Israel's Army Chief: Soldiers Must Disobey Patently Illegal Orders

Gadi Eizenkot says, at memorial event for predecessor, that dealing with claims by Breaking the Silence 'will make army better.'

"It’s not only a soldier’s right to disobey an order that is patently illegal, it’s his obligation. That is my demand as chief-of-staff," declared the Israel Defense Forces' Gadi Eizenkot, at a conference on Tuesday in memory of former chief-of-staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak.

Referring to the actions of Breaking the Silence – the left-wing, anti-occupation NGO of former soldiers – Eizenkot said, “We expect from our soldiers that our values be adhered to in real-time, and not that they break their silence three years later at some conference. One has to carry out legitimate missions in a manner that is compatible with the IDF spirit: Where this does not occur, it’s a soldier’s obligation, not his right, to desist.”

At the memorial event, organized by the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Eizenkot related how, after assuming his post after Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip in 2014, he instructed the military advocate general to meet members of Breaking the Silence in order to hear their claims. "The MAG told me that he listened to them," said Eizenkot. "We now want to deal with these things since it will make the IDF better.”

Last July, the Military Police’s investigative branch launched an investigation into several incidents that occurred during the operation, as reported by Breaking the Silence. According to the IDF's Bamahane magazine, the army's legal branch was specifically examining eight testimonies. The army has not offered any details regarding the incidents in question, but a report by Breaking the Silence in May intimated that it is possible that international laws had been violated.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.702307


Well, let's hope they have the confidence to do what he says and that those that do don't end up regretting it.

It's a Solders right to disobey orders" What a fucking idiot.

Really?  At the Nuremberg Trials, 'Just following orders' was not a defence:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

During the Nuremberg Trials, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl and other defendants unsuccessfully used the defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders


You are not supposed to chuck your moral judgement out of the window.

Tell me sassy, how many allied soldiers were put on trial for known execution of German soldiers?

nicko wrote:It's a Solders right to disobey orders"   What a fucking idiot.

Nazi were executed for just following orders...
So Despite what the brass told you.
Soldiers ARE EXPECTED to disobey illegal orders and Will be punished at the end of the conflict if they do not. That is the law under the Geneva convention

It's amazing how many soldiers don't understand that.

sassy wrote:It's amazing how many soldiers don't understand that.

Tell me sassy, how many allied soldiers were put on trial for known execution of German or Japanese soldiers?

In a war situation if you disobey an order from a superior officer you could be court marshalled and shot. If that still applies I don't know.

They are not exempt Nicko. see:

Allied war crimes include both alleged and legally proven violations of the laws of war by the Allies during World War II against either civilians or military personnel of the Axis Powers.

At the end of World War II, many trials of Axis war criminals took place, most famously the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials. However, in Europe, these tribunals were set up under the authority of the London Charter, which only considered allegations of war crimes committed by persons who acted in the interests of the European

Axis countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Tell me sassy, how many allied soldiers were put on trial for known execution of German or Japanese soldiers?

sassy wrote:They are not exempt Nicko. see:

Allied war crimes include both alleged and legally proven violations of the laws of war by the Allies during World War II against either civilians or military personnel of the Axis Powers.

At the end of World War II, many trials of Axis war criminals took place, most famously the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials. However, in Europe, these tribunals were set up under the authority of the London Charter, which only considered allegations of war crimes committed by persons who acted in the interests of the European

Axis countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

lol even your own link shows many did not face any trials

look at this alone


Recent studies have increased the estimate of victims of rape to 190,000 women by US GIs.

I'v been in two wars, Vietnam and Ireland, got to admit I was never given an order that made me think of disobeying, I was in the Australian Regiment so maybe our Aussie officers were a different breed from American ones who seemed to invite "fragging" from the grunts with the stupid orders they sometimes gave them.

Again I have no doubt of some IDF soldiers doing wrongs or crimes just as happens in many armies, but the reality is the IDF have to follow a strict code of practice, which is why its so poor these accusations made, when many have gone out of their way to save lives, but the regressive left are not interested in that

Hence again

nicko wrote:In a war situation if you disobey an order from a superior officer you could be court marshalled and shot.   If that still applies I don't know.

