Former IDF general Uri Saguy. (Photo: Niv Calderon/Ynetnews)
Responding to the recent settler attack on army base, a former IDF general has said the government should provoke an attack from settlers and then shoot the "Jewish terrorist." Retired general Uri Saguy wrote an op-ed in Ynetnews last week, slamming the IDF and Netanyahu for not taking harsher action.
Prompted by Netanyahu's refusal to term the violent settlers responsible for the recent attack of a mosque and IDF base, and IDF commander, as "terrorist," Saguy denounced Netanyahu for his lack of "leadership," and suggested provoking a "confrontation" and then shooting the settlers.
In the absence of leadership, we may have to facilitate a confrontation and win it. As the people who ruin us hail from our midst, we must take action. I fear these domestic threats more than I fear the Iranian threat. At this time, we are in the midst of a messianic, delusional process that is violent, belligerent, intolerant, and also un-Jewish. [emphasis added]
Saguy writes, "the rioters who attacked IDF soldiers resorted to terror, and terror should be addressed firmly." Saguy insinuates fears that secular Israelis will become "a persecuted minority in a sea of haredim, fanatics, Arabs and parasites." In order to avoid being taken over by these parasidic settlers and Palestinians, the general calls for "real force," stating "I would have shot them. Terrorists should be shot."
Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz. (Photo: Gabi Menashe/Ynet)
The general sees this rise in Jewish extremism as part of what Israeli anti-occupation and Orthodox Jewish intellectual Yeshayahu Leibowitz forshadowed, following the 1967 occupation of the Palestinian territories. Leibowitz, a staunch supporter of a secular state, and a staunch supporter of the literal, unquestioning practice of Jewish law, halacha, predicted that the continued occupation of Palestinian lands would lead to the downfall of Israel. Saguy writes:
While I still served in the IDF, I invited Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz to address my soldiers in the wake of the Six-Day War. He sounded like a prophet of apocalypse, yet to my regret I can today fully endorse his prophecy, which spoke of three phases to follow that war.In the first stage, he said, we shall see euphoria, upon our return to our ancient sites. Next, we shall see the emergence of messianic, radical and dangerous nationalism. In the third stage, we shall see Israeli society becoming more brutal and the emergence of a police state.
Leibowitz imagined a corruption of halacha, brutality against Palestinians, and a rise in the Israeli right-wing. However, the IDF general misses Leibowitz's famous and controversial "prophetic" characterization of the IDF as "Judeo-Nazi," when he suggests provoking a "confrontation" with the settlers, in which the army will "shoot the terrorist."
Great article, thanks.
this total disregard for law is what i find most distressing,
“said the government should provoke an attack from settlers and then shoot the “Jewish terrorist.” Retired general Uri Saguy wrote an op-ed in Ynetnews last week’
Well, Leibowitz was right. So were some others back in 1948.
Kill the settler terrorist? So Israel raised these attack dogs and now they’ve turned on the master and have to be put down.
Israel has never had any foresight at all..except maybe for Rabin’s.
Rabin ordered the IDF to break the arms of the stone throwing boys and even children, you can YouTube the subject.
I would not name him as a good example of moral leadership.
Rabin was just as morally twisted as the rest of Israel’s leadership. Signing a peace accord hardly makes him a man of peace.
If only. At least then they’d be aiming at actual terrorists.
The problem is that very few Israelis paid attention to Leibovitz. He was there through 1967, he was there during the first and second Intifadas and during the Oslo Accords, but very few Israelis heeded his advice.
In today’s Israel, there is no equivalent to Leibovitz. With his death gone was the last voice of reason in a country full of unhinged maniacs.
As for the role that which religious fanatics play in today’s colonies, it is best compared to the rise of Hamas. The Israeli government supported and funded Hamas as a counter force to Fatah. Years later, Hamas emerged as a problem.
With the settlers, the Israeli government did the same, it backed them and supported them and financed them so long as they served the purpose of creating facts on the ground. Now, the Golem Kam Al Yotzro, the monster created by its master has risen against him.
So why is Israel surprised? It only has itself to blame.
Leibowitz may be correct in many areas, however he is wrong on suggesting Israel should use the jewish religious laws, the halacha.
Can you imagine the outcry, – lead by jewish forces -, if traditionally catholic countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland, would decree that only the catholic church´s canonic laws apply in the land, and all citizens must live according to those laws?!
