Replies to post #28207 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[otraque]

I will keep balance and give a lengthy attack on these men.
the spin and twisting of the knife by this writer is quite surgical and will bring smiles to the faces of all Likudniks
<<When Soldiers Refuse to Fight -- a Just War
By Myles Kantor
FrontPageMagazine.com / October 22, 2003


What does it mean when a soldier puts down his arms? Well, as the Canadian writer T.C. Haliburton observed, "Circumstances alter cases."






By 1943, National Socialist Germany had invaded countries including Austria, France, Greece, and Poland. That year it called Austrian Catholic Franz Jaegerstatter to military service. He refused to serve in the Nazis' genocidal machine, and they executed him.






Jaegerstatter is a hero, as would be North Vietnamese soldiers who refused to participate in the invasion of South Vietnam or Russian soldiers in the invasion of Afghanistan. In such cases, defiance of orders would have been anything but dishonorable.






But what about soldiers who refuse to fight in a just war?






On September 24, twenty-seven pilots in the Israeli Air Force released a letter that stated in part:






We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians. These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength…we shall continue to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force for every mission in defense of the state of Israel.






The pilots' declaration extends the Ometz Le'sarev (Courage to Refuse) movement launched last January, which 559 officers and soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have joined. Being a morally grounded institution, it is not surprising to see such developments in the IDF.






Specifically, Israeli soldiers learn the concepts of tohar ha-neshek (purity of arms) and degel shakhoor (black flag). The former states, "Israeli army servicemen and women will use their weapons only for the purpose of their mission, only to the extent necessary and will maintain their humanity even during combat"; the latter, coined by Israeli Supreme Court justice Benjamin Halevy, refers to what figuratively flies over an illegal order. Israeli rabbi Shlomo Riskin notes, "Questions regarding the ethics of warfare came up early in the history of the nation…purity of arms is a subject studied in just about every high school here, and is constantly discussed in military forums." (Less honorable was the Jewish Agency's policy of havlagah [restraint] during the Arab revolt of 1936-1939, which opposed retaliation for anti-Semitic attacks. Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky remarked that havlagah created "a situation in which everything is forbidden the Jew and everything permitted the Arab, a situation in which one side may commit any crime, and in which the Jew can be compared to a terrified mouse, while the Arab feels at home everywhere. Is this a moral situation?")






The IDF is so preoccupied with moral hygiene that it often jeopardizes soldiers' lives to avoid unjust use of force. "My son's blood was less important to the Israel Defense Forces than Ahmed's blood," said Moshe Keinan, whose son Avihu was killed fighting terrorists in the Gaza Strip on September 25.






Aerial anti-terrorism operations have of course resulted in deaths of Arab civilians. Writing in the decidedly un-leftist Jerusalem Post, Matthew Gutman notes, "Inevitably dozens of innocent Palestinians have been killed in the attacks, putting the burden for the deaths on the pilots who release the bombs or fire the missiles."






The addition of pilots to the refusal movement increases its image since they represent a military elite in Israel. A saying in the country goes, "The best become pilots."






Only nine of the refusal letter's signatories were active-duty pilots, however; and only two piloted the Apache helicopters and F-16s used in targeted killings of terrorists. The left-wing newspaper Ha'aretz remarked in a September 29 editorial, "…the group of signatories describes itself as ‘we, pilots of the air force.' This, despite the fact that many retired years ago, and of the few who are still in the reservist squadrons of the air force, not one was ordered to carry out a mission whose legality he questioned and whose execution he refused."






The pilots also cheapened their refusal with a histrionic style, posing for photographs in flight suits with helmet visors down. Ha'aretz media writer Roger Alpher wrote in an open letter to them, "Your photographs in pilot's fatigues and helmets look like ads for fatigues and helmets (or for beer, in the case of a slightly more sophisticated campaign)."






Some will point out that the refusing pilots are a tiny minority within the Israeli Air Force, just as members of Courage to Refuse don't reflect a consensus view in the IDF. While true, that doesn't determine whether their refusal is just. Right and wrong aren't about percentages.






As to the substance of their grievance, the pilots misrepresent attacks on terrorists where civilians have died--and among whom terrorists hide--as "attacks on civilian population centers." It's a reckless error at best, and refusal to serve in a mission with any possibility of civilian deaths amounts to calling for the abolition of the Israeli military.






The pilots pledge to serve "for every mission in defense of the state of Israel," but defending Israel against terrorism entails missions where the terrorists are, e.g., the Gaza Strip and West Bank. A pledge to defend Israel that lets its enemies operate with impunity doesn't inspire confidence.






