Summarizing reports in Israeli newspapers, the initial meetings were cordial but cool. Prime Minister Natanyahu held firm on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, with all that implies. Love or even friendship not necessary --Israel as a legitimate Jewish State is necessary. Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Lieberman accept the Road Map, meaning every clause in it's own order, including the Tenant clause and the Zinni clause. FM Lieberman reviewed the history of the peace process with Mr Mitchell from 1993 to today. George Mitchell was asked to bring back to President Obama the message that the traditional approach not only, has not worked but has created serious negative consequences for Israel. There have been no results or solutions that move anyone closer to peace from this process. (Who said doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of Insanity?)
Israel requires not only support for it's security concerns but also a committed affirmation to Israel as a Jewish State. The imposition of a peace deal by the International community will not be accepted. It appears that all this was accomplished with some degree of diplomacy, as all agreed to ongoing meetings and accepted the current meetings as "useful".
President Obama's position is unclear, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that there will be a Palestinian state within four years no matter who the Prime Minister is. The comments from the administration regarding trading help with Iran for dismantling settlements (Bushahr for Yitzhar) hopefully is a rumour, if not it shows that the Obama administration does not understand the threat that Iran poses. If this is true, I feel confident it will be rejected out of hand. No one in the current Israeli government is suicidal.
It appears that both Israeli leaders were firm but polite and no feathers were rustled, however both the PM and FM were not cowed by the EU's threats against Israel if she doesn't accept their solution. I have repeated my comments on that issue below.
For the second time in the past month the EU has issued a warning/threat to Israel that the consequences will be grave if Israel vacates the "two state solution". Whether or not one supports that idea, the absolute arrogance of the EU to attempt to dictate to Israel what her foreign policy should be is outrageous. Did the Europeans not spend 1900 years (with a few peaceful breaks) participating in every form of persecution, degradation, torment and murder against us? Did these same people not confiscate our property while chasing us from country to country with the message "there is no room for you on this planet?" They dropped us into a black pit of hellish configuration and now protest any attempt to defend ourselves. Every European leader says we have the right to defend ourselves--until we do. We should all send a message of support to the new Israeli government letting them know we would like them to act in the best interest of the State of Israel, regardless of the opinions of the Europeans and/or Americans or anyone else who thinks they have the right to determine Israel's policies and thus her destiny. A note of encouragement canbe sent to email@natanyahu.org
After this visit from George Mitchell and the previous statements from both the PM and FM, I feel Israel is in good hands, we can only hope they stay firm. With the exception of the far left, there does not seem to be much disagreement in Israel. It is important to keep our elected representatives informed on the need for their support and appreciation for that support, when it is given. Act for America has just posted in detail, the number of Islamists close to the Obama administration. Congressman Brian Baird from Washington has announced his determination to limit Congress support for Israel. http://www.actforamerica.org/
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Truth and Avigdor Leiberman
March 20, 2009 During the last two weeks of the Israeli election, I followed Avigdor Leiberman as he was obviously as important as the “top three” candidates that the Israeli and world media had determined should be followed and reported on. After listening to Leiberman in several different venues, then asking him a question regarding his purported “racism”, I carefully read the platform of Yisrael Beitanu to find where he has expressed “hate” or “racism”. I want to issue the following challenge. Where, in Mr. Leiberman’s writings, speeches or party platform there is “hate mongering”, extremism or “racism” of which he has been accused.
First of all, the party platform in brief:
1. No negotiations with terrorists
2. Overthrow Hamas
3. Citizenship should be linked to loyalty to the state and its principles. (Remember there are two Arab parties which the Knesset voted to not allow to run in this election because their platforms call for the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with a Palestinian state. The Supreme Court ruled they must be allowed to run) Americans elected to public office must take an oath of allegiance as well as new citizens. Nowhere does Leiberman call for only Arabs or any other singled out group.to be loyal to the state.
4. Legal residents who have served in the IDF or have done National Service will get preferential treatment when applying to Universities, receiving public service benefits and allocation of state owned land grants. (This applies to all sections of the population, not only Jews)The U.S. GI bill of rights comes to mind)
5. A coalition should be formed to change the system of elections to a more workable system, perhaps modeled after the American system.
6. A bill will be presented to allow civil union as well as religious marriage.
7. A special cabinet level position to encourage aliyah and integration of new immigrants from Europe and the U.S. due to the sharp rise in anti-semitism.
8. Remove the restrictions on the importation and sale of pork products.
9. Loosen Sabbath restrictions on commerce.
Some of these planks may be disagreeable, but which ones are right wing extremist and which are racist and in what way?
My question to Mr Leiberman on the final borders was answered realistically and constructively. Borders are usually described as an issue in solving the disagreements between the parties in this part of the world. The idea of moving borders so most Arabs live together and will govern themselves autonomously and most heavily Jewish populated areas accrue to Israel, is the basic idea behind the borders set by the UN partition. This would insure that no one is moved out of their homes. Israel is not the U.S. and the Middle East is not the Americas. How people live here is different in that cultural, religious and ethnic differences cause people to prefer living together in their own communities, in order to maintain those differences. While Arabs can live freely in Israel, Jews cannot live in Arab territories—why is that?
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Leiberman stated he has two basic commitments, first the Security of Israel, second, prosperity for the Palestinians. He is a supporter of a two state solution and in fact believes this is the only way to solve the issue of security for Israel and prosperity for the Palestinians. Two states will only work under conditions that support Israel’s security needs.
American Jews may support the Zionist enterprise or not, but to attempt to pressure the government of a sovereign state to form a government, that is contrary to the wishes of the voters, in this case, by delegitimizing one of its leaders is not their province. To quote the embattled Dutch film maker Geert Wilders, “Thanks to Israeli parents who see their children go off to join the army and lie awake at night worrying, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and have pleasant dreams, unaware of the dangers looming.”
Demonizing those with whom we may disagree is not helpful, democratic or wise. While we can all read between the lines and determine that we know what another person thinks, but this is mind reading when there is no evidence to support it.
First of all, the party platform in brief:
1. No negotiations with terrorists
2. Overthrow Hamas
3. Citizenship should be linked to loyalty to the state and its principles. (Remember there are two Arab parties which the Knesset voted to not allow to run in this election because their platforms call for the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with a Palestinian state. The Supreme Court ruled they must be allowed to run) Americans elected to public office must take an oath of allegiance as well as new citizens. Nowhere does Leiberman call for only Arabs or any other singled out group.to be loyal to the state.
4. Legal residents who have served in the IDF or have done National Service will get preferential treatment when applying to Universities, receiving public service benefits and allocation of state owned land grants. (This applies to all sections of the population, not only Jews)The U.S. GI bill of rights comes to mind)
5. A coalition should be formed to change the system of elections to a more workable system, perhaps modeled after the American system.
6. A bill will be presented to allow civil union as well as religious marriage.
7. A special cabinet level position to encourage aliyah and integration of new immigrants from Europe and the U.S. due to the sharp rise in anti-semitism.
8. Remove the restrictions on the importation and sale of pork products.
9. Loosen Sabbath restrictions on commerce.
Some of these planks may be disagreeable, but which ones are right wing extremist and which are racist and in what way?
My question to Mr Leiberman on the final borders was answered realistically and constructively. Borders are usually described as an issue in solving the disagreements between the parties in this part of the world. The idea of moving borders so most Arabs live together and will govern themselves autonomously and most heavily Jewish populated areas accrue to Israel, is the basic idea behind the borders set by the UN partition. This would insure that no one is moved out of their homes. Israel is not the U.S. and the Middle East is not the Americas. How people live here is different in that cultural, religious and ethnic differences cause people to prefer living together in their own communities, in order to maintain those differences. While Arabs can live freely in Israel, Jews cannot live in Arab territories—why is that?
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Leiberman stated he has two basic commitments, first the Security of Israel, second, prosperity for the Palestinians. He is a supporter of a two state solution and in fact believes this is the only way to solve the issue of security for Israel and prosperity for the Palestinians. Two states will only work under conditions that support Israel’s security needs.
American Jews may support the Zionist enterprise or not, but to attempt to pressure the government of a sovereign state to form a government, that is contrary to the wishes of the voters, in this case, by delegitimizing one of its leaders is not their province. To quote the embattled Dutch film maker Geert Wilders, “Thanks to Israeli parents who see their children go off to join the army and lie awake at night worrying, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and have pleasant dreams, unaware of the dangers looming.”
Demonizing those with whom we may disagree is not helpful, democratic or wise. While we can all read between the lines and determine that we know what another person thinks, but this is mind reading when there is no evidence to support it.
Jewish Morality in War
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Jewish Morality in War
January 20, 2009
The Jewish experience over it's 3500 years has been a matter of making choices between compliant submission, leading to victimization or standing up for ourselves and fighting back. The modern state of Israel has chosen the latter requiring an investigation of how to meet this challenge within a moral position. Israel is consistently called upon to determine how best to protect her sovereignty, making war a continuous necessity in meeting that existential requirement. The question is how does she protect herself without violating her moral parameters.Summarizing Rabbi Dr Donniel Hartman on this subject will hopefully open debate on a difficult issue. Starting with the decision to go to war, by definition a moral war is always defensive, never offensive. Defending life is a moral imperative. Once the decision to go to war is made, a clear purpose must be set and a plan for how the war will be fought. The issue that Israel faces is determining how to protect noncombatents while efficiently targeting combatants.. In traditional wars this has been less a problem than it is with the nonconventional warfare that Israel faces today.How to fight a moral war when differentiation between combatants and noncombatants is blurred? The defensive army, under Jewish guidelines must protect noncombatants but not if to do so means losing the war. When the war is defensive and therefore just , the defenders may not lose the war, thus assigning it's own noncombatants a horrific fate. If, as in the current situation,(Operation Cast Lead) the aggressors are mixing combatants with non-combatants, while taking what precautions are possible, the defending army is obligated to win it. Jewish law requires that we choose life, the question is how do you choose life for others, if you don't choose life for yourself. Since the tactics used by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) puts the lives of IDF soldiers in greater danger than any other army would allow, for the sole purpose of protecting the lives of reputed noncombatants, are they doing the right thing? This decision would infer that the lives of the enemy noncombatant's life is more valuable than the soldier's life. Remember that a defensive war is a just war, therefore the ultimate obligation is to win. Living a moral life often requires tough decisions that are not always clearly defined. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving Morality
IDF Spokesperson April 5th, 2009
In a Passover Letter to IDF Soldiers and Commanders,The Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving MoralityWhile Fighting a Terrorist Threat
In honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover, the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, addressed the soldiers and commanders of the IDF in a letter released this evening. The Chief of the General Staff discussed the value of freedom that is celebrated during the holiday. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi related this value to the challenges faced by the IDF as it is required to protect the people of Israel and their freedom while fighting a terrorist threat that relentlessly uses civilians as human shields.
In the letter, the Chief of the General Staff wrote:
"The ethos of the IDF is based on combining our strength with our righteousness; on the one hand, our need to hold a deterring sword against those who threaten to destroy us, and on the other hand, our continuous effort to reach peace. We fulfill this task with determination, while preserving out morality as Jews, as Israelis, and as followers of the 'Spirit of the IDF' [the IDF's ethical code].
"This ethos has been put to test in all of Israel's wars, as well as recently, during Operation Cast Lead. Following a long period of restraint, we emerged in a battle against Hamas and other terrorist elements, determined to protect our homes and people, and to remove the terror that threatened the residents of Israel's south. Our enemy used their people as human shields and as hostages, choosing to launch their deadly attacks from schools, hospitals, mosques, and houses, forcing upon us a battle zone where an uninvolved civilian population was largely present.
"We focused our fighting against these terrorists and their infrastructure, determined to mark the entire terrorist network and deliver it a severe blow, while doing our utmost to preserve the lives of our soldiers and avoid any harm to civilian populations unassociated with terrorism.
"This is the ideological and normative basis of our culture and identity. Thus, I was disturbed like many others by the so called 'testimonies' published by soldiers, describing unacceptable actions and intentional harm supposedly done to civilians. The testimonies were investigated and looked into thoroughly by the Investigating Military Police, and were found to be groundless and lacking any factual basis.
"If a shade of a doubt is to be uncovered that any deviations from the IDF's norms took place, they will be investigated and thoroughly dealt with. The IDF is determined to rigidly maintain its values and morality. This is where our strength lies. We will never embrace the ideologies of our enemies and will forever be loyal to the tradition and values of our people."
Jewish Morality in War
January 20, 2009
The Jewish experience over it's 3500 years has been a matter of making choices between compliant submission, leading to victimization or standing up for ourselves and fighting back. The modern state of Israel has chosen the latter requiring an investigation of how to meet this challenge within a moral position. Israel is consistently called upon to determine how best to protect her sovereignty, making war a continuous necessity in meeting that existential requirement. The question is how does she protect herself without violating her moral parameters.Summarizing Rabbi Dr Donniel Hartman on this subject will hopefully open debate on a difficult issue. Starting with the decision to go to war, by definition a moral war is always defensive, never offensive. Defending life is a moral imperative. Once the decision to go to war is made, a clear purpose must be set and a plan for how the war will be fought. The issue that Israel faces is determining how to protect noncombatents while efficiently targeting combatants.. In traditional wars this has been less a problem than it is with the nonconventional warfare that Israel faces today.How to fight a moral war when differentiation between combatants and noncombatants is blurred? The defensive army, under Jewish guidelines must protect noncombatants but not if to do so means losing the war. When the war is defensive and therefore just , the defenders may not lose the war, thus assigning it's own noncombatants a horrific fate. If, as in the current situation,(Operation Cast Lead) the aggressors are mixing combatants with non-combatants, while taking what precautions are possible, the defending army is obligated to win it. Jewish law requires that we choose life, the question is how do you choose life for others, if you don't choose life for yourself. Since the tactics used by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) puts the lives of IDF soldiers in greater danger than any other army would allow, for the sole purpose of protecting the lives of reputed noncombatants, are they doing the right thing? This decision would infer that the lives of the enemy noncombatant's life is more valuable than the soldier's life. Remember that a defensive war is a just war, therefore the ultimate obligation is to win. Living a moral life often requires tough decisions that are not always clearly defined. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving Morality
IDF Spokesperson April 5th, 2009
In a Passover Letter to IDF Soldiers and Commanders,The Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving MoralityWhile Fighting a Terrorist Threat
In honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover, the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, addressed the soldiers and commanders of the IDF in a letter released this evening. The Chief of the General Staff discussed the value of freedom that is celebrated during the holiday. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi related this value to the challenges faced by the IDF as it is required to protect the people of Israel and their freedom while fighting a terrorist threat that relentlessly uses civilians as human shields.