The israelis made, and still make, the mistake of trying to turn back history not 2,000, but 3,000 years, and use the Torah and the Talmud as their laws and history books, both full of myths and outright lies.
It has long been proved by ISRAELI scientists that bordering on certainty there were no Moses and the burning bush, no Abraham, the isrealis never were in Egypt and there was no wandering in the desert, and what may really hurt their religious esteem, the great empire of David and Salomon is nothing, but a myth, an invented fairytale. It was just a local tribal power.
How can a people build a nation on such foundation and how can they expect other nations will take this seriously?
Israel must move to the 21st century and leave the ancient history behind, otherwise it will not survive another 25 years.
Laws should apply to ALL evenly. If they have no problems to shoot and kill palestinian children, then they should also shoot terrorist settlers.
really good article. i wonder if people are listening in israel.
Lest anyone forget their history. Immediately after the June 1967 war, Israel offered to give back Sinai and Golan to the Arab States in exchange for a formal, written peace agreement. The Arab States response was, ‘No’.
At the exact same time, Israel was searching the West Bank for ‘peacemakers’ who would govern an autonomy or a ‘Statelet’. Ben Gurion, and many others did not want to occupy and rule over the local Arabs.That Israeli government sought West Bank Arabs from the notables and among the fellahin, but few if any local Arabs were interested in ‘self rule’ at that time.
No, actually, I believe what Egypt and Jordan did at that point was formally recognize Palestine, which they should have done from the start.
Ben Gurion was a racist war monger who wanted all the Arabs dead, if he could help it, and he said as much and that’s on record.
Its so easy to read only that part from the Khartoum declaration. But thats just part of it.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Oooh, a “statelet”. Or an “autonomy” even. How incredibly generous.
And there people say Israel does not have a clear position. It’s crystal clear and has been the same since 1967: “We are the masters of the land. You can remain and make do with the scraps we leave and manage your own affairs as long you don’t make any trouble. You will never have any rights or self-determination in this land, but you can quietly live a serf’s life if you properly submit to us.”
Please provide a link to the offer issued by Israel to give back Sinai and Golan to the Arab States in exchange for a formal, written peace agreement.
Even Benny Morris, who argues that that the Arab leaders “hammered out a defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade”, laid some of the blame with Israel, saying that “[i]n part [the Arab] stand was a response to Israel’s unwillingness or inability to consider withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as part of any peace settlement”[2]—an interpretation echoed by UNTSO Chief of Staff General Odd Bull.[3].
Shingo,
I haven’t got the sources in front of me right now, but I remember two texts that contradict PZ’s assertion. One is a speech made by then MK (and former ghetto fighter) Chayke Grossman, in the summer of 1967, attacking the government for refusing to give back territories in exchange for peace. The other is Tom Segev’s book, 1967, in which (if memory serves me) the author writes that such a course of action might have been taken had Eshkol had his druthers (or been more assertive), but that he was outnumbered in the cabinet and no such offer was ever made.
Shmuel,
I agree entirely with you comments.
1. Jonah recetly tried to make the same agument as PZ, and when I asked him to verify it, he was forced to admit the proposal was only discussed within the Israeli cabinet and was never expressed.
2. Miko Peled has verified the same findings as Tom Segev, havign read the minutes of the transcripts of the meetings between Eshkol, hsi cabinet and the generals. His father was among those most passionately arguing that the outcome of the ’67 war was an opportunity for Israel to make peace with teh Palestinians, but Begin and Co were drunk from their victory and saw no reason to part with their spoils.
The details of the peace proposal to Egypt and Syria can be found in Tom Segev’s, 1967, page 501.
If MK Grossman attacked the government in the summer of 1967, it was because the peace proposal had been voted on (by the Cabinet) and passed onto the Americans (for transmittal to the Arabs) in secret. Grossman couldn’t have known about it.
What Morris says about Israel’s unwillingness to withdraw from Gaza and W.B. is correct.
Yet I don’t see anybody here contradicting the other half of my post; Israel’s great efforts to give autonomy to the West Bank Arabs and the Arabs lack of interest.
The details of the peace proposal to Egypt and Syria can be found in Tom Segev’s, 1967, page 501.
True, although I was unable to view his source, at Amazon. Segev also writes, however, that the offer was such (not all of the territory taken, demilitarisation, Israeli passage, etc.) that Israel knew it would be rejected and would thus be able to claim Arab rejectionism and keep the territories.
link to books.google.com
link to books.google.com
Eisenberg and Caplan don’t seem to have a source for that assertion (which they claim included all of “the captured territory … except for Jerusalem”). The nearest footnote (36 – on p. 320, not viewable on Google, but accessible through Amazon) seems to refer only to the Khartoum Conference, and isn’t an original source anyway.
“At the exact same time, Israel was searching the West Bank for ‘peacemakers’ who would govern an autonomy or a ‘Statelet’.”
Pudracist666,
Too bad the Norwegians had already executed Vidkun Quisling. He had experience filling the role the Jews-occupying-Palestine were looking to create…
right which is why it took the british, US, and french pressuring Israel to give up the sinai? Israel is not the good guy.
Absolutely stellar piece. Thanks you Philip and Adam.
allison wrote that casaananda
On the one hand, Saguy’s endorsement of provocation and bloody response is abhorrent, but at least he hints at treating the Jewish settlers as if they were Palestinians. Israel’s disgraceful use of provocateurs at a peaceful Bil’in demo against the wall was documented in 2005 by Ran HaCohen at link to antiwar.com. He quotes the Israeli military admitting that it had undercover officers infiltrating the peaceful demo who started throwing stones toward Israeli soldiers, who then “retaliated” against the demonstrators. The military acknowledged that this was how “they operate in such instances.”
It’s difficult to see any silver lining in Saguy, but the notion of treating settlers as harshly as Palestinians seems revolutionary to me. My guess is that he has a bloodthirsty history against Palestinians that gives him the “credibility” to say something like this.
It is abhorrent, but let’s be pragmatic: If the two main instruments of oppression and harrassment in the WB are busy fighting each other, it’s good news for the Palestinians.
Extreme bullshit. Go read anything written by Gen. Miko Peled, who was in the cabinet meetings and war rooms in Israel (or watch his talks on youtube) and you’ll know that he fought hard to create a Palestinian state and noone listened to him or anyone else who argued that. It wasn’t too much longer after that that settlers started moving into the Sinai and the OPT. The only reason Israel gave back the Sinai is the Egyptians nearly won in 1973. And they weren’t going to give back the Golan because of (you guessed it) water and the strategic military advantages.
Provoke then shoot – sounds like the standard Zionist technique.
“I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more
than 80%, but lets talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a
tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing
ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start
shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians
in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start
firing artillery, and later also the airforce and this was the way it was. I
did this and Laskov and Tzur (two previous commander-in-chiefs) did it,
Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district
at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more
than anyone else, enjoyed these games.” (Moshe Dayan, 22 November 1976)
What a revolting article … As much as the settler entreprise should be ended, this man should face trial for hate speech and incitement.
If anyone believe in justice for all, then the settlers should indeed be evacuated and fully made to pay for what they’ve done to the Palestinian people. Calling for thugs (whoever they are) to be shot is obscene.
Next : “a persecuted minority in a sea of haredim, fanatics, Arabs and parasites.” I mean, I nearly fell off my chair. That alone tells it all about this IDF general.
I fear (I know?) this must be the school of thought at the IDF and likely in the Israeli public as well.
The zionist boat is sinking, but we must not let it sink in a sea of blood.
parasidic settlers
Presumably these are almost Hasidic
but a great piece. Especially the insight into the Zionist mind. It all revolves around violence. You don’t nip problems in the bud. You wait until they become threatening and then you apply violence. Such a waste of time and money.
parasidic settlers
i noticed that too, seafoid. i thought allison was punning on parasite and hasidic. and, yes, a great bit of reporting. there are always a few pieces of the puzzle left out of american MSM analysis of the important issues of the day. this is one of those missing pieces, without which you can’t have a clear picture of reality.
arab spring, and zionist winter.
It’s an Israeli quirk that “leftists” affirm their “liberal” credentials by expressing prejudice and advocating violence.
Allison, thanks for this important story.
Here is former IDF general Uri Saguy quoting Israeli philosopher and anti-Zionist Yeshayahu Leibowitz:
“In the first stage, [Leibowitz] said, we shall see euphoria, upon our return to our ancient sites. Next, we shall see the emergence of messianic, radical and dangerous nationalism. In the third stage, we shall see Israeli society becoming more brutal and the emergence of a police state.”
What goes around comes around. Isn’t that the phrase?
Sorry to say this, but this discussion misses the real point. In reality it is a luxury reserved for those, like myself, who are fortunate enough to be able to view what is happening in Palestine as observers. What happened forty or two thousand years ago is no longer relevant. We need to think about this as if our own home had just been destroyed. The only question that now matters is what can be done to stop the Israeli occupation, land-theft, etc?
seniorpunk, you sound like another solidarity activist who visited mondo a while back. He too was critical of us stay-at-home mondo seniors who flap our gums and DO nothing. Your criticism has some merit, I suppose, but imo not much.
Many of us are ‘word warriors’ writing letters to politicians, signing petitions, holding up signs at rallies, doing battle against Zionist propagandists who invade the MW site. Many of us don’t have the money to get over to Palestine, many have family commitments that don’t allow for extended periods away from home.
Still, I’d like to get your opinion on a mondo initiative that I think would useful: an area of the web site set aside for petitions, political letter-writing campaigns, and a constant coverage of BDS activities. Thanks.
Punk has a point. Let’s keep it contemporary and real.
link to nytimes.com
Come on, pudster, that article only quotes Israelis saying that the Palestainians are lying. How do you know that they’re not lying???
pdz77, have you actually read that nytimes.com piece?? It’s a load of crap!
Why is it crap?
Sorry Punk. I know the past is no longer relevant but I can’t help myself.
I love history.
From a book written in 1871, called “An account of the manners and customs of the modern Egyptians,” by Edward William Lane and Edward Stanley Poole.
They [the Jews]are held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by the Muslims in general, and are said to bear a more inveterate hatred than any other people to the Muslims and the Muslim religion. …It is a common saying among the Muslims in this country, “Such a one hates me with the hate of the Jews.” We cannot wonder, then, that the Jews are detested by the Muslims far more than are the Christians.
Not long ago, they used often to be jostled in the streets of Cairo, and sometimes beaten merely for passing on the right hand of a Muslim. At present, they are less oppressed; but still they scarcely ever dare to utter a word of abuse when reviled or beaten unjustly by the meanest Arab or Turk; for many a Jew has been put to death upon a false and malicious accusation of uttering disrespectful words against the Kur-an or the Prophet. It is common to hear an Arab abuse his jaded ass, and, after applying to him various opprobrious epithets, end by calling the beast a Jew.
A Jew has often been sacrificed to save a Muslim, as happened in the following case.—-A Turkish soldier, having occasion to change some money, received from the seyrefee (or money-changer), who was a Muslim, some Turkish coins called ‘adleeyehs, reckoned at sixteen piasters each. These he offered to a shopkeeper, in payment for some goods; but the latter refused to allow him more than fifteen piasters to the ‘adleeyeh, telling him that the Basha had given orders, many days before, that this coin should no longer pass for sixteen. The soldier took back the ‘adleeyehs to the seyrefee, and demanded an additional piaster to each; which was refused: he therefore complained to the Basha himself, who, enraged that his orders had been disregarded, sent for the seyrefee. This man confessed that he had been guilty of an offence, but endeavoured to palliate it by asserting that almost every money-changer in the city had done the same, and that he received ‘adleeyehs at the same rate. The Basha, however, disbelieving him, or thinking it necessary to make a public example, gave a signal with his hand, intimating that the delinquent should be beheaded. The interpreter of the court, moved with compassion for the unfortunate man, begged the Basha to spare his life. “This man,” said he, “has done no more than all the money-changers of the city: I, myself, no longer ago than yesterday, received ‘adleeyehs at the same rate.” “From whom?” exclaimed the Basha. “From a Jew,” answered the interpreter, “with whom I have transacted business for many years.” The Jew was brought, and sentenced to be hanged; while the Muslim was pardoned. The interpreter, in the greatest distress of mind, pleaded earnestly for the life of the poor Jew; but the Basha was inexorable: it was necessary that an example should be made, and it was deemed better to take the life of a Jew than that of a more guilty Muslim.
