Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Foreign Minister Lieberman: Palestinian police that hit IDF soldiers must die

The reaction in Israel to viral videos showing IDF “weakness” shows Israelis only care about what they look like in the West Bank, and not why they’re there to begin with. But of all the reactions, Israel’s Foreign Minister had the last laugh once again.

It’s been a bad week for us occupiers. Caught by the natives with our pants down. Twice!

First, there was this embarrassing moment in Hebron when IDF soldiers were sourrounded by Palestinian police:

But then came the worst, when Palestinians from the village of Kaddum threw stones on soldiers and the latter – are you sitting down? – ran away! I mean, everybody knows: As occupiers, showing signs of weakness makes it harder to rule.

See, what drives me crazy is how Israeli media reports this. It’s all about the weakness. The images. How we look. Our holy “deterrence.”

Not one reporter asked what those soldiers were doing in the middle of Hebron. Not one of them asked why those people in Kadum were marching, and what those soldiers were trying to prevent.

Nope. That’s not important. What’s important, apparently, is the shame, that could or could not have been avoided.

Apparently, the soldiers blame it on the kryptonite. Yeah, you heard me. Kryptonite.

T., a combatant in an infantry brigade, also claims that soldiers are not equipped to handle the complex situation on the ground. “There’s nothing more humiliating for a combatant than to see his friends run,” he says.

He criticizes the army for sending such a small group of soldiers to Qaddum on Friday at a particularly volatile time.

T. says the cameras on the ground undermine the forces’ efforts. “A commander or an officer sees a camera and becomes a diplomat, calculating every rubber bullet, every step. It’s intolerable, we’re left utterly exposed. The cameras are our kryptonite.”

Oh, I get it. So, if the cameras weren’t there, they could have done what they’re used to doing. I wonder what that is? I guess it’s not mooning the protesters.

Kryptonite or not, Israelis won’t stand for it. Shaul Mofaz, who may not even get into the Knesset after these elections, said that in his day, this embarrassing stuff would have never happened:

Kadima party chief and former IDF chief of General Staff Shaul Mofaz said soldiers should not be subject to restrictions in their response to demonstrators. Mofaz said the current climate in
the IDF is one in which soldiers fear that if they take action, they will have to face a court martial for fulfilling their duty.

Mofaz recalled that when he was commander of the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield to defeat terror in the West Bank, that was not the case.

“We didn’t stop to think, ‘What will they say,’” he said. “We got the job done.”

Interior Minister Eli Yishai said:

“In my opinion IDF soldiers should make maximal use of all weapons at their disposal if there is a threat to their lives, and they need to know they will have full support and understanding from all authorities if they have to do that.”

But the best one came today [Heb] from our beloved Foreign Minister, the one who will probably take over the Likud when Bibi is gone:

“It is unacceptable that Palestinian police slap and punch IDF soldiers and stay alive.”

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Shaun

      Just like the “Israeli” media doesn’t ask certain question that are obvious to you. You too seem to forgo questions that are obvious to other.
      Perhaps Palestinians are fully aware of the fact that Israelis Soldiers don’t dare use their guns. If this was any other Military force there would have been dozens of bullet riddled bodies.

      Reply to Comment
      • Richard Lightbown

        What were your bunch of immoral heavies doing in Area A in the first place Shaun? I mean any legit army would not be straying into lands under the authority of another state let alone shooting up the residents of that state as you and your mate Avi suggest.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shaun

          The last time soldiers entered Area A without weapons the result was far more to the delight of the Local PA residents. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/969778.stm

          Go ahead, justify away….

          Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            You’re conveniently missing the point Sunshine. They are not supposed to be there at all. With or without weapons. No respectable army in the world would behave with such disregard for an international agreement. But then that is of no relevance to the IDF who are just a bunch of hoodlums who consider themselves totally above all law and morality.

            Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        The only reason that the Israel Occupying Force is there is to protect the illegal Israeli settlers and to make life miserable for Palestiians. I do not blame the Palestinians at all for throwing rocks. Maybe you would prefer that they were as well armed as the soldiers who head into Palestinian areas in order to provoke the Palestinians. This time the IOF was scared and turned tail and ran. I wish that they had run all the way back behind the Green Line where they belong.

