The first administrative detention order against a right-wing activist was issued Sunday. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz signed the order to detain Neria Ofen, a resident of Yitzhar, south of Nablus, and a well-known activist promoting Jewish control of the Temple Mount.
In addition, the IDF has jailed a soldier for refusing to serve based on an objection to serving during the pullout period. This is one issue I could not agree with when the same issue faced the Israeli left. I would not demonstrate in support of jailed IDF soldiers who refused to serve in the territories. Unless a plain illegal order is given a soldier should serve.
13 comments:
But the entire Occupation is illegal according to international law & in the eyes of most of the world community (including the U.S. & many others)!
Soldiers who refuse to serve should be honored for their courage to stand up for principle and refuse to kill or oppress those who should not be our enemy.
Dear Richard... You throw around phrases like "the entire Occupation is illegal according to international law" without having the slightest idea of what you speak. I promise that for every U.N. Resolution you quote, there is an equally (if not more compelling) precedent I can bring using European, Asian and American actions as examples.
If the occupation is truly illegal, than all the land that Israel currently occupies - other than the three small strips of land they were given in the original partition plan - is illegally held. This is an argument which you will find few legal experts endorsing.
Also, "the eyes of the world community..." is a very interesting (albeit intellectually dishonest)phrase since it has no legal standing (not to mention that, if true, it would be the first time 'the world community' has seen 'eye-to-eye' on anything).
Adrian... I think I hear angels singing because you and are are squarely on the same side of a political issue. Soldiers serve. Tt is the politicians calling the shots who must be held accountable for the orders that are issued to the troops.
What is 'occupied' and what is not is very murky. What is needed for Israel to have agreed borders that we and everyone else can live with, not fight over for the new few hundred years.
Again, I agree completely. My question to you is as follows:
Do you honestly think that a border exists which everyone (meaning our neighbors and the rest of the world) will accept? We accepted the partition plan's border arrangement and they atteacked (a state of war which technicaly still exists for most of the neighbors). Each subsequent war created new de facto borders and they still attacked. Arafat was offered 97% of everything he had asked for and he launched the last Intafada.
My feeling is that this dispute is not so much about borders as it is about Israel's right to exist at all. This is the only reason I am not completely against Sharon's unilateral action.
I never understood the 97% bit. As Barak always said. 'Nothing is agreed until all is agreed'.
You might be interested in a recently released Palestinian prisoner who explained his world view. I'll dig up the interview if I can. Only saw it in the paper.
True... nothing is agreed until all is agreed. But showing up to a negotiation expecting to get 100% of what you ask for (and expecting the other side to concede 100%) is not really a negotation, now is it?
Arafat was offered 97% of what he walked in asking for... and considered the offer insulting enough to launch the Intafad over it.
For years the Israeli left operated under the assumption that Israel's wisest course was to offer the Palestinians what they wanted. By doing so one of two things would happen: Either they would say yes and everyone would live hapily ever after... or they would say no, and the world would finally understand that they're demands went far beyond what they were saying publically.
Unfortunatley the world didn't quite interpret the rejection the way we had hoped.
whoops... I meant their. [blush]
he wasn't offered anything near 100%. No border control, no control of finance (money ) no control of imports /exports, no free movement, no control or airspace, no control of frequencies ... I could go on.
As one commenter eptly said:
"The largest self service prison on the planet."
Nobody would say yes to that.
Israel said yes to a lot less in 47!
Tactical ploy. Ben Gurion knew very well what the Arab response would be and he was right.
For myself, if Israel had managed to conquer Gaza and the the West bank in 48/49 I would not be giving it back.
I would not give back Golan at all until Syria became more like , well, the Isle of Wight.
The bugbear was the USA insisting on a premature second cease fire in 48 when Israel had a military edge.
The lack of ammunition for the Arab Legion , especially in 25 lb calibre gave Israel an edge that we had to give up when it was not in our interest to do so.
That bit, never again.
hmmm... So if I understand this correctly, Ben Gurion's acceptance of the partition plan was a ploy to conquer 'greater Israel'? If that's true, then the fact that surrounding armies were much better equipped and also massively superior in numbers makes this 'ploy' one of the balsiest 'all or nothing' gambits in world history!
I agree that the timing of the forced cease-fire was unfortunate (at least to the Israelis), but I don't think Ben Gurion was so sure his army could hold on to even the small slivers of land they had been given!
There were many voices within the provisional Jewish government that were lobbying to accept a Jewish State in central Africa! At the time, the inevitability of the survival of the new Jewish state was not nearly as certain as you make it out.
The Arab armies would never have allowed Israel a 'do over' had any of the wars resulted in an Israeli defeat... so why does the world expect Israel to do exaclty that for the Arabs (including the PA, an entitiy that was not a party to, nor combatant in, any of the conflicts?
I disagree. In the turmoil of '48 the miltary voice was clear as to what was possible and what was not. Certainly after Latrun Ben-Gurion was more inclined to listen to staff rather than wing it as Churchill sometimes tried to and was generally blocked by Gen. Hastings Ismay
American pressure for the second cease fire was overwhelming and greatly out of place given the circumstances.
I still thik that military gains in late 48 could have reduced a number of problems we face now. Israel was stronger then relatively than at any point until around 1995. Too late.
Apologies for the capital loss. My keyboard is approaching retirement.
Post a Comment