In the letter, the Chief of the General Staff wrote:
"The ethos of the IDF is based on combining our strength with our righteousness; on the one hand, our need to hold a deterring sword against those who threaten to destroy us, and on the other hand, our continuous effort to reach peace. We fulfill this task with determination, while preserving out morality as Jews, as Israelis, and as followers of the 'Spirit of the IDF' [the IDF's ethical code].
"This ethos has been put to test in all of Israel's wars, as well as recently, during Operation Cast Lead. Following a long period of restraint, we emerged in a battle against Hamas and other terrorist elements, determined to protect our homes and people, and to remove the terror that threatened the residents of Israel's south. Our enemy used their people as human shields and as hostages, choosing to launch their deadly attacks from schools, hospitals, mosques, and houses, forcing upon us a battle zone where an uninvolved civilian population was largely present.
"We focused our fighting against these terrorists and their infrastructure, determined to mark the entire terrorist network and deliver it a severe blow, while doing our utmost to preserve the lives of our soldiers and avoid any harm to civilian populations unassociated with terrorism.
"This is the ideological and normative basis of our culture and identity. Thus, I was disturbed like many others by the so called 'testimonies' published by soldiers, describing unacceptable actions and intentional harm supposedly done to civilians. The testimonies were investigated and looked into thoroughly by the Investigating Military Police, and were found to be groundless and lacking any factual basis.
"If a shade of a doubt is to be uncovered that any deviations from the IDF's norms took place, they will be investigated and thoroughly dealt with. The IDF is determined to rigidly maintain its values and morality. This is where our strength lies. We will never embrace the ideologies of our enemies and will forever be loyal to the tradition and values of our people."
Israel's Election System
Understanding Israel’s Election System
February 8, 2009
In the United States, we just finished a very long and somewhat angry election cycle and people have begun to put their differences aside and continue life normally. One of the great positives of democracies is their ability to change governments without violence and usually without bitterness. Yet different democratic countries have very different systems and all work fairly well. Israel on Tuesday, January 27th began its official election cycle. This date is two weeks from election day and the first day that paid television advertising is allowed. The system in Israel is different from ours and since so many people have asked me, over the past years, “how does the Israeli system work” this seemed an appropriate time to talk about it. Imagine two weeks of political ads, vs the nearly 2 years of campaigning we have just finished.
Israel’s Knesset(Parliament) is unicameral and holds elections every 4 years. Voters choose their political party and vote in internal party elections to choose who will lead the party and a list of candidates, to hold Knesset seats, below the party leader. Voters pick a political party and pay a tax to the party to support it. The party decides who will be on the list and in what order, this becomes important when the general election occurs. The first name on the list will be the Prime Minister if that party gets the most votes and the names below the party leader are ordered according to the party’s judgement as to their importance to the party. For instance, if a party gets enough votes to earn 30 seats, the first 30 names become members of Knesset.
The President of Israel, currently Shimon Peres, then asks the leader of the party, who seems most likely to be able to form a government, to do so within 45 days. This is usually the party receiving the most votes, but not necessarily. Forming a government requires negotiating with other parties to form a coalition. . The cabinet ministers are members of coalition parties as well as the majority party, which sometimes creates volatility in the government. Imagine if President Obama had to insert Republicans, Green Party representatives, Independents and so on into his cabinet. While in the American system the cabinet is the pick of the President and they all work together, that is not always possible if some of your most important cabinet members are from other parties. Currently Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni are from Kadima but the Minister of Defense is from Labor and different cabinet members could have competed for the Prime Minister’s job in the past election and plans to do so in future elections. In the current Knesset there are 12 different parties represented (27 parties competed in the last election) and in the current election 38 parties are vying for seats.
A party must have 2% of the total votes to earn a seat. For most of the political parties this very low threshold is too high due to the number of parties involved. In the current election,the parties that will make up the next government will most likely be, the current ruling party Kadima, Likud (the current front runner), Israel Our Home, Labor, and Shas (a Sephardic religious party). Around half of the voting Arab citizens vote for left wing Jewish lists instead of any of the 5-7 Arab parties that put up a list. Also many Arabs boycott elections, which makes it difficult for them to get many seats, totaling the Arab parties together they usually pass the threshold and hold between 3 and 7 seats.