        Reply to Comment
      • Elisabeth

        “If this was any other Military force there would have been dozens of bullet riddled bodies.”

        Who are you taking for comparison? The Nazi’s? You are totally nuts.

        Reply to Comment
      • Sean – what are you suggesting, stone throwing should be met with bullets?

        Reply to Comment
        • Mareli

          How large are the stones, and how are they propelled?Stoning is a method of execution in many Muslim countries. Not that I am sorry that the soldiers ran rather than kill anyone. If they weren’t even supposed to be where they were, they might have been punished just for being out of an authorized area.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Philos

      Shaun, if you’re making a comparison with authoritarian regimes, indeed, you might be right but if the comparison is with Western forces then… well, we’re the only something in the Middle East, right?
      Oh, and here’s a fact you can munch on, in the first month of the Second Intifada (before any suicide bombers went bang) the IDF fired over 1 million rounds of live ammunition and required a special influx of ammo from the USA.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shaun

        Philos, you raise an interesting point. Is Israel an authoritarian regime? In which case the above mentioned cased would have ended similar to events in…Lebanon, Egypt, Mali etc.

        Or on the other hand is Israel more western?

        See US use of force against unarmed suspects: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah_during_the_Iraq_War

        Or maybe somewhere in between: Like South Africa

        http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworldnews%2Fafricaandindianocean%2Fsouthafrica%2F9625774%2FMarikana-massacre-could-have-been-avoided.html&ei=fz3HUImNFcTAtAaRnoH4Dg&usg=AFQjCNH3cTLB5SbL8YRQI9-SW76cn0GVDQ

        Reply to Comment
        • Trepetic

          @Shaun
          No use arguing with the Richards and Philoses of the world.

          All they are worried about is one side of the ledger. They put their hands on their hearts and with an innocent look on their face, they ask “what is Israel doing there”?

          They forget all history. They forgot that Israel is occupying the land because it was attacked by Jordan in 1967.

          They also forgot the fact that since 1967, the Palestinians refused to sign any peace deal that was offered to them. Had they been willing to sign the peace deals that they were offered in 2001 and 2008, Israel would no longer be there.

          The trouble is that the Palestinians don’t want to negotiate a peace deal. They want to dictate terms. That is why Israel is still there.

          Reply to Comment
          • Danny

            “They forget all history. They forgot that Israel is occupying the land because it was attacked by Jordan in 1967.”
            .
            You failed to mention that we forgot why Israel built settlements there, and continues to build them to this very day. So, since my memory is bad, can you remind me why?

            Reply to Comment
          • Trepetic

            “So, since my memory is bad, can you remind me why?”

            Indeed your memory is bad.

            Two peace deals offered by Israel by two different prime ministers. One in 2001, one in 2008.

            Had the Palestinians signed either one of those peace deals, there would be no settlements issue to cry about today because there would be two states for two peoples living side by side with defined borders. But alas, they did not sign.

            By the way, Danny, a day will come when there will be peace in the Middle East and the settlements will no longer be an issue.

            So what are you going to carp about then? What issue are you going to invent to hit Israel over the head with then?

            Reply to Comment
          • Danny

            You didn’t answer my question. I’ll repeat: Why is Israel insisting upon building more and more settlements if, as you claim, all it ever wanted was to make peace with the Palestinians? Israel could have conquered the land and occupied it militarily as a safekeeping towards a peace settlement, but it didn’t – it took the land, brought in tens of thousands of Jews (against the Geneva conventions that Israel is a signatory to) and is systematically banishing Palestinians from large parts of it (area C, or 60% of the West Bank). From its actions in the last 45 years, one can easily conclude that Israel NEVER wanted to make peace with the Palestinians.

            Reply to Comment
          • Trepetic

            “You didn’t answer my question”

            Your question was irrelevant Danny. Moreover you did not answer my question. I will repeat it:

            Why didn’t the Palestinians sign a peace deal with Israel in 2008 or 2001? Or for that matter, even before then? Say in 1967, before there were even settlements? Or even before then, in 1948?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shireen

            could it because Israel doesnt honor any peace or ceasefire agreements??? the latest ceasefire is a perfect example, not even a rocket from palestine/hamas but over 25 violations from israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Yes, there would still have been settlements, which is why the Palestinians weren’t dumb enough to take those “generous offers.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Trepetic

            “Yes, there would still have been settlements, which is why the Palestinians weren’t dumb enough to take those “generous offers.”

