As almost always, cross-posted on JoeSettler
There is an article/video on A7 discussing the link between the brainwashing the soldiers underwent before the Hitnatkut and the failure to win in Lebanon. I too believe they are connected, but the article/video didn’t present their case very well.
From talking with soldiers back then, the further away they were from the inner-circle, the less brainwashing (sensitivity training) they underwent, and the more guilty they felt, and the more they wanted to do something to alleviate the guilt they felt.
That is in part how we snuck in the first time (until we finally got caught by some police officers whose apparent lack of guilty feelings we couldn’t work on).
Soldiers in the outer circles purposely looked away, or even actively helped us sneak through the barriers.
After the disengagement, while still in Gaza we met soldiers who broke down completely once they realized what they did.
One told us he didn’t understand before he went in as to the immensity of his actions and what the Gaza communities even looked like beforehand, and while he was there he couldn’t think, and only now that he had downtime, did he realize what he did and was involved in.
But clearly when the army is training and fulfilling political missions (or dare I say it, anti-Jewish missions), that means it does not train for its real mission of the defending the State and People of Israel against the real enemy.
Furthermore, it confuses the soldier as to who his enemy actually is and who it defintely isn't.
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
13 comments:
Just to provide some perspective: I'm curious how many soldiers "broke down completely" after expelling approximately 600,000 Arabs from their homes in 1948. And those 600,000 didn't even get any compensation from the people who were expelling them.
I wasn't talking who created the condition. The Gush Katif soldiers did not create the situation where 148 Israelis were killed in Gaza between 2000 and the disengagement. Since then, just 11 Israelis have died in Gaza plus 5 outside Gaza from Kassams - roughly an 80% decrease in the death rate. So you can make a good case that the disengagement was just as necessary as expelling Arabs was in 1948. Either expulsion can be justified, in which case I don't know what Joesettler is complaining about, or it cannot, in which case the Palestinians suffered a far bigger injustice.
Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, rocket/shelling attacks on Sderot alone have increased by 400%.
Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip:
Total rocket attacks:
Since the first rocket fell on Israel on 16 April 2001 to date: 2,994
Since the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005: 2,411
Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in mid-June 2007: 979
Additional Mortar bomb (excluding rockets) hits during since the withdrawal: more than 3000.
Since the disenagement more than 13% of the city has evacuated to other areas.
Grad missiles: During the recent escalation (27 February - 3 March 2008), 23 hits of Grad missiles were identified, most in Ashkelon. Some of them were in the northern part of the city, which was hit for the first time (including Kfar Silver, a youth village north of the city). A Grad missile also hit Netivot. The scope and frequency of launchings of these long-range missiles is unprecedented.
Honestly, I can't follow the (lack of) logic of your argument, or its relevance to my post.
Looks like a troll. Smells like a troll. Must be a troll.
Grad Missiles have also landed just south of Ashdod, and have also been reported to have landed in Kiryat Gat.
Israelis killed in the 15 years since Oslo. 1400
Israelis killed in the 15 years before Oslo: 400
Israeli killed by terrorism from 1949 until Oslo: 1256
Israelis killed since Oslo: 1400
In the opinion of many (including myself), the Second Lebanon War resulted from conditions created by the Disengagement. In that war, 165 Israelis were killed, and about 4700 were wounded. This exceeds the casualties suffered by Israel in Gaza from 2000 until the Disengagement.
The Disengagement directly led to the current massive, daily bombardment of Sderot and the western Negev. I have my doubts whether the author of the comment would be so sure that the Disengagement was justified if he and his family were among the tens of thousands of men, women, and children in Sderot who live in a state of constant, nonstop fear 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with air raid sirens going off and missles exploding all over, throughout all hours of the day and night.
Is the body count that directly results from living in and defending a territory the sole criterion for deciding whether to remain there or not? If so, then Israel ought to immediately evacuate Sderot. The same reasoning would indicate that Israel should have evacuated Deganya and other kibbutzim and moshavim in the Galil, which suffered many casualties due to Syrian missle attacks prior to 1967. (The same reasoning can even be applied, on a larger scale, to the question of whether Israel's very existence is justified, due the high number of casualties that Israelis suffer on a regular basis.)