Polls show the top issues for voters are, first security, second the economy, third education. Although the elections for Knesset are set every four years very few governments have lasted a full term. In the last 10 years, four governments have formed, with three falling before their term is finished, the one that lasted was Ariel Sharon’s government from 2002 to 2006. In the last 60 years there has been only one government that received enough mandates to form a government without coalescing with other parties and it lasted only one year.
This can be a confusing system, but generally the parties have very clear differences and Israelis tend to be very loyal to a particular party. Since Israel has been at war for 60 years, every voter has concerns about security, after that the parties represent different strengths. Although the Likud has always been strong on defense, the leader of Likud, Benjamin Natanyahu is considered strongest on the economy, concerns about social issues such as poverty and education are strengths of Labor, although the religious parties are also strong on those issues as well as on the issue of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. Israel Our Home is strong with new immigrants Jewish identity and defense. Meandering through 38 political parties is not a likely activity for most voters who will lean toward parties they have voted for in the past.
Whichever party receives the most votes will lead the government but will, of necessity, have to form a coalition with several other parties. These coalitions can create broader consensus, but often create differences that make decision making difficult.
This is Israeli elections 101, if you would like to know more feel free to contact me tboussi@gmail.com
February 8, 2009
In the United States, we just finished a very long and somewhat angry election cycle and people have begun to put their differences aside and continue life normally. One of the great positives of democracies is their ability to change governments without violence and usually without bitterness. Yet different democratic countries have very different systems and all work fairly well. Israel on Tuesday, January 27th began its official election cycle. This date is two weeks from election day and the first day that paid television advertising is allowed. The system in Israel is different from ours and since so many people have asked me, over the past years, “how does the Israeli system work” this seemed an appropriate time to talk about it. Imagine two weeks of political ads, vs the nearly 2 years of campaigning we have just finished.
Israel’s Knesset(Parliament) is unicameral and holds elections every 4 years. Voters choose their political party and vote in internal party elections to choose who will lead the party and a list of candidates, to hold Knesset seats, below the party leader. Voters pick a political party and pay a tax to the party to support it. The party decides who will be on the list and in what order, this becomes important when the general election occurs. The first name on the list will be the Prime Minister if that party gets the most votes and the names below the party leader are ordered according to the party’s judgement as to their importance to the party. For instance, if a party gets enough votes to earn 30 seats, the first 30 names become members of Knesset.
The President of Israel, currently Shimon Peres, then asks the leader of the party, who seems most likely to be able to form a government, to do so within 45 days. This is usually the party receiving the most votes, but not necessarily. Forming a government requires negotiating with other parties to form a coalition. . The cabinet ministers are members of coalition parties as well as the majority party, which sometimes creates volatility in the government. Imagine if President Obama had to insert Republicans, Green Party representatives, Independents and so on into his cabinet. While in the American system the cabinet is the pick of the President and they all work together, that is not always possible if some of your most important cabinet members are from other parties. Currently Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni are from Kadima but the Minister of Defense is from Labor and different cabinet members could have competed for the Prime Minister’s job in the past election and plans to do so in future elections. In the current Knesset there are 12 different parties represented (27 parties competed in the last election) and in the current election 38 parties are vying for seats.
A party must have 2% of the total votes to earn a seat. For most of the political parties this very low threshold is too high due to the number of parties involved. In the current election,the parties that will make up the next government will most likely be, the current ruling party Kadima, Likud (the current front runner), Israel Our Home, Labor, and Shas (a Sephardic religious party). Around half of the voting Arab citizens vote for left wing Jewish lists instead of any of the 5-7 Arab parties that put up a list. Also many Arabs boycott elections, which makes it difficult for them to get many seats, totaling the Arab parties together they usually pass the threshold and hold between 3 and 7 seats.
Polls show the top issues for voters are, first security, second the economy, third education. Although the elections for Knesset are set every four years very few governments have lasted a full term. In the last 10 years, four governments have formed, with three falling before their term is finished, the one that lasted was Ariel Sharon’s government from 2002 to 2006. In the last 60 years there has been only one government that received enough mandates to form a government without coalescing with other parties and it lasted only one year.
This can be a confusing system, but generally the parties have very clear differences and Israelis tend to be very loyal to a particular party. Since Israel has been at war for 60 years, every voter has concerns about security, after that the parties represent different strengths. Although the Likud has always been strong on defense, the leader of Likud, Benjamin Natanyahu is considered strongest on the economy, concerns about social issues such as poverty and education are strengths of Labor, although the religious parties are also strong on those issues as well as on the issue of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. Israel Our Home is strong with new immigrants Jewish identity and defense. Meandering through 38 political parties is not a likely activity for most voters who will lean toward parties they have voted for in the past.
Whichever party receives the most votes will lead the government but will, of necessity, have to form a coalition with several other parties. These coalitions can create broader consensus, but often create differences that make decision making difficult.
This is Israeli elections 101, if you would like to know more feel free to contact me tboussi@gmail.com
Soldiers Return from Gaza
SOLDIERS RETURNING FROM GAZA
January 13, 2009
After talking to five soldiers returning to Israel from action in Gaza, I convey in this piece their answers as though the five soldiers were one. This seems justified, as there was almost no difference in their replies. Three of the five were reservists married and with children, and two of those reservists were religious. The interviews were mostly in Hebrew, so exact quotes are difficult.
At their request, the soldiers were not photographed. Note: On January 27, 2009 The Israel Defense Forces announced that no soldiers, commanders, or officers who participated in Operation Cast Lead, may be photographed without their faces being blurred due to European anti-Israel groups threatening to bring war crimes charges against Israeli members of the Israel Defense Forces. A bill was passed in the Knesset (the Israel Parliament) to provide any Israeli charged in a foreign country with complete protection against such lawsuits should they take place. England is of particular concern as their laws make it particularly easy for any individual to bring about such lawsuits.
How did you feel going into Gaza?
When we knew we were going in, it was initially difficult. Knowing we must do this helped. But what put us most at ease were the army Rabbis who came and talked to us—they really made you feel “the hand of G-d,” and that feeling put us very much into ruach krav (spirit of battle).
Did the soldiers with you share this feeling?
Nearly everyone felt that the Rabbis made this easier. It is said 'there are no atheists in a foxhole,' and I can tell you that is the truth. Guys who never prayed before learn to pray on the battlefield. I saw it in Lebanon in 2006 and I saw it here. Nobody enjoys fighting; we all miss our families. Ronnie here has a 2 week old baby - he should be home with his family. There is for all of us a sense of safety in Israel. I know that sounds strange, but when you step over the border into Gaza, the feeling is immediately different, even though Gaza was quiet until we reached the more inhabited areas.
How supportive are your families?
One Hundred percent. When you write to tell others about this conversation, make them understand no one of us wants to fight; but it is the only way for us to live. As much as we do not want to fight, there is a sense of relief that we are finally doing something. If we had done this two years ago, it would have been much easier. (Note: none of the soldiers lives in Sderot; two live in Ashkelon, Portland's sister city in Israel. Sderot and Ashkelon are cities in Southern Israel nearest to Gaza and under attack since Gaza was ceded to the Palestinian Authority).
How do you feel now after the ceasefire?
We aren’t supposed to talk to the media and I understand keeping the media out; but I will answer this if you do not use my real name. I am loyal to the army, my country and the job I have to do for it, and more than willing to do it. I just don’t understand the ceasefire now. No one wants it now. We want the politicians to let us finish the job. We don’t want to stop now and in a year from now have to do it all over again.
What will it take to finish the job? We don’t know exactly; but a serious push is necessary. As long as Hamas is in control it won’t end. We killed 900 terrorists out of at least 20,000: this is nothing to them. They have to know it is not worthwhile to “mess” with us.
We don’t want to be here and the Arabs in Gaza don’t want tanks and shells raining down on them. It shouldn’t be us [trying to control Hamas]. It is an Arab problem and they should solve it themselves.
Why do you think the media was kept out? I heard a reporter on Fox News channel say that it was because the Israeli government didn’t want the Israeli side of the story told.
(Laughter from all the soldiers standing there.) Of course we want our story told, but we learned from Lebanon [2006]: The press was everywhere - they were constantly getting in the way and we had to be always aware of them theyto be sure they didn’t get killed. Sometimes we couldn’t take an action we wanted to for fear of hurting them. They think war is a card game (no offense to you), but it is life and death. We can’t be out there thinking, “How will the media see this?”. Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth. Yet we have to avoid hitting civilians and the reporters, who seem to feel they should be able do anything and be anywhere they want to be. In Lebanon, I saw a soldier in another unit who couldn’t take a shot at the guy pointing a gun at him, because a reporter was in the way. Restricting the press was one of the things that made this action much easier.
What other things made Gaza easier than Lebanon?
I don’t know if “easier” is the right word, but certainly we could be more focused on our job with the distraction created by reporters eliminated. Other things that made Gaza easier than Lebanon were:
we were well prepared and had a definite plan
our officers were in the field beside us, which is what the IDF is about
In Lebanon we fell in love with technology and thought we could do too many things from a distance.
Do you think that Gabi Ashkenazi (Chief of General Staff) is the reason?
Well, [Lieutenant General Askenazi is] probably a good part of the reason; but we all learned a lot from Lebanon. Another thing about reporters: in Lebanon, some reporters were giving away ground information, site information . . . not necessarily intentionally, but they did and it cost us lives. Security was very tight this time around; we were not even allowed to keep our cell phones with us.
Every soldier I have talked to has used the word “scared” usually more then once, what were the most frightening things for you?
