Israeli Officer dismissed for not firing rubber bullets

[idontwantaname]

SBy Meron Rapoport
Haaretz Thu., June 09, 2005

The commander of the Israel Defense Forces Central Command has removed an officer for failing to fire rubber-coated bullets or tear gas at demonstrators opposed to the separation fence this past March.

The officer said he did not shoot because there were children among the demonstrating Palestinians.

<snip>

An IDF force entered Budrus village near Modi'in in March, arrested several Palestinian youngsters attending a wedding, and pulled out. Palestinian youngsters, including many children, chased the soldiers. A few hundred meters away from the village, they knocked down approximately 100 meters of the fence, which was under construction.

The officer told an investigation that he decided not to use riot control equipment, such as stun and gas grenades and rubber-coated bullets, because there were women and children in the crowd.

Military sources confirmed that there were children among the Palestinians, but said this did not justify the officer's conduct.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/586122.html


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

budrus is a small village of maybe 300 people. they are all farmers, and have held maybe 50 peaceful demonstrations against the wall.

i was fortunate enough to attend a demonstration against the wall along with 30+ internationals. of the 30+ of us, 2 got away without being beaten by the BP/IDF(i dont remember who). the soldiers did not hesitate to use force against peaceful civilians.

among those who were attacked was a 70 year old woman from australia and a woman who had a past of domestic abuse.

[pie]

1. Thank you for posting this

[Karmakaze]

2. He is being punished for showing that war crimes are NOT necessary

See, if he had opened fire and killed kids, then that would have been an unfortunate accident. But by NOT opening fire, he has proved that every OTHER time they have opened fire there WAS a safer alternative.

This officer is being punished for proving the IDF is guilty of crimes against humanity.

[pelsar]

3. no the officer failed in his duty.....

his job was to protect the fence...he failed in his job......

[bennywhale]

4. He excelled in his duty as a human being

[The Magistrate]

5. Of Some Interest To Me, Mr. Pelsar

Are the preliminaries to the incident. They are mentioned in the article, but with a paucity of detail. One wonders why it was viewed as necessary to send soldiers to make arrests at a wedding, and how well judged the decision to undertake that operation was. It is the sort of thing that is bound to issue in an energetic reaction....

"It is worse than a crime: it is a mistake."

[pelsar]

6. intelligence in all IDF soldiers...

is not always apparent.....and i try not to defend stuipidity when i see/read about it....but at the sametime failure to do ones duty within the framework of the army is also a serious business......given that we know so little about the incident in question there is little to discuss, however in principle one cannot let either children or older women etc get away with destroying property simply because they are "under age" or of a different sex.

We've seen the movement from male suicide bombers to women and minors precisly because they were less suspect. Of course they also make for better juicier news when hurt/killed in protests...consequently as far as the army is concerned....one must be age/gender blind
...Now granted this dehumanizes all those involved and we've had several lapses when the soldiers involved were NOT gender/age blind and payed a heavy price, hence "discpline" here does play a part.

We're told time and time again in military briefings that to do our duty we have to "dehumanize" ourselves...and to a certain degree its true...suicide bombers dont "look" evil, sometimes a bit nervous...kids carrying bombs, dont always know what they are carrying, hence poking around a backpack of a 14yr old is definitly "mean"..and of those 1,000s checked and humiliated and pissed off, perhaps one bomb is found-so the question is obvious: does that justify the others?...and of course if they werent searched fair to say there would be others...

sufice to say....gender and age are not a factor, not in this conflict

[bennywhale]

8. "Failure to do ones duty in the framework of the army is a serious

business"

Granted but you've got to be careful when advocating total obedience and discipline within the army. There are not many courageous souls who, having been drilled intensely to obey, would make a moral decision to disobey in an intense situation. The "right" thing to do in the context of the army was to follow orders, but following orders is not necessarily the "good" thing to do.

"1000s checked and humiliated and pissed off, perhaps one bomb is found-so the question is obvious, does that justify the others?"

There is another obvious question. Does that, in part, cause the others?

[The Magistrate]

9. And You Mught Ask Just As Easily, Sir

Does the bomb found, or the bomb slipped through even so and detonated, contribute to those thousand searches? The answer is pretty clear that it does. There is not much reason to suppose there would be any searches absent the occassional bomb or otyher violent act. None of these things take place in a vacuum, Sir.

[idontwantaname]

12. it is not only during checkpoint searches...

but applied to all things within the occupied territories.

with rubber bullets as well as live ammunition.

with tanks and bulldozers.

just think "suicide bomber" and pull the trigger.

none of these things happen in a vacuum huh?