The Disengagement led to Hamas' coup d'état, in which they completely took over the Gaza Strip, and it is expected by many to lead to Hamas' complete takeover of the West Bank in the near future. Which leads to the next point:
Only 2 1/2 years have elapsed since the Disengagement, and we have not yet seen anywhere near the total results of it in terms of Israeli casualties:
As part of the Disengagement, control over Gaza's border with Egypt was turned over to the Egyptians. As many predicted, this resulted almost immediately in an effectively open border, through which the Palestinians had little problem bringing in heavy weapons and tons of explosives. With time, the border then changed from "effectively open" to "literally open". (According to media reports, it is currently back to its "effectively open" mode.) Israeli intelligence reports that Hamas has taken advantage of this situation over the past 2 1/2 years to transform themselves from an amateur guerilla group into a strong, professionally trained, and heavily stocked army.
There is a wide consensus across the political spectrum that a large-scale ground invasion of the Gaza Strip in the near future is inevitable. Hamas claims to have been preparing for this (which is consistent with the intelligence reports I mentioned), and promises to inflict massive casualties upon Israel when the invasion comes. I, for one, believe them.
"I'm curious how many soldiers "broke down completely" after expelling approximately 600,000 Arabs"
i was not aware that jewish soldiers expelled arabs during the war
1) I'm not a troll.
2) I never said Oslo was a good idea. It wasn't. Oslo is not the same is disengagement. Try to answer me. Don't attack positions which I don't hold.
2) Go to Sderot (I have), talk to the residents (I have), they will tell you they've lived in a state of fear for 7 years, not 2 or 3. There was massive bombardment before the disengagement too. The hard part of living in Sderot is not actually dealing with rockets, but rather having to plan every second of your life around the possibility that there might be rockets. Even if the rocket numbers were to decrease by 90%, their quality of life would not improve much, since they'd have to constantly worry about the 10%. So your rocket statistics are basically irrelevant. Certainly when compared to the death statistics.
3) The withdrawal from Lebanon and the progression of the Iranian nuclear program lead to the Second Lebanon War. Disengagement had an insignificant effect. Keep in mind that most of the potential dangers of disengagement were equally true of the withdrawal from Lebanon, which unlike disengagement had direct relevance to Hizbullah as well.
4) Ever since 2002 there has been talk of needing a massive, bloody invasion of Gaza. Since it worked in the West Bank, we presume it will work in Gaza too (and I agree). It is not clear that disengagement has made it more necessary. Hamas' rise to power and the end of "occupation" may have given us the political freedom to achieve some of the same goals through long-range bombardment instead. Invading Gaza will only cost many Israeli lives if we choose to allow it, by fighting lightly armed in urban areas.
5) We've all been through the halachic debate in which I show how most poskim accept withdrawal in order to save lives, while you show how most of R' Kook's students disagree. Personally, I feel confident siding with the majority. If you want to take the minority position, I can't prevent you. BUT, please be honest and say that you are relying on your view of halacha, not on practical considerations. Don't say that disengagement has cost lives, when the statistics quite dramatically show the opposite.
"lion of zion":
The Palestinians like to exaggerate the extent but it did occur.
Everyone:
Sorry I can't count to six :)
I came across this post which would indicates something rather interesting on the halachic side:
Ramban rendered rulings along these lines in practical terms, writing:
"We were commanded to occupy the Land which G-d gave to our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or to desolation… In the framework of this mitzvah, G-d gave us the precise details of the Land's borders… and we are not allowed to relinquish the Land to the nations in any generation. We were commanded to come to the Land and to conquer and settle it. This command to us to conquer and settle the Land applies in all generations" (see Ramban, remarks on Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4).
Ramban's ruling is well-known, and it was accepted by all Halachic authorities, early and later sages (see Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Pit'chei Teshuva).
This Rabbi Dov Begon is mistaken (or at least misleading). The Ramban was NOT accepted by all later authorities. The Shulchan Aruch itself says nothing on the subject. R' Begon is paraphrasing the Pitchei Teshuva commenting on the Shulchan Aruch. But the Pitchei Teshuva is a single 19th century acharon, and most other authorities disagreed with him, both then and now.
Post a Comment