Thursday, May 01, 2014

David the Nachalite

David Wilder

A couple of days ago a new youtube video surfaced, filmed just outside my Beit

Hadassah home in Hebron. It shows

an Israeli soldier, guarding on the road outside the building, being first verbally, and then physically attacked, first by one Arab, and then by a second, who joined in. The soldier, realizing he is being threatened from two sides, loads his weapon, pointing it at the attackers, who then leave.

Following release of this video, the soldier, named David, who belonged to the Nachal IDF division, was relieved of his post, put on trial, jailed and told that he would no longer serve in a combat unit.

There are still a few unanswered questions about the soldier and his punishment. The IDF first claimed that he'd been punished because of 'unnecessary violence' against the Arabs who attacked him. They later changed that, claiming that he is a 'problematic soldier,' having been involved in disputes with his commanding officers.

I was told, by friends of his, serving here in Hebron, that this incident and its ramifications have 'broken him.' They related that he did have incidents that may have brought about some kind of punishment, but not nearly as severe as he was sentenced to, (twenty days in prison) and that he would not have been banished from his army unit.

In other words, he was definitely harshly punished for defending himself against Arab aggression.

As an aside, but an important note: Young men work very hard to succeed in combat units. They must endure rough basic training, long marches, with full equipment loads, and then proceed to 'advanced training' sessions which are no less trying than basic training. After months of extreme physical and also mental exertion, they 'graduate' into active units, which serve in places like the Golan Heights, the border with Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Gaza, and areas in Judea and Samaria, like Hebron.

Hebron is considered to be one of the most difficult posts. There are frequent 'alerts,' there is tension, as soldiers must remain very alert for long periods of time, and the hours they work are not easy. With that, many soldiers here find their work rewarding; they develop positive bonds with many people here, both Hebron residents and visitors from around the world, they are serving in Hebron, which many find to be a unique experience, and they understand that here they are serving Am Yisrael, the people of Israel and the State of Israel, in as tangible way as possible.

The media immediately picked up the video and broadcast it on Israeli television. One TV news host asked the correspondent what should be done in such a case. The reporter answered that the 'orders' are for the soldier to 'put down his head, look the other way and ignore them.' The news anchor replied, 'I take my hat off to anyone who can do that.'

Very quickly word spread of David's punishment. A facebook page was opened, protesting his punishment, with soldiers posting photos of themselves, many times with their faces hidden, with notes saying, "I'm with David, the Nachal soldier." The page has over 100,000 'likes.'

Hebron's Jewish community also conducted a demonstration yesterday, opposite the base where David served, until being jailed.

The issue at point is not simple. Clearly the IDF must enforce codes of action and also of discipline. However, it does not stand to reason that a soldier is punished for defending himself against Arab aggression.

This problem is not new. In the past, soldiers in Hebron, and in other places were punished, including imprisonment, for defending themselves against rock-thowing Arabs, and fire-bomb attacks. Senior officers were dismissed from the IDF for defending themselves against anarchist-foreigners, who attacked them and endangered their lives. In the past I told many visitors who asked about self-defense: 'It's permissible to use your weapon if you're dead. If you're still alive, it's forbidden.' This may sound silly or exaggerated, but unfortunately, it's almost true.

What really happened with David from the Nachal division? Simply, he was set up. There's an organization in Hebron called Youth against Settlements. It's run by an 'old friend' Issa Amru, with whom I've had multiple run-ins. What he does is 'set up' soldiers, and other security personnel, like David. He sends a few Arabs to begin a provocation, with at least one or two others in the rear, with cameras rolling. A soldier, border policeman, or even a civilian is verbally, and/or physically attacked. The victim responds. The entire incident is filmed, edited and posted on youtube. The result is an arrest, trial and many times, conviction, as happened with David, the Nachal soldier.

The ramifications are exceedingly serious. First, this blots Israel's good name. The US State Department released a report reprimanding Israel for attacks against Arabs (palestinians) while commending PA 'security forces.' Such 'admissions' by Israel of 'unnecessary violence' against Arabs, even when they are clearly the instigators, is similar to kicking a soccer ball into your opponent's goal for him.

But more disturbing is the influence on soldiers. Such incidents lower their morale and cause them, most problematically, to hesitate. Certainly there are times when a soldier or officer must 'stop and think.' But there are other situations, when many people's lives could be at stake, when the person must act instinctively. If they hesitate, even for a moment, the results can be catastrophic. If a soldier, when attacked, must hesitate, stop and think before reacting, he many lose his life and many others may, too. It is unthinkable that a person should be trained, given a uniform and arms, sent out to protect civilians, and then told to refrain from acting when the situation calls for immediate action.

And of course, these event cause great joy and comfort to the enemy, who realizing his victory, continues on the same road, continuing to goad soldiers and civilians, hoping to bring them too, to their knees. Over the past few days I've seen numerous incidents whereby soldiers, at the same location next to Beit Hadassah, are baited by Arab youth of all ages, with the soldier left with little recourse but to look the other way, and walk away.

Today the IDF officially forbade soldiers from using Facebook as a means to protest such incidents, as David the Nachal soldier's punishment. It seems to me that this attempt to subdue public objections will fail. To the contrary, it will only fan the flames of turbulence amongst the brave young IDF warriors, who ask, rightly, 'what do you want from us?' As they write on their facebook photos, 'we are with David the Nachalite.'

The root of this issue is, 'what will they say,' the 'they' being Obama and Kerry, the EU's Ashton, and other anti-Israel, pro-Arab world leaders. So, who comes first? Our men and women in uniform, their lives and the lives of civilians, or world opinion?

The answer should be clear, after sixty six years of independence.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk