abuse. I personally do care about how they feel because I actually want peace between them, this depends very much on how the Israelis feel, and how the Palestinians feel. Ignoring the Israelis means no peace essentially, it's a foolish move to make for a diplomat anyway.
    I didn't say I don't care about how Israelis feel or that they should be ignored. I said that how soldiers feel have absolutely no bearing on events. They are an occupying army with obligations towards the civilian population they're occupying under international law.


  • Options
    #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Your point on the IDF claiming that they have no bearing on events. Of course they do, practically all Israel's youth, Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Druze serve in the IDF. Therefore how they feel will also show how they will deal with the situation as political actors in the future. Most of the key players in the Knesset have served either with the Mossad or the IDF, mostly in rather special branches if you look to Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, and Binyamin Netanyahu in particular let alone past figures such as Ariel Sharon. Their experiences in the IDF motivate their politics, as such it is important to consider how operatives feel in the IDF also as it has a bearing on the whole political system of Israel.


  • Options
    #64
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    What I'm saying is that soldiers feelings should have no bearing on their actions when they are operating in the Occupied Territories. The only factor that should have a bearing is their obligations as an occupying force under international law.


  • Options
    #65
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Your point (.....)system of Israel.

    Suffice to say if they didn't spend their time beating up people at check points and torturing detainees, they might have a less harsh view of life? Then a withdrawal suits all sides.


  • Options
    #66
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Suffice to say if they didn't spend their time beating up people at check points and torturing detainees, they might have a less harsh view of life? Then a withdrawal suits all sides.

    Some of them. Some of them do. Some does not lead to all in any respect, infact it's fallacious reasoning to do so and nothing more than generalisation.

    It's like saying, some Palestinians are terrorists therefore all Palestinians are terrorists. It's ridiculous logic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Some of them. Some of them do. Some does not lead to all in any respect, infact it's fallacious reasoning to do so and nothing more than generalisation.

    It's like saying, some Palestinians are terrorists therefore all Palestinians are terrorists. It's ridiculous logic.

    Are all of the IDF brutish thugs? no. However is the occupation a brutal one? Yes. You'll find a good part of the 'horror of war' is to do with the fact that its impossible to discern the man inside the uniform. I seem to remember a police force in Britain being found to be "institutionally racist". I'd suggest that the same applies to the IDF.


  • Options
    #68
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    That explains a lot.

    No, it explains about as much as the color of my skin does, which is very little.


  • Options
    #69
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I've already covered Yom Kippur.

    From the Egyptian side, at least, it was a pure ego trip. Egypt didn't care about the Sinai, their problem was the total loss of face that they suffered when they got their asses handed to them in 1967. A rather important problem in that neck of the world.

    The political objective for the Egyptians in 1973 was simple. Break the Bar-Lev line, a feat of arms which everyone else thought impossible. The Soviets thought you'd need a nuke. They never had any intention of driving into Sinai, their limit of advance was only a couple of kilometers across the Suez. The plan worked very well, they broke the Bar Lev line, and they held it from Israeli counterattack with the support of the equipment on the West side of the canal. They had full control of the canal. They had proved that their army was no laughing stock. That's all they wanted.

    They only ventured into the Sinai after much pleading from the Syrians who were proving less successful up North. and wanted the Egyptians to start a second offensive down South to distract the Israelis. This was a hotly-contested decision, which Sadat won. I would suggest that General Saad El Shazli's book on the war is really recommended reading for anyone with an interest in the '73 war, it's very easy to read and he's very frank. (Actually, for the Egyptians, too frank. He was imprisoned for publishing it, and it remains the only uncensored Egyptian account of the conflict)

    NTM


  • Options
    #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    What do you think of the Syrian front Manic Moran? That's the one I found most interesting, and it seemed to be the biggest threat for Israel.


  • Options
    #71
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What do you think of the Syrian front Manic Moran? That's the one I found most interesting, and it seemed to be the biggest threat for Israel.

    In terms of its proximity to anything Israeli, it was. The Israelis had much less space to trade for time, and a lot less maneuver room, though this latter problem of course also applied to the Syrians. Ultimately, other than embarassing Israel, the Egyptian goals wouldn't have affected the country much at all. Historically, though, the Syrian ownership of the Golan heights made it quite likely that if nothing else harrassing fires could be placed into Israeli areas, and a loss would have meant no defensive depth for Israel at all in any future conflict. I must admit, however, to not having read anything from the Syrian side of the fight.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    More appears to be coming out......
    This is not a military that we recognise," said Mikhael Manekin, one of the former soldiers involved with the group. "This is in a different category to things we have seen before. We have spoken to a lot of different people who served in different places in Gaza, including officers. We are not talking about some units being more aggressive than others, but underlying policy. So much so that we are talking to soldiers who said that they were having to restrain the orders given."
    Manekin described how soldiers had reported their units being specifically warned by officers not to discuss what they had seen and done in Gaza.

    And I'd say this sheds further light on the "institutionally racist" area too.......
    Worrying new questions have also been raised about the culture of the Israeli military, indicating a high level of dehumanisation and disregard for Palestinians among the chain of command and even among the military rabbinate.
    An investigation by reporter Uri Blau, published on Friday in Haaretz, disclosed how Israeli soldiers were ordering T-shirts to mark the end of operations, featuring grotesque images including dead babies, mothers weeping by their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques.
    Another T-shirt designed for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex" next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A shirt designed for the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion depicts a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills".
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/22/israel-palestinian-territories-war-crimes


Advertisement