            Yes there is history and there is sophistry.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            “They forget all history. They forgot that Israel is occupying the land because it was attacked by Jordan in 1967.”

            Errr… what?
            Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. Israel was the country that started that war.

            Who forgot history?
            Get your facts straight.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Ohhh, now I get it. You’re saying that Jordan attacked Israel after that.

            Suprise, my friend: Egypt and Jordan had signed a Defense treaty in May of 1967. So Jordan was contractually obliged to help Egypt against an aggresive, invading force. And so they did.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Egypt started the war by closing the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, expelling the UNEF from the Sinai and militarizing the Sinai in contradiction to the 1956 ceasefire agreement. Nasser declared “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”

            You wanted history? Here you go.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            There’s history, and there’s sophistry.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “Suprise, my friend: Egypt and Jordan had signed a Defense treaty in May of 1967″

            And???? …. Jordan was still the one that attacked Israel in 1967.

            As for who was responsible for the war with Egypt, read up about the meaning of …

            CASUS BELLI and learn something, ok my friend?

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “Errr… what?
            Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. Israel was the country that started that war”

            Oh ye-Gads. Where does one start? Firstly, Israeal did not attack Jordan. Jordan is not Egypt.

            Secondly, Israel only attacked Egypt after Egypt kicked out “the UN peacekeepers”, lined up its troops along Israel’s border, closed the straits of Tiran and promised to destroy Israel.

            Ignorance is bliss, huh Felix?

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “Errr… what?
            Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. Israel was the country that started that war”

            Oh me-Gads. Where does one start? Firstly, Israeal did not attack Jordan. Jordan is not Egypt.

            Secondly, Israel only attacked Egypt after Egypt kicked out “the UN peacekeepers”, lined up its troops along Israel’s border, closed the straits of Tiran and promised to destroy Israel.

            Ignorance is bliss, huh Felix?

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            TREPETIC”they ask “what is Israel doing there”?

            They forget all history. They forgot that Israel is occupying the land because it was attacked by Jordan in 1967.”

            Why do you guys always start the story half way through? This all started at least 20 years before when Israeli terrorists were rolling barrel bombs down the hill in Haifa and putting typhoid in the drinking supply of Acre and when the IDF broke every truce in the war to have another crack at massacring Arab civilians.

            But since I can’t get an answer from Shaun to my question perhaps you will tell me what IDF terrorists were doing in Area A in the first place? No legitimate army would go onto sovereign territory of another state. Even NATO is balking about going into Syria without a UNSC resolution. So what were those IDF armed thugs doing wandering around the streets of Hebron in the first place?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >what IDF terrorists were doing in Area A in the first place? No legitimate army would go onto sovereign territory of another state.

            Is/was there a “Palestinian” state?
            No.

            Your question is irrelevant and misleading.

            Palestinians had willingly chosen to be outlaws.

            What’s your problem?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >These forms might be as much a reaction against the bombings

            Only an unfamiliar with the region stranger would think of such nonsense.

            Arabs protesting against Arab violence.
            mwahahahaha.

            Lieberman is right by the way. Soldier’s should’ve wasted that cop.

            I only hope that these soldiers would get some 6-12 month detention for their shameful behavior.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “Why do you guys always start the story half way through? This all started at least 20 years before”

            It certainly did sunshine. In 1929 to be exact, right? In Hebron, specifically, where 69 Jews were slaughtered by your Palestinians. After the fearless leader of the Palestinians, the Mufti of Jerusalem riled them up beyond reason.

            Was that what you meant Richard?

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “So what were those IDF armed thugs doing wandering around the streets of Hebron in the first place?”

            I don’t know anything specific, sunshine. I’ll await their report. But let me guess:

            Maybe they were chasing some armed Palestinian thugs who have no problems with creeping into sovereign Israeli territory to blow up innocent men, women and children.

            Oh, and you are joking about NATO, right? Let me refresh your memory about Libya. Oh and their drone attacks in Pakistan? Mind you, I am on NATO’s side. And let me guess, you are not. Right, sunshine?

            Reply to Comment
    3. Aaron Gross

      OK, I’ll ask the question: What’s so funny about deterrence? Any serious answer will be appreciated, even from Ami.

