Analysis: Soldiers' insubordination a growing concern to IDF brass

[rafi]

Analysis: Soldiers' insubordination a growing concern to IDF brass
Nov. 17, 2009
, THE JERUSALEM POST

In August 2007, 12 soldiers from the Duhifat Battalion refused to climb aboard a bus departing their base in the Jordan Valley and meant to take them to Hebron, where they were slated to provide perimeter security during the planned evacuation of a home taken over by settlers.
Last month, two soldiers from the Shimshon Battalion pulled out a banner reading "Shimshon does not evacuate Homesh," - a reference to the northern Samaria settlement evacuated during the 2005 disengagement - during their swearing-in ceremony at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
On Monday, in the latest act of insubordination, several soldiers from the Nahshon Battalion were suspended and punished by their commander for waving a banner reading "Nahshon also does not expel," from the rooftop of a building on their base in the southern Hebron Hills, and shortly after the Border Police razed two illegal homes in the Negohot outpost.
While the three incidents took place in different battalions, all of the battalions are part of the same brigade - Kfir.
The Kfir Brigade, commanded by Col. Oren Avman, is the largest brigade in the IDF, with six battalions, while most infantry brigades have just four. The brigade was officially established in 2005 and brought together the Nahshon, Duhifat, Shimshon, Lavi, Haruv and Netzah Yehuda battalions, which until then had operated in the West Bank without a clear framework.
The results have been impressive. In 2009, for example, the brigade was responsible for 70 percent of all arrests of Palestinian terror suspects in the West Bank. Senior officers in the Central Command praised the brigade, which had earlier in the year come under criticism after several cases of violence against Palestinians were exposed by the media.
At the time, the violence against Palestinians was described as an anomaly, but to some extent it was understood within the IDF, since the Kfir Brigade's soldiers have the most interaction with the Palestinian population in the West Bank.
While the Nahal, Givati and Paratrooper's Brigades switch off tours between the West Bank, the border with Gaza, and the Lebanese front, the Kfir Brigade is permanently deployed in the West Bank, manning checkpoints and conducting arrest raids 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The recent wave of insubordination is linked to this deployment. Firstly, it is the Kfir Brigade battalions that are chosen to provide general security for evacuations which are carried out by the Border Police.
In addition, in recent years, since the IDF Manpower Division has cut the number of hesder students who are drafted into the traditional infantry brigades, Kfir has seen a rise in the number of soldiers it gets from yeshivas, many of which are located in the West Bank.
The two Nahshon soldiers, for example, are from settlements and both serve in the IDF via the hesder program, which combines yeshiva learning with military service.
While hesder students are for the most part loyal to the IDF, senior officers are concerned about a growing trend within this group of soldiers to heed their rabbis' advice or rulings over obeying their commanders' orders.
For this reason, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi has issued a standing order that IDF soldiers do not participate in actual evacuations, but are limited to providing perimeter security, at a distance from the scene.
This, however, does not appear to be preventing insubordination, and behind closed doors, IDF officers are increasingly concerned that there may be massive wave of refusals in the event of larger evacuations in the West Bank, possibly under a peace deal with the Palestinians. Aside from prosecuting the insubordinate soldiers and issuing a condemnation, the IDF's hands are tied. What could make a difference is for the rabbis and settler leaders who these youth follow to understand that their advice and actions ultimately undermine the Israel's democratic and Jewish character.

[WABA]

This, however, does not appear to be preventing insubordination, and behind closed doors, IDF officers are increasingly concerned that there may be massive wave of refusals in the event of larger evacuations in the West Bank, possibly under a peace deal with the Palestinians. Aside from prosecuting the insubordinate soldiers and issuing a condemnation, the IDF's hands are tied. What could make a difference is for the rabbis and settler leaders who these youth follow to understand that their advice and actions ultimately undermine the Israel's democratic and Jewish character.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++

This is a ticking time bomb for Israel's politicians and Generals.

The loyality and trust of a soldier to follow orders from his Officers, is paramount to his ability to fight and defend his Nation.


You will never get a soldier to fight against his own countryman without massive repercussions later.


What is needed is for some clearly defined permanent borders between Israel and 'Palestine' to be set ASAP, and then to go out to these Israeli soldiers, and clearly explain to them why, what and how these borders were set,.


Israeli soldiers aren't stupid, they can understand political realities, and get the rabbis and settler leaders and make them a part of the decision making process, they also at the end of the day will understand the political decision making process.


If Israel ever loses the trust of their soldiers, heaven help their prospects of a Jewish Nation living in their own Jewish Homeland.

[panzermk2]

Sending soldiers to kick out their fellow Israeli's from there homes is due to fail and only make tings worse overall. Hopefully Bibi will put a stop to it.

IDF is not like the Chinese military more then happy to mow down their own countrymen.

[rafi]

Let's keep things in perspective.

I realize I might be the minority opinion here, but no problem.
To the best of my understanding, and some of my honored brothers from the US military can correct me if I am wrong, but aren't American servicemen bound by an oath to defend the country against all threats, foreign and domestic? Why should Israel expect from it's soldiers anything less?

