The Middle East part 2

[Donnervogel 0]

IMHO it depends on whether he want's to discuss it as a middle east topic or as an overall discussion on refusing illegal/immoral orders.

I was really surprised when I read that. Those are little signs of hope for me. And it's exptremly brave of the pilots to do that. They could and I think they will get a hard punishment for their refusal to follow their orders.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The question is a fundamental one for all military personnel.

The question of the middle east fracas is separate from the soldiers dilemma.

Some soldiers in the WWII were shot and imprisoned for refusing to be involved in atrocities if the Israeli administration want to marry them selves to that, it is their business. People will draw their conclusions as to the administration morality and ethical standards.

As to the soldier; part of what a soldier does is to sublimate themselves to the collective will, and where it exists a recognized administration and chain of command, but all soldiers must make moral/ethical decisions. It is the willingness of soldiers to have a conscience that defines them as human beings and not automata.

That administrations or other societal bodies demand blind obedience is a known fact but we as people decide whether to obey and it is the decision to disobey that is the most cherished power we have.

Kind Regards walker

[NurEinMensch 0]

Not exactly a simple issue. I have the highest respect for those who stand up to their believes and even risk prison for it.

[Pukko 0]

Not to bring this into a complete mideast thread, but thought this would also be worth mentioning.

From the article:

Quote[/b] ]General Halutz told Haaretz the pilots would be dealt with in the same way as soldiers who have refused to serve in the West Bank and Gaza - suggesting they will be dismissed from the military and possibly jailed.

Here is a link to the refusal-nicks mentioned above website, countaining stories and support petition list etc:

http://seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp

Seems like that website is'nt updated for quite some time. Here is a more updated one:

http://www.refusersolidarity.net/default.asp?content=breakingNews

[Bluesman 0]

Isn't this "Middle East" thread stuff?

BM

[walker 0]

Isn't this "Middle East" thread stuff?

BM

Hi

No this is about the soldiers ethical/moral dilema it aplies across national divides.

The Middle East is only an example of where moral/ethical dilemas confront soldiers.

If a soldier refuses an order because of moral and ethical reasons while the context creates the reasons; the dilema is universal.

One of the soldiers in the article states his reason for not following the order is exactly that of the tank driver in Tianomen Square refusing to run over the civilian in the famous peice of film; his boss is telling him to do something that is moraly/ethicly repugnent.

The human soldier says no; the automata does as it is told they have given up their humanity.

There is a third case those who make the order they are just plain evil. The fourth case is the worst those who transmit the order saying I only did it cause it was an order they are complicit in the evil as they know what they are doing. The fifth case is the apologist for it and the sixth is those who try to redefine it.

Kind Regards Walker

[Supah 0]

They are exterminating terrorists, collatoral damage is a risk in a situation wherel live ordanence is used. These guys need to ask themselves wether they want to be fighter pilots or something else. If they dont feel like bombing terrorists killing hundreds of people a year on their nations public transportation systems they need to find another job, maybe busdriver  

Owww and the title is misleading, they are not refusing to attack civilians directly. They are refusing to carry out attacks against legitimate targets (terrorists) where the risk of collatarol damage is very high.

[Bluesman 0]

Looks more like a Middle East thread to me judging by the last post. That area is a totally hopeless case in my opinion and I personally believe it's the desert(too much sun) that causes most of the weird behaviour i that area.

BM

[Placebo 29]

Looks like a middle east thread, walks like a middle east thread, quacks like a middle east thread, what is it?  

Merged into here as you can see

[walker 0]

Hi all

EDIT No longer true This is in reply to a cross post made by supah in this thread

used to be a link here END EDIT

Quote[/b] ]They are exterminating terrorists, collatoral damage is a risk in a situation wherel live ordanence is used. These guys need to ask themselves wether they want to be fighter pilots or something else. If they dont feel like bombing terrorists killing hundreds of people a year on their nations public transportation systems they need to find another job, maybe busdriver  

Owww and the title is misleading, they are not refusing to attack civilians directly. They are refusing to carry out attacks against legitimate targets (terrorists) where the risk of collatarol damage is very high.

I want to keep the two aspects seperate as I believe that the thread deals with soldiers moral/ethical dilema in refusing orders they believe to be evil.

By the way Colatoral Dammage takes place in a war.

War takes place between nations. It is heavily defined in the Geneva Convention and articles of war. Since to the best of my knowledge there is no Palistinian state as yet; there is no war. The actions in the disputed teritories are AFAIK defined by Israel as a police action against terrorists.

When a police action goes wrong it is accedent (covered by liability under insurance) or neglegence (entailing criminal procedures against those responcable). Just out of interest what compensation does Israel pay when it has neglegently risked life, limb or property?

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

There appear to be people who want to make this a Middle East issue but as I have stated it is broader than that currently police action.

As I have said: the issue is the soldiers dilemma that is to say refusing to follow orders that are morally/ethicaly repugnant. The tiltle and the example post are just that examples of the broader issue.

If life or limb of innocents are risked negligently then the soldier is responsible. It is a soldier's duty as a human being to refuse orders they believe are negligently risking innocent human life.