[bennywhale]

14. Easy there, no need for patronising, i was just trying to add to the

debate. I don't deny your point, or the point in the post i was answering to, i was merely pointing at the spiral, and suggesting that things aren't black and white. Evil vs Good

[The Magistrate]

15. In This As In Most Matters, Sir

It is my custom to proudly stand by taupe against charcoal grey....

[pelsar]

17. causing more bombers?.....

the answer is probably yes, the checkpoint, walls etc not only stop the bombers but no doubt cause an increase in attempts.....but they too are stopped. This is quite evident in the lack of success on the suicide bombers part. ..one can define the the wall as an inbomination, as illegal, etc but from the israeli point of view-its doing precisly what it was designed to do...saving our lives.

now that we've stopped the suicide bombers, we're moving out of gaza and n.westbank, we've got "regular" israelis helping the palestenains against the settlers...these are serious steps toward stopping the "cycle of violence".... now I would like to see something from the palestenians...what i would love is for an avg israeli to be interviewed on palestenan TV (can you imagine ratings?)

[bennywhale]

18. Short term security from the wall/fence may be comforting

but this annexing of land and deliberate altering of "facts on the ground" is storing up severe trouble for the long term. Things don't get solved by building walls, and this will ultimately worsn the situation, if not dealt with very very carefully and sensitively, two words which are not in the vocabulary of either side.

[idontwantaname]

11. interesting who is dehumanizing who...

i have met its mayor and many of its residence.
they feel the fence is no solution to the conflit... it is israels choice whether they build it on their property... but as long as it exists on their side of the green line they will consider it illegal.

[The Magistrate]

13. It Is Illegal, Sir, In Its Present Position

That has been determined by a competent tribunal to be so....

[drdon326]

7. Gee.....this has been up 24 hours...

reviewed at least twice ...if not three times

and not friggin considered INFLAMMATORY !?!?!


must be me.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

16. the fence....

since we've come to the fence....and its always placed in the "reasonable idea but poor placement" mentality.....i've always seen how simplistic the argument is as it ignores basic human reactions.

I"m not going to argue the "human suffering its causing" amongst the palestenians since that is "short term' (or at least it should be...-but i dont want to go there).

There is another level, another aspect that involves how people/countries//business people negotiate...and make no mistake about it the eventual borders will be a result of negotiation.

One doesnt start a negotiation from "giving up everything'. By using that as your "starting point'...you can only lose more....All negotiaters know that you start from the "highest point" and you make it clear that if your opponent doesnt given in on certain points...not only cant you do anything, but it will be worse.

The wall is a case in point, if it was built on the green line without negotiation it would have simply inspired palestenains/hamas/jihadnikim/arab nations...that their system of suicide bombings, pseudo peace, media hate works and to keep on pressing, whether or not Europe or america would/could join in is an unknown and from israels point of view, not worth the risk-countries work on self interest.

by placing the wall outside the greenline...its increases intensly the need for a settlemement. Not only does it negate suicide bombers but it further puts pressure on the PA to do something. If the bombs and shootings dont work....that doesnt leave much left but negotiation, finding israeli partners and "non violent" methods....Non violent methods, working with israelis was unheard of previous to this period, but do to "lack of options" we see palestenains working with israelis on a scale never seen before. (and with the isolation of the settlers as well-which is also critical)

the fence/wall can be torn down, its a temporary measure, but without, nothing would have changed.

I believe history will see the building of the wall as far more shocking to the palestenains than the settlements...and in fact the turning point in this whole conflict, the wall symobolizes and makes their complete isolation and "imprisonment"..which calls for different tactics: real non violence (which is only now developing), partnering with israelis, isolating the jihadnikiim...and real grass roots stuff (also new in the "arab world")

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Pelsar...

The wall has been discussed many times in this forum, and none of the arguments are persuasive..

The reason the wall was built where it was was for one simple reason -to put most of the settlements on the Israeli side and as few Palestinians as possible on the Israeli side. It's got nothing to do with negotiation and being temporary. The govt doesn't spend all that money on something that's meant to be temporary. As for negotiation, the argument that doing something illegal and immoral in order to try to force negotiation is absurd. btw, the Sharon govt so far has NO intention of negotiations that would lead to the end of the occupation and Palestinian statehood, so why on earth would they then go and build something to try to force others to negotiate with them on it?

As you don't want to argue about the human suffering caused by the wall, I won't say anything other than to point out that some of the effects of the wall are most definately not short-term, and those would include deaths and the destruction of homes...

Violet...

[eyl]

20. As I recall

I gave several reasons why the barrier was constructed beyond the Green Line. To my recollection, no-one actually countered these, except to say it's against international law - something I addressed at length.

To reiterate:
1) There are places where the wall can't be built on the Line for topographical or operational reasons. For example (of the latter), the concrete blocks which are the most famous images of the barrier are placed to prevent gunfire on Israelis (mostly motorists). If the shooting is being done from the hilltop (note, I'm referring to a place where there's a history of shooting from that hilltop, not that they might shoot from their in the future), and the Green Line runs across the valley below, placing the wall on the Line will be useless. You could, of course, loop the barrier to the west of the community being fired upon, but the drawbacks of that should be obvious.
2) The purpose of the barrier is not, strictly speaking, to defend the State of Israel, but rather Israeli citizens. As such, it needs to encompass at least those settlements close to the Line.
3) The most important reason is the Jerusalem area (where the majority of the deviations take place; almost all the Palestinians who will end up west of the barrier are residents of the city). The Green Line runs through the middle of the city. The barrier can't be built there, however; besides the civil/economic (and symbolic, and hence political) consequences of redividing the city, it would allow terrorists to launch indirect-fire weapons over the barrier, as well as allow tunneling under it (both of which are far easier in the cover of an urban environment than from open areas). It would also endanger the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem (especially the Jewish Quarter) and its environs. Therefore, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its environs, also needs to be west of the barrier.

Sharon's intent is speculation on your part. And maybe YOUR government wouldn't spend all that money for something temporary; ours has been known to spend a lot on things which is a mystery why they were built in the first place.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Your recollection is most likely wrong...

Apart from the obvious fact that because it is against international law and the ruling is a very sound one, that in itself is a good enough rebuttal...

I remember addressing the claim that the wall can't be built on the Green Line for topographical reasons. If that was the case, then Israel should have built the wall INSIDE its own territory rather than in territory that doesn't belong to it...

2) It's ridiculous to claim that Israel can go and construct walls because its citizens choose to live somewhere outside of Israel. It can build what walls it likes along its own borders and inside its own territory, but not outside it...

3) The route of the wall deviates right into the middle of the West Bank. I'll try and locate a map to show you. I saw one of what Israel claims are the municipal boundaries as opposed to where the city actually is...

Is there something wrong with speculation when anyone but yrself does it? Sharon is known as the godfather of the settlements, and enough of his words and actions in the past makes my speculation a pretty sound one. And trying to claim the Israeli govt is so flush with funds that it would just construct a temporary wall is an incredibly silly venture, imo. In this case there's no mystery as to why the wall is being built nor as to where it's being built...

Violet...

[pelsar]

22. acutually its placement..is far more complex

Its the actual line it follows is a combination of political pressure as well as military needs. What wasnt considered was any kind of intl law or the "paletenian needs." (modified at a later date due to israeli pressure)

any rulings from intl bodies do not get much credit here, as they are seen as one sided. Until that feeling is change the israeli public is not going to put much stake in the Hague or the UN interms of what constitutes acceptable defensive measures.

and finally ...until this war is over....the palestenains also dont have a lot to say, since it is they we are fighting.

but israel has been known to spends lots of money and resources in places (sinai settlements) only to bulldoze them in to ground at a later date. The whole society/culture is based on a "first do it" and the get permission later syndrom. The wall will go down when its no longer needed, just as the sinai settlements did, just as those in gaza will in a few months (or whatever is decided to do with them).

Of course many israelis see it as the final border, however our past history shows that structures do not affect our final borders, and when the politics promise a better solution-they go down..there is no reason to doubt that the wall too will follow that tradition....

[eyl]

23. Nope

As I've shown, the ICJ basically rewrote several international treaties to match (among other flaws), so it's not "very sound"; and sometimes, the law is wrong.

I've addressed your argument the barrier could be built inside the Green Line when it can't be built on it; that would mean placing Israeli communities to the east of it, which kind of negates the purpose. Reread my comment on the Jerusalem area, where most of the deviations take place.

here's the most recent map of the barrier route; saying it deviates "into middle of the West Bank" is somewhat of an exaggeration (note that the only part of the route where that description might possibly apply, the East Jerusalem-Ma'ale Edumim area, has not yet been decided)

You can speculate all you want, of course. However, you seemed to assert Sharon would never withdraw as a matter of fact, which seems to fly in the face of his current actions, as well as most of his declarations udirng the last two years or so. And while of course the Israeli government is nowhere near "flushed with cash", I've seen various governments throw so much money in a half-assed way on things which where temporary (or should never have been built, e.g. a case I recently heard of a bridge being built in the wrong location), that I think I can safely say, with a high degree of probability, that investing so much money is not a reliable indicator of permanency.