First every house or building is wired. They wire their own houses, the schools that their own children attend, hospitals . . . the mindset [of putting your own people at risk] is so alien to us that we have to keep reminding ourselves of the danger in every step we take. They would rather have a family of eight blown up in their own house than eight different Arabs blown up in different places; and if it is a school full of kids that is blown up, all the better, as they understand that the publicity is good for them. They think that if they kill Israelis that’s good and if a lot of Arabs die that is even better, as it is blamed on the Israelis and that is the publicity they want. Dead women and children are the publicity they look for..
The second most frightening thing -or maybe even the first- is the tunnels. Gaza is a mass of tunnels everywhere. Some of these tunnels are big enough to walk in standing up, and with electricity and other necessities. They use them for everything; not just to smuggle other terrorists, money, weapons and whatever else they want. The tunnels run from house to house as well. The top leaders are in comfortable tunnels under the hospital: they know we won’t bomb the hospital so they [ the leaders] are safe. Another use of tunnels is for a major goal Hamas has: Kidnapping Israeli soldiers, THAT is very scary. If you are walking anywhere near any kind of brush or debris, a hand might reach out and grab a leg and try to drag you into the bush or a camouflaged tunnel. We sleep on the floor of vacant houses which we have searched. While we sleep, a floor tile will move and a hand reach out to grab an arm, a leg, or whatever, and drag you under the house into a tunnel. Thank G-d they did not succeed- only because we learned from past incidents.
Getting into the heads [of our enemy] is hard and frightening. They don’t mind how many of them die, while for us one soldier is too many. Every life is precious, even theirs—what can anyone do?
What do you feel has been accomplished?
We will have failed if we leave without Gilad Shalit: no way we can do that! We don’t want to go home until we are finished. This ceasefire was political, not practical. My hope is when Hamas' leaders stick their heads out of the tunnels they are hiding in, they will be so shocked by the devastation they see they will not want to attack Israel again. Everywhere in Gaza we left destroyed grey concrete buildings surrounded by rubble covered with a grey-black smoke.
What do you think the people of Gaza feel now that there is quiet?
'Quiet' is the right word because it is not over –the people really do hate us. They don’t know anything good about us; only that they are suffering. Some of them know Hamas is the problem; but most don’t think that way. I would say ninety-nine percent say they hate us. Hamas will get billions from the international community, and they will use most of it to re-arm themselves and to continue to educate their children [with anti-Israeli propaganda]: not to make a life for themselves, but to hate us. Their cynical use of their children is the long-range problem.
January 13, 2009
After talking to five soldiers returning to Israel from action in Gaza, I convey in this piece their answers as though the five soldiers were one. This seems justified, as there was almost no difference in their replies. Three of the five were reservists married and with children, and two of those reservists were religious. The interviews were mostly in Hebrew, so exact quotes are difficult.
At their request, the soldiers were not photographed. Note: On January 27, 2009 The Israel Defense Forces announced that no soldiers, commanders, or officers who participated in Operation Cast Lead, may be photographed without their faces being blurred due to European anti-Israel groups threatening to bring war crimes charges against Israeli members of the Israel Defense Forces. A bill was passed in the Knesset (the Israel Parliament) to provide any Israeli charged in a foreign country with complete protection against such lawsuits should they take place. England is of particular concern as their laws make it particularly easy for any individual to bring about such lawsuits.
How did you feel going into Gaza?
When we knew we were going in, it was initially difficult. Knowing we must do this helped. But what put us most at ease were the army Rabbis who came and talked to us—they really made you feel “the hand of G-d,” and that feeling put us very much into ruach krav (spirit of battle).
Did the soldiers with you share this feeling?
Nearly everyone felt that the Rabbis made this easier. It is said 'there are no atheists in a foxhole,' and I can tell you that is the truth. Guys who never prayed before learn to pray on the battlefield. I saw it in Lebanon in 2006 and I saw it here. Nobody enjoys fighting; we all miss our families. Ronnie here has a 2 week old baby - he should be home with his family. There is for all of us a sense of safety in Israel. I know that sounds strange, but when you step over the border into Gaza, the feeling is immediately different, even though Gaza was quiet until we reached the more inhabited areas.
How supportive are your families?
One Hundred percent. When you write to tell others about this conversation, make them understand no one of us wants to fight; but it is the only way for us to live. As much as we do not want to fight, there is a sense of relief that we are finally doing something. If we had done this two years ago, it would have been much easier. (Note: none of the soldiers lives in Sderot; two live in Ashkelon, Portland's sister city in Israel. Sderot and Ashkelon are cities in Southern Israel nearest to Gaza and under attack since Gaza was ceded to the Palestinian Authority).
How do you feel now after the ceasefire?
We aren’t supposed to talk to the media and I understand keeping the media out; but I will answer this if you do not use my real name. I am loyal to the army, my country and the job I have to do for it, and more than willing to do it. I just don’t understand the ceasefire now. No one wants it now. We want the politicians to let us finish the job. We don’t want to stop now and in a year from now have to do it all over again.
What will it take to finish the job? We don’t know exactly; but a serious push is necessary. As long as Hamas is in control it won’t end. We killed 900 terrorists out of at least 20,000: this is nothing to them. They have to know it is not worthwhile to “mess” with us.
We don’t want to be here and the Arabs in Gaza don’t want tanks and shells raining down on them. It shouldn’t be us [trying to control Hamas]. It is an Arab problem and they should solve it themselves.
Why do you think the media was kept out? I heard a reporter on Fox News channel say that it was because the Israeli government didn’t want the Israeli side of the story told.
(Laughter from all the soldiers standing there.) Of course we want our story told, but we learned from Lebanon [2006]: The press was everywhere - they were constantly getting in the way and we had to be always aware of them theyto be sure they didn’t get killed. Sometimes we couldn’t take an action we wanted to for fear of hurting them. They think war is a card game (no offense to you), but it is life and death. We can’t be out there thinking, “How will the media see this?”. Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth. Yet we have to avoid hitting civilians and the reporters, who seem to feel they should be able do anything and be anywhere they want to be. In Lebanon, I saw a soldier in another unit who couldn’t take a shot at the guy pointing a gun at him, because a reporter was in the way. Restricting the press was one of the things that made this action much easier.
What other things made Gaza easier than Lebanon?
I don’t know if “easier” is the right word, but certainly we could be more focused on our job with the distraction created by reporters eliminated. Other things that made Gaza easier than Lebanon were:
we were well prepared and had a definite plan
our officers were in the field beside us, which is what the IDF is about
In Lebanon we fell in love with technology and thought we could do too many things from a distance.
Do you think that Gabi Ashkenazi (Chief of General Staff) is the reason?
Well, [Lieutenant General Askenazi is] probably a good part of the reason; but we all learned a lot from Lebanon. Another thing about reporters: in Lebanon, some reporters were giving away ground information, site information . . . not necessarily intentionally, but they did and it cost us lives. Security was very tight this time around; we were not even allowed to keep our cell phones with us.
Every soldier I have talked to has used the word “scared” usually more then once, what were the most frightening things for you?
First every house or building is wired. They wire their own houses, the schools that their own children attend, hospitals . . . the mindset [of putting your own people at risk] is so alien to us that we have to keep reminding ourselves of the danger in every step we take. They would rather have a family of eight blown up in their own house than eight different Arabs blown up in different places; and if it is a school full of kids that is blown up, all the better, as they understand that the publicity is good for them. They think that if they kill Israelis that’s good and if a lot of Arabs die that is even better, as it is blamed on the Israelis and that is the publicity they want. Dead women and children are the publicity they look for..
The second most frightening thing -or maybe even the first- is the tunnels. Gaza is a mass of tunnels everywhere. Some of these tunnels are big enough to walk in standing up, and with electricity and other necessities. They use them for everything; not just to smuggle other terrorists, money, weapons and whatever else they want. The tunnels run from house to house as well. The top leaders are in comfortable tunnels under the hospital: they know we won’t bomb the hospital so they [ the leaders] are safe. Another use of tunnels is for a major goal Hamas has: Kidnapping Israeli soldiers, THAT is very scary. If you are walking anywhere near any kind of brush or debris, a hand might reach out and grab a leg and try to drag you into the bush or a camouflaged tunnel. We sleep on the floor of vacant houses which we have searched. While we sleep, a floor tile will move and a hand reach out to grab an arm, a leg, or whatever, and drag you under the house into a tunnel. Thank G-d they did not succeed- only because we learned from past incidents.
Getting into the heads [of our enemy] is hard and frightening. They don’t mind how many of them die, while for us one soldier is too many. Every life is precious, even theirs—what can anyone do?
What do you feel has been accomplished?
We will have failed if we leave without Gilad Shalit: no way we can do that! We don’t want to go home until we are finished. This ceasefire was political, not practical. My hope is when Hamas' leaders stick their heads out of the tunnels they are hiding in, they will be so shocked by the devastation they see they will not want to attack Israel again. Everywhere in Gaza we left destroyed grey concrete buildings surrounded by rubble covered with a grey-black smoke.
What do you think the people of Gaza feel now that there is quiet?
'Quiet' is the right word because it is not over –the people really do hate us. They don’t know anything good about us; only that they are suffering. Some of them know Hamas is the problem; but most don’t think that way. I would say ninety-nine percent say they hate us. Hamas will get billions from the international community, and they will use most of it to re-arm themselves and to continue to educate their children [with anti-Israeli propaganda]: not to make a life for themselves, but to hate us. Their cynical use of their children is the long-range problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
