February 7, 2002

9:59 AM

Israel's Peace Army Mobilizes
"We will not continue to fight beyond the green line [Israel's pre-1967 border with the West Bank and Gaza] in order to rule, expel, destroy, blockade, assassinate, starve and humiliate an entire people."

This from an increasingly vocal group of Israeli soldiers and officers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. An encouraging sign of hope that there are a growing number of people in Israel who strongly disagree with the current policy of subjugation.
posted by mapalm (9 comments total)

The 'revolt' as some call it, is growing stronger. Originally just a few reservists signed the petition, but it has grown to over 175 and still climbing.

Of course, counter-petitions had thousands of signatures.
posted by cell divide at 10:13 AM on February 7, 2002

Mapalm, your unfaltering objectivity makes it nearly impossible to deuce where you stand on the Israeli Palestinian Stalemate. (couldn't you have made your fpp and posted your stance inside instead?)

I suppose you think Arafat would make peace if only the Israelis would back off and show some respect. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing you thought the US had it coming on 9/11 ?

I submit for discussion, a more evenhanded solution (NY Times Reg req'd)
posted by BentPenguin at 11:02 AM on February 7, 2002

Bent, there is not a huge difference between what Friedman proposes and what the Israeli reservists are asking for. Both involve leaving the territories and ending the occupation.

The difference is that Friedman thinks the Arab league should take the first step. A smart idea, one that is surely too clever to be adopted.
posted by cell divide at 11:18 AM on February 7, 2002

It is encouraging that so many Israeli soldiers have signed this petition--indication of democracy where they do take a stand. Now where is the Palestinian protest against the suicide bombers? Yes. There are many unhappy Palestinians who dislike what the PLO seems to be doing--for which, see this week's NY Times mag section which interview many of them. But they can go public in their area of the world.
First step? Sure, occupying someone's land is terrible. But tellme what country at any time in history ever gave back land taken in warfare without having (1) a stragtigic reason for so doing or, (2) a peace accord signed between contending parties? Did we give back Germany, Japan, Texas (we bought it hafter he grabbled it), Philipines etc etc
The occupation has taken place over some 20 years. Israel should get out. But why, when they have been invaded at least three to be exterminated and have as yet no agreement with the other side? Why have men killed and wounded and then merely return home till the next invasion?
posted by Postroad at 11:27 AM on February 7, 2002

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing you thought the US had it coming on 9/11 ?

BentPenguin - I don't see how this follows from what mapalm said. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
posted by hipstertrash at 11:32 AM on February 7, 2002

thread highjack

Hold on one, minute, postroad. Texas was not taken by the United States. It was freed from the tyrannical, un-constitutional (Mexican federal Constitution of 1824) regime of Santa Anna by both Anglo and Hispanic Texans. Granted, there was substantial help provided by Americans, but they acted as private citizens with no overt U.S. aid.

The rest of the Southwest was bought ($15 Million - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848) after the Mexican American War. That war, by the by, was fought about ten years after Texan independence, when Mexico objected to its "rebellious province" (which had been recognized as an independent nation by the U.S., France, and Great Britain) deciding to join the U.S. However, Texas was its own nation and is therefore not a case in point on this topic.

/ thread hijack
posted by CRS at 12:17 PM on February 7, 2002

When elections don't bring about change (ref:LBJ-Nixon), the people have to step up and take a stand. The reservists are doing that.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:51 PM on February 7, 2002

Since when does a FPP have to be "Politically Neutral" for chrissakes? This is Metafilter, not a newspaper trying to make you feel safe by feeding you your own opinions....
posted by andrew cooke at 4:09 PM on February 7, 2002

After some Googling, I've confirmed that the terminology in the headline about Israel's Peace Army is a bit unusual. The term "Peace Army" usually refers to unarmed civillian peacekeeping efforts. This was no doubt a shortcut for a quick headline. If it works to calm the situation, great.
posted by sheauga at 9:02 PM on February 7, 2002