The Jews in Egypt generally lead a very quiet life: indeed, they find few but persons of their own religion who will associate with them….The more wealthy among them dress handsomely at home; but put on a plain or even shabby dress before they go out: and though their houses have a mean and dirty appearance from without, many of them contain fine and well-furnished rooms. …
Avarice is more particularly a characteristic of the Jews in Egypt than of those in other countries where they are less oppressed. They are careful, by every means in their power, to avoid the suspicion of being possessed of much wealth. It is for this reason that they make so shabby a figure in public, and neglect the exterior appearance of their houses. They are generally strict in the performance of their religious ordinances; and, though overreaching in commercial transactions, are honest in the fulfilment of their contracts.
Essentially, when Jews weren’t wantonly killed too often, it was considered as if they had wonderful lives living under their Islamic masters.
are we lifting things off little green footballs today pz link to littlegreenfootballs.com
? or did you get it from
go over there and post this crap!
Wow, putzracist6969, what is more interesting is all the stuff that you excluded from the book, especially the part about the Jewish man who was actually brought before the Jewish “high priest” for the “offense” of accidentally calling a fellow Jew “Mohammad,” having mistaken the man for a Muslim acquaintance of that name.
I mean, you did read the book, right?
Yep, pz’s head is jam-packed with little green footballs.
Jews are good, Muslims bad. To quote you, annie, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I agree Annie – crap. I note that PZ did not copy from LGF/EoZ and the same book:
“The Jews have eight synagogues in their quarter in Cairo; and not only enjoy religious toleration, but are under a less oppressive government in Egypt than in any other country of the Turkish empire. In Cairo, they pay for the exemption of their quarter from the visits of the Mohtesib; and they did the same also with respect to the “Walee, as long as his office existed. Being consequently privileged to sell articles of provision at higher prices than the other inhabitants of the metropolis, they can afford to purchase such things at higher rates, and therefore stock their shops with provisions, and especially fruits, of better qualities than are to be found in other parts of the town. Like the Copts, and for a like reason, the Jews pay tribute, and are exempted from military service.”
It seems that PZ only loves history that reinforces her/his prejudices. There are plenty of better sources for the history of Jews in the Ottoman Empire.
actually, straightline, it is worse than that. Pudracist666 was quoting from an addendum of a 600-odd page book, which has a couple pages addressing the then-5,000 Jews in all of Egypt. The book had a couple stories/paragraphs which showed the Jews in a bad light, such as the one I highlighted in a previous post, and a few which showed the Muslims in a bad light. He, of course, edited out the portions what showed the Jews in a bad light.
Prudzio
You can find a book to prove your point, if you look long enough!
I prefer facing the issue.
I few years ago I visited the old synagoge on the island of Djerba in Tunisia.
I had the opportunity to have a long talk with the head of the community and since my visit was only a year after the synagoge was bombed I had a lot of question.
Those jews lived there over a thousand years under arab, turkish, french rule and were never treated as you describe the jewish life in Egypt. They could worship in their religion and lived a peaceful life all those years.
You cannot say the same for Europe and certainly not for Israel, where moslems today threated like subhumans.
Oh, I am sure you are proud of that, proudzio.
So jews get to steal another people’s homeland because of a book of myths from thousands of years ago. but the palestinians have to give up their legally mandated rights because the bigots of Israel refuse to respect those right?
f that
Religious nationalism is to religion, what national socialism is to socialism
– Y. Leibowitz
“Former Israeli general: Provoke a settler attack, then shoot the ‘Jewish terrorist’”
Or revert to standard practice. Fake a settler attack, and then shoot the terrorist.
He basically meant:”No one dares to attack the Almighty Army of Israel , AND gets away ,unpunished, with it.” He deems an attack on military base as something that should be very severly punished , no matter who did it. Army is an equivalent of G-d for him, and nobody dares to raise the hand on that kind of G-d without paying for it.
He does not care for Palestinians ,or he does not care for the fact that settlers are stealing Palestinian’s land. He strongly objects settlers attacking their OWN forces AND getting away with it.
For him, it is a symptom of an anarchy. And anarchy is the first step to………
“The restraint shown by the division commander and his deputy during the latest clashes should be lauded, yet had I been there, and people would have hurled a stone at my head and threatened my life, I would have shot them. Terrorists should be shot. ” from Uri Saguy’s op-ed
So , according to Mr Saguy , anybody who dares to throw a stone on “I’m God/I’m the law” Israeli soldier should be shot. Anybody.
And then he talks about the danger of Israel becoming a “police state”???
If anybody, who dares to throw a stone on a police or soldier is immediately shot ,then we have ALREADY a police state.