MilitaryConscience
 

Middle East - AP
Israelis Refuse to Carry Out Airstrikes
Thu Sep 25, 9:57 AM ET

By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - A group of reserve air force pilots drew condemnation Thursday for refusing to carry out airstrikes in Palestinian areas, but their unprecedented protest set off an emotional debate on the ethics of the targeted killings of militants.

Pilots are held in the highest regard in Israel and their views carry considerable weight, since their skill and audacity are seen as key to the country's survival.

Several hundred Israelis have refused to serve in the West Bank and Gaza in recent years, and there have been protests such as last weekend's Tel Aviv rally in which several thousand called for ending the occupation of the areas. But Israelis generally support the military's actions as needed to curb terror attacks, and no major anti-war movement has emerged.

Wednesday's signed declaration condemning the airstrikes shook the nation and also raised new questions about the limits of protest in the military. The air force commander, Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz, said the signatories would be punished — possibly jailed — and accused them of playing politics rather than grappling with genuine moral dilemmas.

The group of 27 is informally led by Brig. Gen. Yiftah Spector, a highly decorated retired pilot who, according to Israeli media reports, participated in the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

Nine of the pilots are still on active duty.

In their petition, the pilots said airstrikes on crowded Palestinian areas are "illegal and immoral." They also condemn Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, saying it corrupts Israeli society.

In the past three years of fighting, Israeli pilots have carried out hundreds of airstrikes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites), targeting Palestinian police installations and weapons workshops of militants.

The most controversial of the airstrikes involve targeted killings, in which helicopters — and sometimes warplanes — fire rockets and bombs at cars and homes of Palestinian militants.

In the past three years, some 140 wanted men have been killed in targeted raids, not all of them airstrikes, according to Palestinian medical officials, though the figure also includes those killed resisting arrest. More than 100 bystanders have also died, according to the medical officials.

I find It sounds alot more violent and destructive when they are refered to as 'air-strikes', as opposed to counter-attacks or just 'strikes'. :/

At least people know about them now, so they wont just dissapear. The seeds of resentment are showing in armies all over the world, hopefully it can continue.

"In the past three years, some 140 wanted men have been killed in targeted raids. . ."


And every month Israel loses an equivilent amount of non-combatants to terrorist action.

...Oh jeez, my heart breaks at this type of remark! Don't you think that enough blood has been shed on BOTH sides at this point after all these years?!?

Someone ALWAYS has to jump out and say "oh poor Isreal" when in fact they should be saying "STOP THIS MADNESS ALREADY!!!"

Admittedly, this subject has been "off my radar" a bit but I did hear a NPR show the other day wherein both the hosts took each side of the issue. To make a long story short, one of the host's main argument was about "intent"; claiming that while, "Yes, the Israelis did inflict a number of civilian casualties, those casualties were accidental while in pursuit of military targets (I forgot the term that's often used. Collateral damage? )." He also countered that the Palestinian's civilian casualty rate was based on their intent to actually inflict harm on civilians. Like I said, this is not my opinion but just kind of a paraphrase of what was said.

They are failing to take orders. If they get charged, then so be it.

Thanks Li'l Gracy Brownshirt. Jews should know better thn anyone not to hide behind "I vas only following orders".


And shach.

"And every month Israel loses an equivilent amount of non-combatants to terrorist action."



I'm just simple country boy, but I'm pretty sure a fella can be against one side killin' without being in favor of the other side a killin.

Were they volunteers? (it said reserve, so..) If they are, then they shouldn't have joined up in the first place. I can sympathize with an unwilling conscript, but a soldier who chose to be a soldier has no right to refuse an order.

I wasn't attempting to justify Israeli intitiative, or trivialize Palestinian casualties, only trying to lend perspective. Every life is indeed precious, regardless of gender, race or creed, but the truth of the matter is that their refusal to fly does not help the situation any and may potentially even add to the relentless perpetuation of injustice within Israel.

I disagree it doesn't help. A statement of concience, especially coming from soldiers who may well face penalties, sends strong message and my well inspire others.

A statement of concience is also something one may feel required by their own morality of religion to make, regardless of it's percieved effectiveness.

"a soldier who chose to be a soldier has no right to refuse an order."
-Perndog

Did nobody here ever watch Judgement at Numrembergh? Anyone here familliar with the Mai Lai Massacre? There are lines to be drawn, even in war, and getting an order does not obsolve you, even if you are soldier, even if you are a volunteer, from concience or God for any and all acts.

Well, they give medals to those who risk their lives and possibly defy orders to ensure a victory or to save a few lives for the good guys. What kind of reward is to be given for those who take a morale stand for the diametric opposite in the interest of being a good human? To be allowed to live is probably the most you can expect, methinks. Toward that end, those guys should be glad they received the press coverage they did, else ... ?

I didn't say acting on orders is absolution for a crime. I said a volunteer soldier has no right to disobey (I will add "unless he is in a position to get rid of whoever gave the order" to be a little clearer). If you don't want to be a murderer or have atrocities on your conscience, you shouldn't put yourself in a situation where you will be made to do those things.

Armies that tolerate dissent are armies that fail.

You follow orders, or you are the enemy. That should be the Army's dogma.

On the other hand, I don't believe in the draft.

So then you guys would figure the only person capable of being guilty of war crimes would the commander in chief?

last i heard the isreali army is mandatory, conciencous objectors have trouble over there.

i agree that dissent is tough for any military but if i was a soldier and i was ordered to kill children i'd hope that the guy giving orders would be disobeyed and removed from the ranks.. and i'd be tempted to turn the gun the wrong way in the melee.. or refuse to follow orders and tell my story to the courts martail board. dissent is not always frowned on in the service there is always some mention of a higher law to follow.

Hopefully, if your army told it's soldiers to kill innocent children, you wouldn't join it.

At any rate, there should be a written policy as to what officers can order their subordinates to do. Killing soldiers in cold blood is necessary; killing children is not.

Were these pilots supposed to kill innocents? I didn't read it that way. "Militant" seems like a violent word...

Come on, Max, be more observant.

Unless that commander in chief is keeping his army together through force, no. Every crime is on the head of the man who committed it, as well as on the man who gave the order.

But you also said that a soldier has no right to disobey an order.

This is where I get confused. If a soldier is order to commit a crime, his refusal to do so would be a crime, and obedience would also be a crime?

Right. Which is why he either shouldn't have become a soldier if he had any say in the matter or should have prepared himself to be able to carry out such an order.

Okay. I think that pretty much means you'd have to be nuts to volunteer, but that's what I already thought anyway.

Glad to know we're on the same page. ;)

LINK

The key word is "lawful".

If the command that was given would leave to a direct violation of "order or regulation", I would argue that such a command is not truly "lawful".

Hereby, it follows that I should be a lawyer.

For some reason I fail to see the relevance of US military law in a situation involving Israeli pilots.

EDIT: It doesn't really matter, since the article says they were ordered to attack "militants," not "innocent civilians," and I'm sure it's lawful in war to attack anyone who is a perceived or possible threat. The case may be made that the militants in question WERE innocent civilians, but that wouldn't hold up in a legal dispute.

I think the Israeli military was built based on the US one.