Which leads to something I have discussed in public with many, and also counseled numerous Israelis on: The IDF is the army of the government of Israel. While that is the closest thing available on this earth to the army of the jewish people, it isn't It is still the army of the government of Israel.

Soldiers should be expected to serve as such.

[scelli]

Originally Posted by rafi

Let's keep things in perspective.

I realize I might be the minority opinion here, but no problem.
To the best of my understanding, and some of my honored brothers from the US military can correct me if I am wrong, but aren't American servicemen bound by an oath to defend the country against all threats, foreign and domestic? Why should Israel expect from it's soldiers anything less?

You are correct, and that oath says nothing about disobeying an order because we may or may not like or agree with the order itself or the person issuing it. I'm not going to start a firefight on this board regarding what can be deemed an illegal or immoral order (such as the killing of civilians) as most of us with any serious active duty military time under our cartridge belts knows full well that isn't the case here.

Take my word for it: I had the misfortune to serve under Jimmy Carter and although I despised him (as did most of my brethren), he was still the CINC.

[panzermk2]

In away it's gray area since you are required not to follow an illegal order.

We all know the "I was just following orders" reason does not hold up under the light of day not now or during the war trails.

[Belkin]

That why I say all the time in college for PA to make realistic demands out Israel like longer amount land swaps so got a state. A should not be demanding East Jerusalem and 1967 were so many Jews are living. Other wise Palestinian people will pay price in blood.

[Sgt. Cav]

Yes, Carter was a disaster for the military, so was Clinton and now Obama, but They were and are, still the CNC, and as long as the orders were lawful, they have to be obeyed.

That is the beauty and disgrace of our systems, We in the military have to answer to the civilian authority, as long as that authority is lawful in it's orders, we must carry them out, we may not like them, we may even suffer greatly under those orders, but if they are lawful, our only choice is to resign and then express our feelings as to the stupidity and absurdity of said policies.

Right now Obama is in my opinion even worse for the country than "Jimmy the Peanut Carter" economically, security, and militarily, He is a walking talking disaster.

[scelli]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Right now Obama is in my opinion even worse for the country than "Jimmy the Peanut Carter" economically, security, and militarily, He is a walking talking disaster.

While that may be true, one of the most disappointing aspects regarding Carter to me was the fact he was a military veteran. Clinton and Obama walk, talk and act like archetypal American politicians who never served and have always skated along on the blood and guts of those who defend our nation. Jimmy Carter on the other hand should have known better.

[Sgt. Cav]

Something doesn't add up on Carters military career?




01 JUNE 1952 -- Promoted to Lieutenant

16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).

9 OCT 1953 -- Honorably discharged at Headquarters, 3rd Naval District. Discharge was at Carter's request. Total service: 7 years, 4 months, 8 days

Promoted to Lieutenant in June looks to be ahead of the board, and then resigns in October, after 7 years 4 months and 8 days......Hmmmmm..... something doesn't add up.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Promoted to Lieutenant in June looks to be ahead of the board, and then resigns in October, after 7 years 4 months and 8 days......Hmmmmm..... something doesn't add up.

Well, his bibliography at the Carter Center (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/exp...my_carter.html), or the Carter Library (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/do...c/jecbio.phtml) or Wikipedia merely states he resigned his commission on the death of his father.

I don't know if there was more to it than that--personally, the death of my father messed me up for a couple years.

[scelli]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Something doesn't add up on Carters military career?

There could be a number of reasons for Carter resigning his commission and being discharged, not all of them necessarily bad. He was a grad of the USNA, but as you are more than aware I'm sure: Unlike with enlisted personnel, one bad fitness report for an officer can spell doom to a career, be the officer a military academy ring-knocker or not. Saw more than my share of company grade officers fall by the wayside due to supposedly having been given bad evals from their command. We'll most likely never know the real reason why he left the service, and I can vaguely recall some controversy involving this subject when he was seeking the nomination of the democrats to run for President.

[Sgt. Cav]

Originally Posted by SpacemanSpiff

Well, his bibliography at the Carter Center (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/exp...my_carter.html), or the Carter Library (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/do...c/jecbio.phtml) or Wikipedia merely states he resigned his commission on the death of his father.

I don't know if there was more to it than that--personally, the death of my father messed me up for a couple years.

And then He wanted to be President? if the death of his father messed him up that bad? what about the pressures of being the POTUS, but then we saw how well he handled that.

If I would point to one man to blame for the rise of radicle Islam it would be Carter and His policies.

Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran



Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004 Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year

© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA

Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial
Demands on Shah of Iran

Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re- elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.

When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.

The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.

In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.”2

Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.

Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.

Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same “quietist” Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistani’s “Khomeini” equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time. According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics.

The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that “Reagan’s successor”, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.

[rafi]

By the way, listen to John Kerry speak about military duty, and the same thing pops up. If you're smart you go to College if youre not you go to Vietnam.

A vet said this?

