In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The Other Side of the Same Coin (C&P)
HAIRY
Member Posts: 23,606
The Israeli army's house philosopher
By Reuven Pedatzur
In France, it took four decades after the withdrawal from Algeria
before the old soldiers and men of letters began to bravely and
sincerely question actions of the French army during its attempts to
put down the Algerian revolt.
The process yielded quite a few publications, including many
admissions of immoral actions that led to the unnecessary deaths of
thousands of innocent Algerians and to prolonged feelings of
victimization in the civil population. In another decade or two, when
a similar process begins here, and high-ranking officers and men of
letters begin to examine the implications of our policy in the
territories, they will no doubt pinpoint a single article written by
a general and a philosopher, as a significant and very worrying
watershed.
Under the heading "The Morals of Fighting Terror," Major General Amos
Yadlin, Commander of the Military Academies, and the philosopher
Professor Asa Kasher, wrote an article in the latest issue of the
National Security journal. The article claims it is liable to
sanction, on ethical grounds, the killing of innocent people, and
impart a philosophical patina to targeted assassinations and justify
blatantly immoral military actions. (Emphasis added) (Note by Hairy: Doesn't this argument justify the same behavior of the suicide bombers? Both, IMHO, are morally and legally wrong.)
Not only do they feel there is no need to apologize for the deaths of
children and women in the course of assassinations of those who have
been marked as targets, but this ought to be seen as a non
condemnable necessity deriving from "military compulsion" in
fulfilling which "we will have to come to terms with harming the
`human environment' of the target of the military actions."(Emphasis added)
Thus, in a brilliant semantic definition, the writers of the article
make their contribution to the process of de-humanization that
transforms babies, women and senior citizens from innocent human
beings into a "human environment," which has the bad luck not to be
immune to indiscriminate killing.
When Kasher and Yadlin define what is a terrorist deserving to be put
to death, they march the moral slope. "A person is a ticking bomb not
only when he has a belt of explosives strapped to him and is on his
way into Israel... but also in earlier stages - when the person
provides his colleague with war materiel, when he prepares his
equipment and the journey, and when he plans the attack," they write.
Based on this definition, the circle of those facing execution
essentially widens without limit, since the determination of who is
aiding a terrorist is flexible. In the final analysis, it is given
unto the Shin Bet operative to decide - on his own discretion and
without any judicial procedure - who will be added to the hit list.
Yadlin and Kasher take pains to point out that assassination is not
an act of vengeance, punishment or deterrence, and that it is not
motivated by the belief that the organization from which the
terrorists come is to be considered an "army," all of whose members
are deserving of liquidation.
Yet on this point their article is not keeping up with the pace of
developments. Shortly after the article went to print, Chief of Staff
Moshe Yaalon made it clear that policy had changed and all members of
Hamas are legitimate targets of "assassination." I do not recall
Kasher and Yadlin expressing any reservations with this change in
policy, which contradicts the spirit of what they wrote.
The two are willing to admit that the criticism of the killing of 15
civilians in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh in July 2003 was
justified, in that the killing was a serious ethical failure.
Ostensibly, a divergence from the position expressed by senior army
commanders, who until recently pursued an incitement campaign against
anyone who dared to criticize the action that caused the deaths of so
many innocent people.
But before long it became clear that they were not intending this
sort of criticism. There was no place for criticism of the use of a
one-ton bomb, they state, because this criticism "lies in a failure
to recognize the facts, misunderstanding of the professional
considerations and even a lack of responsibility on questions of life
and death."
They argue that in order to make certain that Shehadeh would be
killed, it would have been possible to use four quarter-ton bombs,
but then the danger of injury to the "civilian environment" would
have been greater. The serious outcome, they say, was the result of
faulty intelligence suggesting that the houses around the target were
empty. These arguments are untenable. Anyone who makes a decision to
drop a one-ton bomb should know that many civilian casualties will
result.
Yadlin represents the high command level of the IDF, which helps to
explain his approach. However, Kasher's role in dispensing a moral
and philosophical stamp of approval to such activities is
infuriating. In the past few years, Kasher has become a sort of house
philosopher of the Israeli army, throwing his support behind its
policies.
