Comments on: Is the IDF the world’s most liberal institution?

By: amit

amit — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:42:11 +0000

guarding a border from which there were an RPG and shooting attacks on one of the only two routs to my hometown (eilat), from which came suicide bombers, and from which every single night there are smuggles of women, drugs and refugees, is indeed a dangerous combat role. and indeed they see more “action” than most male soldiers in most western armies do. not more than those stationed in the conflict areas of afghanistan, but more than all others western soldiers, yes.

as for your other claims: why does it matter who within the security forces runs the targeted killings? the targeted killings of israel are practically run by the shabaq, so what?
“The IDF is a glorified ethnic militia with mercenaries from the Druze community.”
mercenaries who are paid 300 shekels per month! they must made us some serious disscount. you moved from arguments to pure insults, so here is where the argument ends i guess.

By: Philos

Philos — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:37:50 +0000

@ Amit, you what I’m sorry. You’re right. Escorting bare footed and hungry Aficans to Rhiomonim prison is a very dangerous combat role. The IDF has full confidence in the Karakal unit which must complete this vital task to prevent these very threatening people from invading Israel….

By: Philos

Philos — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:33:56 +0000

@ Amit, if you think guarding the Egyptian – Israel border is more warfighting than what tens of thousands of Western soldiers experience in Afghanistan then your head is up your ***.
.
Additionally, the drone attacks are under the direction of the CIA and not the military. Furthermore, Afghanistan is complicated by the fact that the militants habitually murder and main civilians. Listen buddy, if you want to believe that the only colonial army in the world that enforces ethnic discrimination is the most moral in the world, sababa. I served in the West Bank and I saw with “four eyes” what the hell goes on there. I will not swallow some hasbara garbage about the IDF being good. The IDF is a glorified ethnic militia with mercenaries from the Druze community.

By: amit

amit — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:24:34 +0000

Philos, saying “fu****” doesnt makes your argument any stronger. I didn’t say that Karkal are special forces, I said reconnaissance units with the same role and methods as Karakal are considered special forces in a lot of westran militaries,including the U.S military, and women are barred from them.
While in Israeli standarts to be stationed in the negev means to be in the most low-intesety combat role, the soldiers stationed there still see more “action” than most male soldiers in most western army do. it’s a border with the former biggest enemy, from which there is inflatration of bombers, refugees, and smugglers practically every night. the importance of that border raised even higher last year, and the fact women are among those guarding it is a strong message of trust in women combat skills from the IDF.

you want to talk in ratios then here is the most important one; the civilians-to-miliatants casulties ratio in drone attacks and targeted killings in afghanistan\pakistan by western forces, is much higher than by the IDF in gaza. it directly points on the forces moral since they have control over it, they can decide when to attack and when there are too many civilians around. the same goes for the overall civilians-to-militans casulties ratio in afghanistan, which is higher than the ratio of civilians-to-militants in the israeli-palestinian conflict and 45 years of occupation.
if you want to make comparison particulary with the cast lead operation (an exceptional deadly one in israeli-palestinian standarts) then let’s compare it to faluja. a city half the size of gaza, where 4000 civilians and 1000 militants died when U.S forces faught for control over it.

the fact the IDF is not trying to convince palestinians it is liberating them just means you wont see IDF soldiers handing out candies. The IDF still try to miminmize civilian casulties since 1. moral 2. they know that otherwise they will get trashed in international media like no one else is, and this will cause political problems. as well as personal problems for officers.

By: Philos

Philos — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:32:19 +0000

@ Amit, lol Karakal is special forces. Give me a f*****g break man…. They’re in the most “out of the way” place possible and you’re mistaken about women in the US army. You have female platoon commanders in full combat roles as well as in their navy and air force.
.
There are around 20 million Afghans in a vast area. As such we have to make comparisons using ratios. In 11 years of warfare NATO have killed several thousand civilians out of a population of 20 million. In 2009 the IDF killed just under 1000 civilians in three weeks out of a population of just under one and a half million. Another example is Lebanon. Israel inflicted 1300 fatalities and 5000 wounded civilians in three weeks out of a population of four million. Let’s put it another way. A close friend of mine who serves in a Western military surprised me one day when he said (not verbatim), “The Israelis have a much easier operating environment. They don’t have to give a shit about the civilians. They can be as aggressive as they want. We have to try and persuade the locals we’re on their side all the f*****g time, which puts us at risk. The Israelis have it good. They’re not pretending to liberate anybody. Quite the opposite.”