[scelli]

Originally Posted by rafi

By the way, listen to John Kerry speak about military duty, and the same thing pops up. If you're smart you go to College if youre not you go to Vietnam.

A vet said this?

That's one of the main reasons veterans (and many, many others as well) found his "Band of Brothers" shtick to be just a little more than we could stomach. The spiel sounded great to the gung-ho post 9/11 public out there who bought into such self-serving ramblings because folks for the most part genuinely wanted to show solidarity with our armed forces even if they didn't support George W. Bush. However, that picture of Kerry and Hanoi Jane tossed his sorry aft-side in the drink where he belonged in the first place. Chiêu Hồi, Johnny! Chiêu Hồi!

[Boanerges]

The worst things that ever came from the Vietnam episode was that the two individuals, John Kerry and John Mc Caine survived their tours.
Both are blights upon this once great nation!

[coltthescout]

as soldiers we have to do what is morally and ethically right. and as soldiers we have the right and moral obligation to say NO SIR. to un ethical and immoral orders. pulling fellow israelis from our homes and giving them to terrorists is unethical. and it is immoral. just as in the united states army, if we were ordered to turn our guns onto our own people we would say no. any commander who would give such an order and than assume that those soldiers are insubordinating.... should question their own ethics and morality. what side are they fighting for... what does that image of a soldier represent. what is a soldier supposed to defend. im pretty sure that pulling fellow jews and israelis from homes to give to those palestinian terrorists is in now way defending the people. and in some peoples eyes especially a soldiers... refusing to pull jews from homes and flying banners is something a soldier is suppsed to have the heart and guts to do. it is what makes us different from the enemy. it is what makes us stand out from the rest of the world. it is what makes us better than the soviets, than the germans, better than the arabs... we have morals and as soldiers you are supposed to stand up for what is right. i may be an american soldier... but i still know what soldiers are supposed to stand for. i do know when a soldier is supposed to say no. that NO SIR is what makes a soldier so great and strong. because he has the will to fight... yet knows when and where he is SUPPOSED TO. and how to. just a thought.

[rafi]

My response to you is that I took the same oath you did. To protect my country from all threats, foreign and domestic.

Your blathering that you would not have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing because it would have involved shooting an American sounds, well, naive and foolish. And McVeigh was even a veteran. And it comes down to enlisted men in the field deciding which orders they should obey?

Am I twisting your words? Or is it the job of those who direct the military to determine who is the threat and who isn't?

Let's understand your position better.

[New Ron]

cottlhescout, I think this is your problem, and I both understand your grief at the bad descison by the Israeli governments. However I also disagree with you about the so-called moral obligations. You are attempting to grow a brain, in a job that tells you to obey, no questions asked! A soldier doesnt ask, why am I doing this, a soldier just does the damn job! If you arent happy in Iraq its more because your own morals are in the way, and it is obvious you may be dissatisfied in the IDF. You are super qualified to be a soldier but you have issues.

I agree with you that throwing out Israelis of their homes is wrong, but a soldier obeys, and I agree with rafi that domestic terrorists and law breakers must be fought by the military if that's what it takes! To take your own words, with a different twist, that's what makes us different from the muslim nations, who always refuse to get their own criminals!

The truth remains also is the settlers were no terrorists, but neither were the IDF shooting at them! So no soldier is to be blamed for obeying, no soldier is to be told they have a moral obligation to refuse their orders. This is in direct contradiction with any military command.

In some cases where it is truly disturbing then the appropriate objection must be followed, this could happen, but in so many cases this is abused and some Israeli soldiers banded together in a joint statement and refused to fight in Gaza etc.

I think you may be more ready to get into politics and start a movement to support Israel.

It is the people who must make their voice heard when a bad law or order is signed into place, a soldier also votes and this is his/her voice also. In order to make a good decision people need to be informed, people are so ignorant, and that is what we try to do here on the forum.

All this would be easier if only smart people were allowed to vote, and smart people were allowed to run. Smart people would not preasure politicians to give Israel to terrorists.

PM Ariel Sharon was a good guy, but the preasure from Bush, the Europeans and even Israelis to give up Gaza was too strong, if he didnt there would be consequences Bush warned.

And that all turned out well didnt it.....if we didnt have a Palestinian Gaza there would have been no Gaza war!

I remember Israel telling Bush and Europe, (I love Bush, but today I put him in the same basket as the Nazis Europeans) Hamas must NOT be allowed to participate in elections, but Bush insisted all Palestinian parties must be allowed, oh great and guess who got elected?!!!!

Thank you Bush jr and Europe Nazis, you put Israel in a position where they had to become human rights "criminals" because Hamas hides among civilians, and hitting civilian areas was the only way to get at those terrorists! Would not have happened were the Hamas kept as terrorists & not accepted as a political movement, big big mistake! The EU has recently agreed to see to it, that Jersualem be divided into two capitals, the west for Israel, and the east (where Solomons temple mount is) for the Palestinians. I hope to God Israel refuses this!

Thats my 5 cents worth.