The pilots' supporters include Yesh Gvul (There Is a Limit), a leftist organization that funds refusers and whose website links to the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement. Yesh Gvul has distributed the refusal letter among other reserve pilots and has been funded (along with Courage to Refuse) by the leftist Shefa Fund in Philadelphia.






Israeli Air Force commander-in-chief Major General Dan Halutz grounded the letters' signatories, which tends to happen when men in uniform engage in public disobedience. No one should be forced to take up arms--hence the provision for conscientious objection--but such conduct in the ranks hardly seems becoming, in contrast to a case where resignation preceded protest.






Israel is a country of diverse convictions, but is it to do nothing when soldiers twist its virtues into viciousness?>> ( edit, that is a classic example of right-wing specious sophistry---BTW one of the original founders of the Refuseniks is the son of Yeshayahu Leibowitz--gd)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myles Kantor is a columnist for FrontPageMagazine.com and Director of the Center for Free Emigration, a human rights organization dedicated to the abolition of state enslavement. His e-mail address is [e-mail].

[harrypothead]

Bring the Settlers Home to Israel

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0307/article/030711i.html

"For the past twenty years, the government of Israel, largely headed by Likud, has offered Israelis economic incentives to move to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These include tax breaks worth approximately $4,000 per settler, subsidized down payment and mortgage interest rates, and per capita spending per settler that is more than double that for Israelis living within Israel proper" (see the March 2003 report of the Adva Center at [e-mail]).

===============

The Major Roadblock on Road Map to Peace
By Herbert C. Kelman
5/16/2003

THE ISRAELI settlements in the West Bank and Gaza present major obstacles on the road to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

First, the presence of the settlements - along with the roads built to connect them and the troops deployed to protect them - restricts Palestinians' freedom of movement, interferes with their livelihood, and generally makes their life unbearable.

Second, the continued expansion of settlements even after the 1993 Oslo agreement has undermined Palestinians' trust in Israel's readiness to make peace: They ask why Israel continues settlement activities in territories slated for Israeli withdrawal and establishment of a Palestinian state.

Third, the number and distribution of settlements may soon make it physically and politically impossible to create an independent, viable, and contiguous Palestinian state and thus put in place the two-state formula that is widely accepted today as the optimal solution to the conflict.

The 'road map' released by the State Department on behalf of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations earlier this month recognizes the centrality of the settlements problem. It calls for immediate dismantlement of settlement outposts erected since March 2001 and a freeze of all settlement activity (including natural growth) in Phase I of the plan and further action on settlements in Phase II.

Achievement of these goals will not be easy. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, though acknowledging that Israel will have to make 'painful concessions,' has given no indication so far of willingness to dismantle any settlement - even in Gaza or the West Bank's heartland. He has also insisted that he will not contemplate the steps on settlements mandated for Phase I of the road map until the Palestinian Authority puts an end to violence, even though the road map calls for simultaneous actions by both sides.

It is unlikely that the Palestinian Authority, despite Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's clear stand against violence, can prevent all acts of violence to the satisfaction of Sharon. The irony is that Palestinian violence is most likely to lose public support and hence diminish if Abbas can demonstrate that his policies produce visible political benefits - such as halting settlement activities. Thus, making Israeli actions on settlements contingent on a total halt to Palestinian violence increases the probability that both violence and settlement activities will continue.

Despite these difficulties, if the road map is to have any chance of success, the United States and its coauthors must exert pressure on the Israeli government to take immediate steps and make firm commitments on the issue of settlements - parallel to the steps and commitments on the issue of violence demanded of the Palestinian Authority.

At the same time, however, we need to complement these pressures with positive incentives to reverse the settlement process that do not depend on the Israeli government.

A creative idea along these lines is at the center of a campaign to 'bring the settlers home' just launched by Brit Tzedek V'Shalom - the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace - which describes itself as 'a national organization of American Jews deeply committed to Israel's well-being through the achievement of a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'

The campaign's logic derives from the fact that a large majority of the settler population is not motivated by ideological or religious commitments to the settlement enterprise. Thus, in a recent poll of settlers, 80 percent said they moved to the territories to improve their quality of life, taking advantage of economic incentives offered by the Israeli government that enabled them to obtain better housing at a lower cost. The same poll revealed that 60 percent of the settlers were prepared to accept a withdrawal from the settlements in exchange for suitable financial compensation.

The alliance's campaign calls on the US government:

to urge the Israeli government to reverse its financial inducements to settlers and instead redirect these funds to settlers willing to return to Israel.

to take the initiative in an international effort to provide financial incentives for the settlers to relocate, whether or not the Israeli government agrees to participate.

An orderly move back by thousands of settlers would not in itself resolve the settlements issue, but it would greatly reduce its negative impact on the peace process and help to break the deadlock that is likely to stymie the road map.

It would make it easier for the Israeli public to accept the major compromises on the settlements issue that a final agreement requires. It would give the Palestinian public a palpable sense that change is underway. It would create the momentum that is now so desperately needed.

Herbert C. Kelman is director of the program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University.

http://www.btvshalom.org/pressrelease/press051603.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom
P.O. Box 180175
Chicago, IL 60618-0175
[e-mail]

===================

Settlements Gain Maximum Incentives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following information is exerpted from the "Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories" (Volume 7, Number 6, November-December 1997). These reports are produced bi-monthly by the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP). Readers are encouraged to visit their site for the latest, detailed information about settlement activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On September 2, Israel's ministerial committee on economic matters approved a new map outlining regions of national priority. The map, whose outlines were announced earlier this year, replaces one approved by the government of Yitzhak Rabin.
The Netanyahu map is distinguished by the restoration of entitlements and subsidies for both personal and business investment to most settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. Many of these advantages, initially conferred by the government of Yitzhak Shamir, were partially withdrawn by the Rabin government.

Most settlements have been classified as "Area of National Priority—A," which entitles them to the most generous benefits, or "Area of National Priority—B," which confers a lower level of benefits. Others, including some settlements around Jerusalem, such as Har Adar, and some along the Green Line, including Oranit, Bet Arieh, and Alfe Menache, have been deemed too prosperous and are thus excluded from the preferred list.

The list of incentives applicable to A- and B-status settlements includes subsidies for housing, education, teachers, and social workers.

Incentives for B-status settlements are in parentheses:

Housing
An $8,600 ($5,700) grant plus a soft loan of equal amount for new apartment purchases.
100 (75) percent state subsidy of development costs associated with the construction of multi-family housing; a 50 (25) percent subsidy for participants in the "build your own house" program.
75 (50) percent state subsidy of development costs for new housing in existing neighborhoods.



Education
90 percent state subsidy for pre-school fees.
Additional hours and computers for all schools.
Gas masks for all students.
A minimum state subsidy of $142 annually per child for school meals.
85 percent state subsidy of the cost of final high school exams.



Subsidies to Teachers
Except for 50 settlements around Jerusalem and along the Green Line, where no subsidies are offered.
Four years seniority granted.
75 percent state subsidy of tuition for further study.
100 percent state subsidy of travel to and from school.
80 percent state subsidy for rental housing.



Subsidies to Social Workers
Four (three) years seniority granted.
100 (75) percent subsidy for travel.



Taxes
5-10 percent income tax reduction.
40 (35) percent subsidy of the cost of new hot houses for vegetables and flowers. Citrus orchards and plantations in B locations are eligible for state subsidies of 25 percent of costs for new development.
There are indications that the reclassification earlier this year of settlement housing as eligible for the highest rate of state subsidies has already affected the housing market in settlements. This year 1,560 housing units in West Bank settlements have been sold, most of them deliberately kept off the market by the Rabin government.

The restoration of monetary incentives such as grants and soft loans has increased the marginal attractiveness of settlement housing in all areas of the West Bank during 1997. Settlements close to Jerusalem accounted for 16 percent of approved mortgages; those along the Green Line comprised 23 percent; 29 percent originated in settlements such as Ma'ale Ephraim, Avnei Hefetz, and Betar Ilit; 31 percent originated in settlements such as Efrat, Ariel, Emmanuel, and Karnei Shomron. Mortgages are being utilized at a higher rate in settlements than in Israel itself. The use of mortgages for settlement housing among new immigrants has increased by 84 percent over 1996. First time Israeli home buyers increased their use of mortgages for settlement homes by 45 percent compared to last year. Ha'aretz reported on September 10 that this increase "is a consequence of changes in the map of national priorities and the awarding of grants to apartment buyers in the [occupied] territories." The recently announced changes in the preferred status of settlements will "strengthen this trend, in which settlements will enjoy additional advantages over [Israeli] communities in the north and south, which recently lost their rights to similar grants."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ace Hanlon]

Nice to see at least some Israelis strongly dissenting from the war mongering and racist policies of the Likudniks. Not nearly enough of them unfortunately.