I think you are right, you are basically dammed if you do dammed if you don't

nicko wrote:In a war situation if you disobey an order from a superior officer you could be court marshalled and shot.   If that still applies I don't know.

http://www.news.com.au/world/former-auschwitz-guard-94-goes-on-trial-in-germany/news-story/71648e7643c4300e83faf6cf29ac1b3a

A 94-YEAR-OLD former SS sergeant went on trial on Thursday in western Germany on 170,000 counts of accessory to murder, based on accusations that he served as a guard in the Auschwitz death camp as hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews and others were gassed to death there.
Reinhold Hanning seemed in good condition for his age, walking into the court in the city of Detmold without even the help of a cane and appearing to listen attentively as the indictment against him was read aloud.
No pleas are entered in the German system. Hanning, who ran a local dairy after the war until he retired in 1984, declined to give an opening statement to the court.

Yep, those were orders he should have disobeyed.  Not claiming it would be easy, but you are not supposed to give up your own moral judgement.

When you join the armed forces you know you will be given orders which you may not know the reason for but it is your duty to obey or don't join or top yourself as a treacherous coward.
REMEMBER THIS, by refusing to obey orders you could be jeopardising the bigger picture.

nicko wrote:It's a Solders right to disobey orders"   What a fucking idiot.

That's the problem if you don't read the full sentence: it makes you an ignorant idiot.

So I'll repeat it for you:

""It’s not only a soldier’s right to disobey an order that is patently illegal, it’s his obligation."

I'm not going to be too hard on you as my sister used to be a specialist in the subject and she tells me many soldiers from the UK don't know jack shit about their rights.

Stormee wrote:When you join the armed forces you know you will be given orders which you may not know the reason for but it is your duty to obey or don't join or top yourself as a treacherous coward.
REMEMBER THIS, by refusing to obey orders you could be jeopardising the bigger picture.

Bull shit.

Stormee wrote:When you join the armed forces you know you will be given orders which you may not know the reason for but it is your duty to obey or don't join or top yourself as a treacherous coward.
REMEMBER THIS, by refusing to obey orders you could be jeopardising the bigger picture.

I can well imagine that a lot of soldiers would defy rotten orders ( because not all of them with be cold blooded killers) as far as I know it is law to serve in the army in Israel, so a few may top their selves or disappear. It is a sickening what is going on with most forces, thoroughly corrupt. The people that make these orders have to be insane and totally inhuman, yet they will live in safety and probably luxury.

Stormee wrote:When you join the armed forces you know you will be given orders which you may not know the reason for but it is your duty to obey or don't join or top yourself as a treacherous coward.
REMEMBER THIS, by refusing to obey orders you could be jeopardising the bigger picture.

So you think the Nazi should not have been punished at the end of the conflict

or is it one rule for your guys and another for the enemy

veya_victaous wrote:

Stormee wrote:When you join the armed forces you know you will be given orders which you may not know the reason for but it is your duty to obey or don't join or top yourself as a treacherous coward.
REMEMBER THIS, by refusing to obey orders you could be jeopardising the bigger picture.

So you think the Nazi should not have been punished at the end of the conflict

or is it one rule for your guys and another for the enemy

Its was basically one rule for one, as next to hardly any allied soldiers were even charged with known war crimes committed, let alone convict them. So it was only one rule and to the victors went the spoils and also being able bury the evidence and wash their hands of Allied war crimes

Also the war on the Eastern front was about as close as it gets to von clausewitz understanding of an absolute war, where each side will keep going to even extremer levels in order to defeat them. Neither side rarely applied to  any rules in fighting each other and in this case if you refused to obey orders, then  your life would then very much become forfeit, either by a firing squad by both sides or a concentration and Gulag Camp respectively. That is not offering any excuses but explains how its not as clear cut as people seem to think it is with the rules of engagement

So whoever loses better have obeyed the law
Dammed if you do dammed if you don't

sassy wrote:Yep, those were orders he should have disobeyed.  Not claiming it would be easy, but you are not supposed to give up your own moral judgement.

You do talk testiculz, Sassy or are you trolling for attention again?