By: amit

amit — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:27:19 +0000

Philos, women in the US military can be a part of ground combat units only in support roles and not in the actual combat roles. In the IDF it’s different; women are included in combat roles, specifically in reconnaissance units in the negev. Reconnaissance units are considered Special Forces in a lot of militaries in the world. Women are completely barred from reconnaissance units in the U.S military. The IDF is unique in including women in ground combat units.

You make it seems as if NATO forces have better morals than the IDF, but they don’t. In the drone attacks and targeted killings by the forces stationed in Afghanistan there is much higher civilian-to-militant casualties ratio than in the IDF ones. More Afghan civilians have been killed in the last 11 years than Palestinians civilians were killed in the entire 45 years of Israel’s occupation – even though the mix between militants mix is much lesser in the mountains of Afghanistan than in the urban west bank and gaza.

By: Philos

Philos — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:23:25 +0000

@ Amit, you should probably check your facts before making a statement like that. If liberalism in the military is rated by females in mid to senior ranks then the US Army comes out ahead of every force in the world. Additionally, women serve in all combat branches of the US military apart from the Marines and special ops. The British also score better in this respect than the IDF. Both the USAF and the RAF inducted female combat pilots before the IAF did.
.
As for most moral army in comparison to others? If our unit of measure are the armies of the West then the IDF again scores low. One only need to look at the evolution of the rules of engagement of ISAF in Afghanistan to see that the IDF is an army of occupation, pure and simple. It is an abuser and an enforcer of abuse. When was the last time you read about a NATO force going in to demolish an entire village and evict its residents from their ancestral lands? Please your claim is insulting to all the forces in NATO

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:51:12 +0000

It’s interesting that religious soldiers’ obedience to halakhah is lumped in together with singing misogynist songs and calling women whores as “other issues with women.”

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:57:46 +0000

As I read Noam’s underlying position, over a set of articles, talk of expanding the IDF draft will simply further anchor the nationalist/military character of Israeli civilian society, bloating an organization with extra bodies when downsizing is in order for moral, strategic, and economic reasons. Since a draft lottery is impossible, as it would recognize that the IDF is indeed bloated, all one can do is attack anything which bloats it further.
.
I have never been a fan of the military. If I had been drafted (I just missed it by age in the US) I suspect it would have broken me. When “we” invaded Iraq, I pulled out Mark Twain’s “War Prayer” and sat by it in isolation. I think I understand something of the underlying sentiment expressed in this piece and a few prior.
.
But it will get you nowhere. Israel has been in a war economy its entire existence. While many may well not have fond memories of service, an attack on the IDF soley as the IDF will go nowhere. Yes, I know how soldiers can treat the West Bank (Gaza is not treated but, as US drones, technologically delt with from afar, most of the time). But some conscripts come out of their service with changed minds on Israeli policy thereby. Since the army is not going away, what is the point of attacking it directly? Attacking a police policy alienates fewer than attacking all police as “pigs” c 1960-70′s. IDF soldiers, agents of their commander’s will, are measures of de facto policy; command and control should be responsible. I know–they are not. But attacking the general military culture, which devolves to attacking those happy to serve in the IDF, goes nowhere.
.
I really don’t like militaries. They will never go away. I see no efficacy in disgust toward the common soldier (notwithstanding “breaking the silence”) as a tool of cultural change. You’ve been losing for a long time; you’re going to be losing for a long time. Yet I believe the factual cases you present will ultimately shift the battle ground of ideas. Facts, not general condemnations.
.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh or pedantic. I remember reacting too strongly to a soldier charge Haggai Matar reported some time ago of multiple rapes within the IDF (not among outsiders) during the 2nd Lebanese War (“where’s the proof?”). I still find it hard to believe, but your tone, above, makes me wonder a bit. And maybe that’s my point–vauge monstrocities are asserted, and left at that. Not true of your sites reporting, though.
.
You got a long hard losing ahead of you. I guess you’ll decide how to do it best. I certainly don’t have a clue over here. So–best to you.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:13:56 +0000

Have you looked at Shovrim Shtika’s 2009 booklet of interviews from female combat soldiers?
.
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/publications
.
By their testimony, sexual harassment is certainly still an issue. I’m surprised that a military correspondent would claim it to be absent from any army, as chauvinist machismo seems to be a rotten but natural plank of military culture more generally.