From an article he recently wrote on the subject of non-compliance
with orders, one could understand that for Kasher, in a democratic
society morality is now equivalent to upholding the law. This leads
the reader to conclude that the action of anyone refusing to uphold
that which is stated in the law - or in a military order - is
ethically unjustified. This is a problematic statement, of course,
because not every law, and certainly not every military order, sits
well with the values of democracy, as the court has already
determined in the case of the Kafr Qasem massacre.
Unlike this determination, when the subject is targeted
assassinations Kasher does not see any "black flag" flying over
military orders that lead to killing innocent people.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the IDF has assigned
Kasher to write a sequel to its "Ethical Code" he wrote some years
ago. The army knows it can trust a man who passionately defends its
course of action in the territories, and its chiefs are certainly
expecting him to lend expression to this in the new code, which will
be titled, "How to Act in a War on Terror."
It is no less sad that scarcely any other men of letters have taken
to the high ground in opposition to the "Israeli army's house
philosopher." There are none to sound the alarm against the
exceedingly serious erosion of our democratic infrastructure.
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
By Reuven Pedatzur
In France, it took four decades after the withdrawal from Algeria
before the old soldiers and men of letters began to bravely and
sincerely question actions of the French army during its attempts to
put down the Algerian revolt.
The process yielded quite a few publications, including many
admissions of immoral actions that led to the unnecessary deaths of
thousands of innocent Algerians and to prolonged feelings of
victimization in the civil population. In another decade or two, when
a similar process begins here, and high-ranking officers and men of
letters begin to examine the implications of our policy in the
territories, they will no doubt pinpoint a single article written by
a general and a philosopher, as a significant and very worrying
watershed.
Under the heading "The Morals of Fighting Terror," Major General Amos
Yadlin, Commander of the Military Academies, and the philosopher
Professor Asa Kasher, wrote an article in the latest issue of the
National Security journal. The article claims it is liable to
sanction, on ethical grounds, the killing of innocent people, and
impart a philosophical patina to targeted assassinations and justify
blatantly immoral military actions. (Emphasis added) (Note by Hairy: Doesn't this argument justify the same behavior of the suicide bombers? Both, IMHO, are morally and legally wrong.)
Not only do they feel there is no need to apologize for the deaths of
children and women in the course of assassinations of those who have
been marked as targets, but this ought to be seen as a non
condemnable necessity deriving from "military compulsion" in
fulfilling which "we will have to come to terms with harming the
`human environment' of the target of the military actions."(Emphasis added)
Thus, in a brilliant semantic definition, the writers of the article
make their contribution to the process of de-humanization that
transforms babies, women and senior citizens from innocent human
beings into a "human environment," which has the bad luck not to be
immune to indiscriminate killing.
When Kasher and Yadlin define what is a terrorist deserving to be put
to death, they march the moral slope. "A person is a ticking bomb not
only when he has a belt of explosives strapped to him and is on his
way into Israel... but also in earlier stages - when the person
provides his colleague with war materiel, when he prepares his
equipment and the journey, and when he plans the attack," they write.
Based on this definition, the circle of those facing execution
essentially widens without limit, since the determination of who is
aiding a terrorist is flexible. In the final analysis, it is given
unto the Shin Bet operative to decide - on his own discretion and
without any judicial procedure - who will be added to the hit list.
Yadlin and Kasher take pains to point out that assassination is not
an act of vengeance, punishment or deterrence, and that it is not
motivated by the belief that the organization from which the
terrorists come is to be considered an "army," all of whose members
are deserving of liquidation.
Yet on this point their article is not keeping up with the pace of
developments. Shortly after the article went to print, Chief of Staff
Moshe Yaalon made it clear that policy had changed and all members of
Hamas are legitimate targets of "assassination." I do not recall
Kasher and Yadlin expressing any reservations with this change in
policy, which contradicts the spirit of what they wrote.
The two are willing to admit that the criticism of the killing of 15
civilians in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh in July 2003 was
justified, in that the killing was a serious ethical failure.
Ostensibly, a divergence from the position expressed by senior army
commanders, who until recently pursued an incitement campaign against
anyone who dared to criticize the action that caused the deaths of so
many innocent people.
