Netanyahu defends his top general after he calls for restraint

[webfact]

Netanyahu defends his top general after he calls for restraint
By Catherine Hardy | With REUTERS



"The debate stems from ignorance or an attempt at political bashing and it is wrong"

- Netanyahu defends army chief over issue of reasonable force
- Debate rages as wave of violence continues

JERUSALEM: -- The mounting cycle of violence across Jerusalem and the West Bank has brought the issue of reasonable force to the fore.

28 Israelis and one US citizen have been killed by Palestinians in a wave of stabbings and shootings that began last October.

168 Palestinians have died in confrontations with Israeli forces.

As well as the number, it is the manner of some deaths that is causing controversy.

Army Chief’s comments

The head of the Israeli Army has faced strong criticism for urging his soldiers not to overreact.

Some critics say Lieutenant-General Gadi Eisenkot’s call for restraint undermines those on patrol.

Others fear it could be read as an admission of guilt.

Speaking before an audience, Eisenkot said he would not want his soldiers to overreact when confronted by an armed attacker.

He was referring to the death of a Palestinian teenager who stabbed an elderly Jewish man last November.

CCTV from the scene showed an Israeli officer firing repeatedly at the girl as she lay motionless on the ground.

Netanyahu defends the army chief

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the row over the comments has a hollow ring to it.

“The chief of staff stated the obvious and, in any case, the IDF and security forces operate accordingly. The debate stems from ignorance or an attempt at political bashing and it is wrong.”

The debate

Opinion has been sharply divided over Lieutenant-Generale Eisenkot’s comments.

What they are saying

“When fighting terror, especially the kind that we are experiencing now, one must use minimum necessary force and not maximum possible force.” – Housing Minister Yoav Galant.

“He has the full backing of all government ministers, especially myself, and we work great together in cooperation between police forces and IDF forces in all areas in order to try and end this wave of terror we are in.” – Minister for Internal Security Gilad Erdan.

“We have an excellent chief-of-staff who merely repeated the familiar orders for opening fire.” – Education Minister Naftali Bennet.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-02-22

[dexterm]

In the tradition of Breaking the Silence Lieutenant-General Eisenkot is simply telling the truth. We have all seen videos on this forum of police and IDF overreacting or worse deliberately pumping bullets into near lifeless teenage girls already flat on the ground.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/scissors-wielding-palestinian/

In any other country that calls its a civilized Western democracy, the police or soldier would be charged with manslaughter if not murder.

There are still many righteous Israelis. I hope eventually their voice drowns out the right wing fanatics.

[Steely Dan]

Classy as ever using a hate site to disseminate lies from another NGO cum propaganda organization, funded by the likes of our esteemed members I might add.

http://ukmediawatch.org/2016/01/18/israeli-reservists-break-their-silence-over-the-lies-of-breaking-the-silence/

Edited February 22, 2016 by Steely Dan

[dexterm]

The link provides one of the few sources for the full footage of one of the incidents to which the general in the OP refers. I think forum members are capable of judging for themselves whether police are over-reacting in shooting the girl repeatedly when she is slumped on the ground.

[arjunadawn]

Well, one this is clear: When military assumes law enforcement roles and duties they often contradict military roles and duties. Invariably something will show this dichotomy individually or institutionally. One example is expecting soldiers to always behave in accordance with the civilian police use of force continuum. Application of force is a graduated response and clearly and consistently trained from the civilian academy. Soldiers are expressly trained in a very different application of force. To say that Israel has a different situation because the soldiers must do the job of both police and soldiers says nothing, only that the practice is common there; this dual purposing of the military is not unique to Israel. Soldiers should not be policing civilian populations (ideally). Police forces should not be conducting offensive war. While a populace should always expect a civilian standard of 'use of force,' whether its military or regular police, no one should be surprised. These soldiers retire to barracks at night where they clean weapons, eat, tell stories, pray, and agree "I'm coming home tomorrow."

With army's roles being increasingly recast as large police forces this reality presents in areas besides Israel. In this OP we witness where soldiers have the use of force continuum a bit foggy, and err on the side of caution. With America's confusing the issue of army duties and roles we also witness soldiers with a foggy use of force continuum but in that case the Americans are forced by executive policy to err on the side of genuflection, and the soldiers die more often. These soldiers retire to barracks at night where they clean weapons, eat, tell stories, pray, and agree "I'm coming home tomorrow." America's restrictive use of force directives have Americans essentially policing as soldiers and extending civilian environment-like civil liberties unto combatants. Unlike the Israeli example, with America, this problem is manifested in the other manner it would be expected to- more dead soldiers then necessary.

The same soldiers, same dual military/police roles, same fog in the use of force continuum; one erring on the side of caution and playing out as aggression to the civilians; the other erring on the side of madness, and playing out as aggression from the locals (or faltering foreign policy).

[dexterm]

Well, one this is clear: When military assumes law enforcement roles and duties they often contradict military roles and duties. Invariably something will show this dichotomy individually or institutionally. One example is expecting soldiers to always behave in accordance with the civilian police use of force continuum. Application of force is a graduated response and clearly and consistently trained from the civilian academy. Soldiers are expressly trained in a very different application of force. To say that Israel has a different situation because the soldiers must do the job of both police and soldiers says nothing, only that the practice is common there; this dual purposing of the military is not unique to Israel. Soldiers should not be policing civilian populations (ideally). Police forces should not be conducting offensive war. While a populace should always expect a civilian standard of 'use of force,' whether its military or regular police, no one should be surprised. These soldiers retire to barracks at night where they clean weapons, eat, tell stories, pray, and agree "I'm coming home tomorrow."

With army's roles being increasingly recast as large police forces this reality presents in areas besides Israel. In this OP we witness where soldiers have the use of force continuum a bit foggy, and err on the side of caution. With America's confusing the issue of army duties and roles we also witness soldiers with a foggy use of force continuum but in that case the Americans are forced by executive policy to err on the side of genuflection, and the soldiers die more often. These soldiers retire to barracks at night where they clean weapons, eat, tell stories, pray, and agree "I'm coming home tomorrow." America's restrictive use of force directives have Americans essentially policing as soldiers and extending civilian environment-like civil liberties unto combatants. Unlike the Israeli example, with America, this problem is manifested in the other manner it would be expected to- more dead soldiers then necessary.

The same soldiers, same dual military/police roles, same fog in the use of force continuum; one erring on the side of caution and playing out as aggression to the civilians; the other erring on the side of madness, and playing out as aggression from the locals (or faltering foreign policy).

There is only one fully equipped army in Israel/Palestine, that's the IDF. So its a bit affair to pit Israeli soldiers against civilians. Perhaps they should return to the role of an army: defending a country's borders against external threats. Teenage girls attempting to stab illegal Zionist colonists is not an existential threat to Israel's security.

It would help if Palestinians who have been occupied for 60 years now by Israel were subject to Israeli civil laws the same as their Jewish neighbors in the West Bank. Perhaps Israeli law enforcers would then not be so quick to shoot to kill if they knew the full force of Israeli law were to be applied against them. At the moment any extra judicial killing inquiries (if they exist at all) can just be whitewashed by military tribunals and rubber stamped under military laws.

Perhaps that is what is bothering the good general's conscience.

Edited February 23, 2016 by dexterm

[Pakboong]

A tough one indeed. The only aspect of this issue that causes me to pause is what I consider a sense of brutality. For example, in January of this year, 292 individuals were shot in Chicago. Only 52 of them died. When you read of shootings of Palestinians by IDF personnel, almost all of them are shot multiple times and end up dead. I am not sure what is right or wrong about that, it is simply different from what I have come to expect.