The moral/ethical professional soldier does all they can to reduce the impact of their violence. The violence must be applied scientifically to a specific aim; not sprayed willy-nilly like a shotgun. Or the soldiers are just a terrorist themselves.

It is the moral/ethical dilemma that defines the soldier and indeed the freedom fighter from the terrorist and war criminal.

Supah I have made the reply in two parts as originaly they were two threads I had hoped to keep that thread on the important subject of the Soldiers' dilemma with the Israeli pilots mass action as an example of it.

Now I will have to do some editing to get things to be sensible

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

They are exterminating terrorists, collatoral damage is a risk in a situation wherel live ordanence is used.

According to your thinking, it would be acceptable to fire Hellfire rockets at a terrorist spotted on Times Square or Piccadilly Circus during rush hour.

I had hoped to keep that thread on the important subject of the Soldiers' dilemma with the Israeli pilots mass action as an example of it.

Where else have soldiers refused to serve in the face of such a dilemma since Tianomen Square in 1990?  Let's face it, if US soldiers were refusing orders in Baghdad it would be rather difficult to keep the discussion out of the Iraq thread.

[edc 0]

Quote[/b] ]According to your thinking, it would be acceptable to fire Hellfire rockets at a terrorist spotted on Times Square or Piccadilly Circus during rush hour.

If that was the only feasible way to kill them, and they are a significant threat, I'd have no problem w/ that.  You have realize its worth possibly killing a few civilians now, in order to save many more, later.  And regardless, the terrorist(s) are responsible for deaths before then, and need to be brought to justice.

I don't see how you could compare the brutal murder of peacefully protesting students in Tiennamen square to the assasination of terrorists.

[Bernadotte 0]

If that was the only feasible way to kill them, and they are a significant threat, I'd have no problem w/ that.

It's not the only feasible way.

You have realize its worth possibly killing a few civilians now, in order to save many more, later.

You cannot kill a terrorist movement (eg. IRA) by killing its leaders.  New leaders will always emerge much faster than they can be killed, especially if you kill 2 civilians for every terrorist assassinated.

I don't see how you could compare the brutal murder of peacefully protesting students in Tiennamen square to the assasination of terrorists.

Umm... I didn't.  I was only referring to something Walker posted:

One of the soldiers in the article states his reason for not following the order is exactly that of the tank driver in Tianomen Square refusing to run over the civilian in the famous peice of film; his boss is telling him to do something that is moraly/ethicly repugnent.

[Ram TN 0]

I don't see why some of you accuse America of being too pro-Israeli. Of course it is! The US if pro-Israeli since the French have abandoned Israel, after the 1967 war (also known as the Six Days War). So what if America supports Israel? May I remind you, that the Jews - who didn't have a country for almost 2000 years - has only one small country, while the Muslims has 22 countries. And not only that, but the Muslims also have one of the world's most powerful assests: oil. Oil has been used to make diplomatic decisions for a long time. So 6-million people Israel has the support of America, so what? 1 billion Muslims have the support of Europe.

LOL - the best part of your post is that you refer to the middle eastern region (except Israel of course) as if it was a single muslim nation/country.

I don't try to make you look like an ass, but keep in mind that the middle eastern nations are as different and diverse, politically and culturally as any other region.

There are 10's of factions to the Muslim religion, but when dealing with Israel, they're all like one.

To Bernadotte: I don't say you should divide the world equally like this, all I'm saying is that I think the Jewish religion deserves at least this small piece of land, that's all. We don't want nothing more than that.

[denoir 0]

To Bernadotte:  I don't say you should divide the world equally like this, all I'm saying is that I think the Jewish religion deserves at least this small piece of land, that's all. We don't want nothing more than that.

Don't you think that goes for the Palestinians as well?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]There are 10's of factions to the Muslim religion, but when dealing with Israel, they're all like one.

I wouldn't say that - just think about Turkey with whom you have had military rehearsals. Egypt is another example with which you share relative harmony. My point is that one shouldnt' focus that much on religion per se, but on nations and their interests. You are possibly right to some extent if you state that religion and nationbuilding in this (as in most of the world) area is crucial. However, some nations have had a rather pragmatic approach to your nation.

For you and your neighbours I really hope you sort it out one day.

[walker 0]

Hi all

And now an important thread about the soldiers dilemma is stuck in this backwater discussion. Let us get back to the important point.

The soldiers dilemma then is: can they disobey orders when they believe the orders are immoral/unethical?

Since I am stuck in this thread I will pose the question in terms the other readers will understand.

Consider the cases

An Israeli apache pilot is ordered to fire hellfire missiles at a car known to be carrying a Hamas leader involved in planning attacks.

A Palestinian suicide bomber is ordered to bomb a bus-stop with Israeli soldiers at it involved in subduing the majority population of land that wishes to form a separate new state.

The Situation

In the case of the Israeli apache pilot they believe, and previous cases show, that the hellfire missiles will kill more than the Hamas leader; innocent men women and children will be killed.

In the case of the Palestinian suicide bomber they will explode the bomb where it will probably kill the most soldiers but at the same time they believe, and previous cases show, that the bomb will kill more than the soldiers; innocent men women and children will be killed.

