Comments on: The right to refuse

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:44:53 +0000

Isn't there a dispute between the Russian government and the southern Muslim provinces that it occupies? Don't the argentnians, Irish and Spanish all have territorial claims against the british? What about Spain and the basque country? China and Tibet? France and a number of south pacific islands? Ironically Israel has more of a moral, legal, ethical, and historical right to Judea and Samaria than all of the above occupying countries have to the respective territories that they occupy. Nevertheless you believe in two versions of the geneva convention – one for israel and the other one for these countries. Again you mention the "whole world." every country acts in it's own interests and their interests don't always comply with the rule of law, morality and ethics. They have other considerations like oil prices, securing enough votes from other nations to sit on the security council or appeasing their own muslim immigrant populations. Australia provides a good recent example of this. In order to win a seat on the security council, they felt that they needed to appease the muslim countries at the un. The foreign minister of australia also admitted the he has a large muslim immigrant population in his own consticuency that needed to be appeased. So instead of voting against a palestinian state they abstained. If the large, powerful muslim bloc at the un said that the tooth fairy existed, many countries would have either voted with them or abstained. You ask what the price will be? Well before the "occupation" there was a utopian peace, wasn't there? They loved us to the death. You stated that one price would either be a non jewish state or non democratic state. Funny you mention that, because olmert et -al were willing to compromise on the so called "right of return." in addition, arabs inside israel are now trying to claim autonomy over pre-1967 israel, (particularly in the negev) and are building illegal towns and structures on state land. Nothing is being done about and all of this has come about because the arabs feel emboldend by all the concessions and compromises that israel made and have become more radicalized

By: Emanuel Shahaf

Emanuel Shahaf — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:34:27 +0000

Nobody has ot withdraw from territory if there is no dispute. Here there is a dispute – we conquered territory that the whole world holds to be the Palestinians. You want to keep it ? It will cost. Are you willing to pay ? It seems like it especially since you obviously haven't got hte foggiest idea what the price will be. I don't want to pay because I know the price: EIther a non-Jewish stae or a non-democratic state. Take your pick.

By: Dror Ben Ami

Dror Ben Ami — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:48:07 +0000

Can you prove from the Torah that Judaism passes thru the mother? So far, not one single rabbi has been able to do so…Enter the $10,000 dollar Torah Challenge….

http://drorbenami987.hubpages.com/hub/Torah-Metaphors-A-10-000-Challange

The issue here is: If the rabbis do not understand that Judaism does not pass thru the mother, what else don't they understand?

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:00:23 +0000

Almost total lull? ALMOST? So instead of firing 10 rockets in a sinlge day they fired 5. In 2005 (the year of the disengagement) they fired over 400 rockets. Thats a very good lull. When they withdrew from Gaza they also withdrew from the philidelphia corridor and this gave Hamas the chance to import hundreds of rockets and anti tank and ani aircraft weapons. What on earth were you expecting Israel to do? And they elected Hamas in response to Israel's withdrael…a party that calls for the eradication of Israel and Jews? What a wondeful precedent for land for peace. OECD? surely these country are not influenced or swayed by OPEC and oil? I'm assuming that you version of the Geneva convention will apply to oced countries like Russia, France, Spain, UK, Australia etc and they will withdraw from territories that they occupy. Or is there two different versios of the Geneva concention – one for Israel and another for these countries.

By: עמנואל שחף

עמנואל שחף — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 08:53:25 +0000

Levi KofmanThe only world relevant in this context is the OECD and I assume you don't want us to be held to the lowest standard of mass murderers. The constantly repeated lie that all we got after withdrawing from Gaza was rockets remains a distortion of the facts – immediately after the withdrawal there was an almost total lull for several month which was only broken after Hanas won the elections and we decided to block access to the strip. Surprisingly the Palestinians didn't like that..