But before long it became clear that they were not intending this
sort of criticism. There was no place for criticism of the use of a
one-ton bomb, they state, because this criticism "lies in a failure
to recognize the facts, misunderstanding of the professional
considerations and even a lack of responsibility on questions of life
and death."
They argue that in order to make certain that Shehadeh would be
killed, it would have been possible to use four quarter-ton bombs,
but then the danger of injury to the "civilian environment" would
have been greater. The serious outcome, they say, was the result of
faulty intelligence suggesting that the houses around the target were
empty. These arguments are untenable. Anyone who makes a decision to
drop a one-ton bomb should know that many civilian casualties will
result.
Yadlin represents the high command level of the IDF, which helps to
explain his approach. However, Kasher's role in dispensing a moral
and philosophical stamp of approval to such activities is
infuriating. In the past few years, Kasher has become a sort of house
philosopher of the Israeli army, throwing his support behind its
policies.
From an article he recently wrote on the subject of non-compliance
with orders, one could understand that for Kasher, in a democratic
society morality is now equivalent to upholding the law. This leads
the reader to conclude that the action of anyone refusing to uphold
that which is stated in the law - or in a military order - is
ethically unjustified. This is a problematic statement, of course,
because not every law, and certainly not every military order, sits
well with the values of democracy, as the court has already
determined in the case of the Kafr Qasem massacre.
Unlike this determination, when the subject is targeted
assassinations Kasher does not see any "black flag" flying over
military orders that lead to killing innocent people.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the IDF has assigned
Kasher to write a sequel to its "Ethical Code" he wrote some years
ago. The army knows it can trust a man who passionately defends its
course of action in the territories, and its chiefs are certainly
expecting him to lend expression to this in the new code, which will
be titled, "How to Act in a War on Terror."
It is no less sad that scarcely any other men of letters have taken
to the high ground in opposition to the "Israeli army's house
philosopher." There are none to sound the alarm against the
exceedingly serious erosion of our democratic infrastructure.
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Comments
May the people of Israel continue their defensive struggle against the vermin that they are surrounded by and may they prevail with God's prumpet.
May those who try to destroy the Jewish state, perish and burn in hell for eternity.
May those who danced in the street after 9/11 and cheered Binladen and Arafat, perish in hell's fire. May they be reunited with allah in hell and burn for eternity.
May Israel continue to build their defensive wall and place sniper towers at 200meter intervals. May God bless Israel and the United States in our continued struggle against UN sponsored global Bolshevism and tyrrany. May God curse France and its antisemetic culture of socialists and degenerates.
~Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour~
~Proud member of the NRA and The John Birch Society~
~Protecting the 2nd Ammendment and United States Sovereignty~
Well, look on the bright side--it adds numbers of posts for you.
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
You will join their ranks and be judged accordingly. You are the typical liberal symphathizer of "so-called" victims, who are actually terrorist scum.
May Israel prevail against these scumbags and may you and they be judged by God accordingly. This will be my last post to any of your so called anti semetic garbage posts. May you burn in hell.
~Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour~
~Proud member of the NRA and The John Birch Society~
~Protecting the 2nd Ammendment and United States Sovereignty~
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Yo...Ruger22...how about easin' off on the threats about what God's gonna do and sending everyone you can think of to hell. I'm sorry, but I have this innate aversion to someone who is arrogant enough to threaten anyone with God's wrath. Does he check with you first?
I rarely, if ever, have agreed with Hairy, but YOU, IMHO, are a bit "over the top" with all that.
Mudge the docile
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
You are an anti semetic bigot socialist. You are incapable of rational thought. God will judge you accordingly, as he did with others who are now in the bowels of history for their anti semitism.
You will join their ranks and be judged accordingly. You are the typical liberal symphathizer of "so-called" victims, who are actually terrorist scum.
May Israel prevail against these scumbags and may you and they be judged by God accordingly. This will be my last post to any of your so called anti semetic garbage posts. May you burn in hell.
~Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour~
~Proud member of the NRA and The John Birch Society~
~Protecting the 2nd Ammendment and United States Sovereignty~
No offense, but this kind of nonsense is what gives Birchers a bad name.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.