The Background

The Israeli apache pilot is in an armed force policing a subdued populace of territory they won in battle legally speaking there is not now a war since there is no nation state to fight.

The Palestinian suicide bomber is in a cause fighting to recapture the land lost in battle they have no nation state and so legally speaking cannot claim to be soldiers in a war.

The Objectives

The nation of which the Israeli apache pilot is a part wishes to protect the nation state they have created by force of arms. The Hamas leader is a threat to that nation state.

The cause for which the Palestinian suicide bomber is fighting is to create a nation state by force of arms. The soldiers are a threat to the creation of that potential nation state.

The Dilemma

Is it moral/ethical to kill the innocent men women and children that will be killed in order to achieve the objective?

Can the combatant refuse the order?

What is their legal situation in terms of international law?

Secondary questions to ask your self in order to pander to this thread.

If it is moral/ethical to do so in only one of the cases; why? Give reasons.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

The difference is in intent. The suicide bomber generally targets civilians while the pilot targets the terrorist (equivalent to enemy soldier) while he doesn't care who else gets blown up.

It's the same difference as between first degree and second degree murder.

And while both are unethical behaviour, our code of justice genreally says that first degree murder is worse.

While your examples may be equivalent, usually suicide bombings do not target the Israeli military but innocent civilians.

[walker 0]

The difference is in intent. The suicide bomber generally targets civilians while the pilot targets the terrorist (equivalent to enemy soldier) while he doesn't care who else gets blown up.

It's the same difference as between first degree and second degree murder.

And while both are unethical behaviour, our code of justice genreally says that first degree murder is worse.

While your examples may be equivalent, usually suicide bombings do not target the Israeli military but innocent civilians.

Hi Denoir

I am posing a particular question and since Palestinian suicide bombers have on occasions bombed soldiers at a bus-stop it is a reasonable example.

Please keep to the question. Don't make up a different one and answer that. It is an Aristotelian rhetorical trick to avoid answering the question.

The question is the soldiers dilema.

If you want to answer the secondary question as well be more exact in your language and put it to the particulars of the case set out not a spurious other case.

Remember an example case is ilustrative; it is not the question.

Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

I think it is very commandable what the pilots did, if only there were more people with some dignity and respect for others in the Israeli army... personally I had no idea these kind of people were actually in the IDF, even if they are reservists.

[walker 0]

I think it is very commendable what the pilots did, if only there were more people with some dignity and respect for others in the Israeli army...  personally I had no idea these kind of people were actually in the IDF, even if they are reservists.  

Hi Bn880

I think you will find soldiers with a concience in all armies. Most just express regret and say they were under orders

The courage to refuse an order or as in this case band together to highlight orders they believe to be immoral/unethical is rare though and most administrations and command structures spend vast amounts of money and effort denigrating and destroying such groups. Even to the point of commiting crimes to do so.

If you look they are not all reservists and even the reservists includes a Brigadeer General who was a hero in the Yom Kipur War (a real war unlike the present police action)

I have not seen the Palestinian equivalent to these troops but I dare say the exist perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Never the less we are once again straying from the point the soldiers dilemma.

Can the combatants in the case I sited earlier refuse orders?

Kind Regards Walker

[NurEinMensch 0]

I think it boils down to the question: Is there another way to achieve the same "kill the terrorist leader" without such excessive civillian casulties?

If such a way exists and is actually possible and worthwhile, the soldiers have not only the right, but the duty (from the perspective of international law concerning military violence) to refuse.

Unnesseserily harming civilians is a war crime.

But if it is actually the only way to do it, the soldiers would have to follow the orders, since a limited amount of un-aviodable "collateral damage" is acceptable, afaik.

[Tamme 0]

Yes, that's right. But if you need to take out a terrorist leader, why do you have to bomb him down with a helicopter? Wouldn't a well placed sniper do the job?

[Ram TN 0]

To Bernadotte:  I don't say you should divide the world equally like this, all I'm saying is that I think the Jewish religion deserves at least this small piece of land, that's all. We don't want nothing more than that.

Don't you think that goes for the Palestinians as well?  

I do.

wouldn't say that - just think about Turkey with whom you have had military rehearsals. Egypt is another example with which you share relative harmony. My point is that one shouldnt' focus that much on religion per se, but on nations and their interests. You are possibly right to some extent if you state that religion and nationbuilding in this (as in most of the world) area is crucial. However, some nations have had a rather pragmatic approach to your nation.

Turkey is the only Muslim country with which we have warm relations. Withe Egypt we have a very cold peace, and with Jordan the peace is quite cold, although it is warmer than with Egypt.

Walker's Dillema

1) Hamas is a bad example; the Hamas has stated that their target is to 'anhilate the Jewish entity', which means they have no problem hurting civilians - and they does. Most terror organizations aim their terror attacks against civilians as well as against soldiers, although some does not.

2) I've just read an article about the Apache squadron which does all the eliminations. Most of the pilots there say, that they try as hard as they can to not harm civilians, and many of them have even refused orders when they were in danger of hurting civilians. Sometimes there are mistakes, but most of the eliminations comes out without any civilians casulties.