By: Emanuel Shahaf

Emanuel Shahaf — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:20:06 +0000

It has to be illegal and involving potential injusry or death for a soldier to have the obligation and the right to refuse the command. Just illegal isn't good enough.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:44:52 +0000

Without planning or permission? Interestingly most of the settlements that were torn down – from Gush Katif or migron, were built with the permission and full support of the government who funded, provided electiricity etc to the settlements and out posts. In the recent case of migron, in addition to getting government support and approval they also legally purchased the land they were on and had the required documents to prove it. Unforunatley, the supreme court is notorious for making decisions based on partisan politics…not the rule of law. They decided to accept and base their decision on dubious "evidence" from peace now. An oligarchy that makes it's decision based on partisan politics is not an independent judiacry. In countries like the USA and Australia the elected president or prime minister slelects who would serve on the high court bench to ensure that the hight court is accountable to the people. Nothing of this sort exists in Israel, where the justices are self appointed. This is not democracy or the rule of law. In regards to illegally built Arab homes…how many of them have been illegally built in pre 1967 Israel and how many of them have been actually torn down by the order of our all impartial supreme court? And no there is no moral contradiction when you are in the midst of a war…you have a duty to defend your own citizens and your own coutnries interests and not pretend to be an "impartial" observer. Unfortunley in your case, you see yourself being at war with your own brethren who also happen to be innocnent civilians and do thus under the guise of the so called "rue of law." How sick.

By: Meir Liberman

Meir Liberman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:06:56 +0000

Marc Schulman So the Nazis were right to kill Jews and others in the concentration camp, as well as enslave them, starve them, experiment on them…

And those who followed Saddam's orders to massacre innocent civilians, were doing the right thing…

It was all legal, after all

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:45:31 +0000

Doesn't Israel have peace treaties with jordan and egypt? Weren't these territories jordanian and egyptian respectively? And if not, why were there no attempts or calls to establish a palestinian state between 48-67? Could germany, mexico and argentina also create fake nations to undermine there neighbours and get territory back? Interestingly after losing territory in the great war, germany tried to regain their territories via another war and lost. Sounds awfully familiar doesn't it? As for israel's interpertation of the geneva convention and the world's interpretation, again i ask, which world are you refering to? One where saudi arabia, iran and 50 other muslim nations hold an automatic majority and black mail the world with oil? Why is there one standard for israel and another one for the rest of the world? As for sharon not wanting to be blown away by history…blown away? What an interesting term. Thats exactly what rockets do and what sharon actually got, tens of thousands of rocekts. Since the expulsion, isreals security and diplomatic situation rapidly detiriorated and cost many lives. You stated that a soldiers has a right to refuse orders that would lead to injury or loss of life. Shouldn't that give soldiers a good enough reason to refuse expulsion orders? And getting re-elected on a lie, then adopting the polcies of the opposition and breaking away from your own party because you no mandate from the people, is this really the democratic rule of law?

By: Marc Schulman

Marc Schulman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:05:56 +0000

The problem with all your arguments about the Supreme Court and whether whatever they pass is moral- is that it somewhat irrelevant. A soldier has a right to refuse an "illegal " order not an order that they he or she believes is immoral. Year ago doing reserve duty in Gaza I was ordered to do things that I felt where morally questionable- but they were not illegal and I carry out my orders, when I was released from reserve duty I found a way to complain about it- but after the fact- first as a soldier you must carry out your orders unless they are illegal, and the one thing that determines their legality are the agreements that Israel has signed and the way that the courts interpret those rulings.

By: Marc Schulman

Marc Schulman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:05:56 +0000

By: Gary Cohen

Gary Cohen — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:55:43 +0000

Firstly, if I build a house without planning permission or the requisit paperwork, even if the land belongs to me; anywhere in Israel, the authorities will come and tear it down, because it is illegal. If you wish Yehuda and Shomron to be part of Israel and subject to its laws like any other district, then why should illegally built homes built in Yehuda and Shomron be any different. You cannot have it both ways. Secondly, an independent judiciary is a key element in any democracy. it is there as a safeguard and a vital one at that. Thirdly, in this case, the refusal to remove illegal settlements is a purely ideological and political one, evidenced by the fact that the very same people who fight to save illegal setltement have no moral issue with removing Arab families for supposedly illegally built homes. Your sense of moral indignation is disingenuous to say the least.

By: Meir Liberman

Meir Liberman — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:54:20 +0000

Josh Feigenbaum It's called the slippery slope argument. A soldier who cannot conscientiously object to something small which he considers immoral will not object to something large: hence the comparison with murder.

John Spencer Cohen: You misinterpreted my statement

By: John Hill

John Hill — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:53:32 +0000

The Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" have even less of a claim on Judea and Samaria that do the Mexicans on Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. There is NO "occupation" or "occupied land". Just because France believes in this (or in the Tooth Fairy) doesn't make it so.

By: John Hill

John Hill — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:48:15 +0000

Outstanding piece. Removing a single Jew from Jewish land is immoral and must be refused.