      Reply to Comment
      • Deterrence? Why not deterrence against arbitrary arrests, day and night, which create a climate of fear and hatred? Why not deterrence against actions which humiliate Bank residents for the simple reason that it can be done? Why not deterrence against a legal culture which increasingly assigns to all not Jewish the status of dangerous entities?

        You have won the suicide bomber war, but know not what to do now but repeat you win. The world moves on. Bank Palestinians show some evidence of changing in some areas. Yet you label them all terrorists in every breath they take. That which disobeys is terror. Interesting defintion, interesting definition.

        Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        Why must deterrence by the exclusive property of one side? Why is it fine for Israelis to possess a deterrence but not OK for Palestinians? Maybe Palestinians are acting to deter the presence of Israeli troops in their cities.

        Maybe we should say: Any IDF troops who set foot in the West Bank must die.

        Is that funny?

        Reply to Comment
        • Trepetic

          “Maybe we should say: Any IDF troops who set foot in the West Bank must die.

          Is that funny?”

          Yes, that would be music for the ears of petty little haters like you.

          Reply to Comment
    4. directrob

      Isn’t it great that no shots were fired and everybody left the scene alive and well? Israeli pride should never be worth more than human lives.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        It has nothing to do with the Israeli pride – Palestinians are considering such events as display of weakness, not humanity.

        A question should be asked whether a saved life of a Palestinian is sufficient enough reason to call it a victory and perceive it as a reason for further escalation?

        I don’t think so.

        Pretty much like declaring that Israel had lost operations Cast Lead of Pillar of Cloud.

        You see, from Palestinian point of view as long as there are any alive Palestinians Israel can’t win.

        It leaves us with very little options.

        Reply to Comment
        • directrob

          Sorry, I have a very hard time understanding your logic. Was running away not the only sensible option?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            No, it was not.
            Why? Because every display of good will (or weakness) is perceived by Palestinians as an invitation to escalate violence.

            Reply to Comment
      • Trespasser sees individual Palestinian lives as fingers of the Palestinian racial entity, which is much as anti-Semites saw Jews in Eruope before the second world war. So “a saved life of a Palestinian is sufficient enough reason to call it a victory and perceive it as a reason for further escalation. I don’t think so.” Dealing with a racial entity, individuals are just pawns. Racial combat is the only existence. Which means as well that Jews must conform to the defined good of their racial entity. There are no individuals in themselves valuable. Which links vanguard settler occupation ideology to the curtailment of Israeli citizens rights.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Greg,
          Why won’t you ask yourself how Palestinians themselves see individual Palestinian lives.

          After that you could to try and answer two question:
          1 – Why Israelis should treat Palestinians not like they treat themselves?
          2 – Is a saved life of a Palestinian is sufficient enough reason to call it a victory and perceive it as a reason for further escalation?

          Reply to Comment
    5. Mofaz refers to the suicide bombing campaign, which Israel indeed stopped. The problem is victory itself. The IDF interprets all resistence as a prelude to the recursion of bombing, and it is honor bound to prevent that. But there is evidence, especially in the Wall protests, that new forms of organization have emerged from the population. These forms might be as much a reaction against the bombings from within as reaction against the IDF. The State is trapped in its past victory; it seems to know nothing else.

      Lieberman’s comment reifies race. But a similar stringent protection of soldier lives can be found in the US during war. Israel has ever been at war. When coupled with the memory of Shoah, with a moment of silence each year, a racial calculus has developed which undervalues anything not Israeli–putting the matter gently, Arab citizens aside. Soldiers running away here is a good thing (they seem not to have tear gas back up); for, whatever their reasons, they showed respect for existence not their own.

      Philos: a million rounds of live ammo in a month? That sounds like a resistence myth. Can it be documented?

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ravi Khanna

      What about the Israeli soldier who shot and killed an innocent Palestinian boy yesterday? What should happen to her?

      Reply to Comment
      • Oscar

        “What about the Israeli soldier who shot and killed an innocent Palestinian boy yesterday? What should happen to her?”

        Maybe Israel should do what the Palestinians do:

        Abbas has personally glorified terrorist Mughrabi, whose bus hijacking in 1978 killed 37 civilians. Abbas funded a computer center named after Mughrabi.

        Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel