I was just reading about how a current Israeli war minister’s son died in combat and it made me wonder that if Israeli’s politicians who make these decisions know their family will be affected by it personally and directly, does that lend towards the suggestion that it is more likely they are making genuinely ethically and morally correct decisions to engage in war stuff given their personal skin i the game?

It would seem totally different from American politicians like Cheney who create bullshit geopolitical conflicts knowing full well their progeny will never be touched by it…

Edit: I’m assuming they actually care/give a shit about their offspring and family, even if only just for appearences

  • Andy@slrpnk.net
    34·
    1 year ago

    I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that military service is mandatory for all, with a few exceptions.

    The ultra religious communities are exempt, which has become increasingly unpopular over time.

    Also, the head of Israel’s domestic police force, Itmar Ben Givir was rejected for mandatory service in his teens because of his extremism.

    Generally, though, leaders children serve.

  • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
    364·
    1 year ago

    That’s a great insight into Israeli society.

    The answer to your question is a resounding “yes”.

    In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

    Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a “fortunate son” type situation.

    Furthermore, there’s an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, “they don’t risk their children’s life in the army” (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

    The Israeli Jewish public doesn’t see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated “others”, but as their children, brothers and fathers.

    I think that’s a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who’ll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn’t really think about the question.

    • ExIsraeliAnarchist@kbin.social
      152·
      1 year ago

      Furthermore, there’s an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters

      Only this isn’t true Deri (of Shas and convicted felon) is in the war cabinet for crying out loud.
      You are really naive if you think they don’t get a say in everything that goes on, and deliberately ignoring reality if you can’t admit that there diversion of funds for their own causes and communities has deprived the rest of the country not only of the security it needed on 7.10, but of health and social and community funding for everyone else, for decades.

      The amount of power the ultra orthodox hold is obscene.

      • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
        81·
        1 year ago

        No, he’s not.

        Also, he’s barred from being a minister as per Israeli’s supreme court ruling (exactly because he’s been convicted with fraud multiple times), so I highly doubt he could be appointed to the war cabinet even in theory.

        One could argue that the ultra orthodox parties are active behind the scenes, but there’s no indication of that anywhere. Israel has free press, so this type of thing would probably come out as rumors at the very least (By contrast, there were reports he was the de-facto minister of social services after the supreme court ruling).

        Not to diminish the political power they hold, but in this specific case there isn’t any indication they exert said power.

  • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
    235·
    1 year ago

    The assumption that direct familial involvement would make people more peaceful or make them take more ethical decisions is flat out incorrect. If anything it will make them more ruthless and dehumanizing against the “other” and seek even faster ways of total annihilation rather than difficult nuanced and diplomatic peaceful solutions. The military mindset is a very rigid one, with only rights and wrongs, blind obedience, the only nuance allowed is tactical nuance, the only complexity allowed is logistic complexity. Morally and ethically it’s always down to I’d rather the other die than me. The IDF once traded 1000 prisoners for 1 IDF soldier, what makes you think they will not kill 10000 children if it means it saves 1 soldier?

    • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
      57·
      1 year ago

      The IDF once traded 1000 prisoners for 1 IDF soldier, what makes you think they will not kill 10000 children if it means it saves 1 soldier?

      Because… the moral considerations in both cases are completely different…? How is this even a question?

      That’s like saying “He once bought a car for $50,000, what makes you think he won’t steal $500,000 if it meant getting a Tesla?”

  • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
    122·
    1 year ago

    I’m not familiar enough with this to answer your question. But I know for sure that Bibi’s brother, Yoni, was a war hero. He died in the line of duty. So it isn’t like they are completely disconnected from war.

    And I think a ministers kid was killed in Gaza today.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
      105·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I was referencing. Not that I want to say Israel is blameless or the West Bank expansion shit isn’t straight up evil colonialism shit, but its harder to write them off if they’re putting their own children in harms way in the furtherance of what I would otherwise dismiss as plain geopolitical thieving.

      • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
        163·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I mean just because they have something staked on the outcome doesn’t mean that the state of Israel isn’t an apartheid state. I don’t think any state is good, but separating citizens based on race or religion seems pretty fucking evil. And it is worse when you take an indigenous peoples land. As an American, I feel this deeply since we followed this same path dispossessing indigenous people while enslaving Africans. Not great… and I hope we start to rectify those evils sometime soon.

        But jews lived next to non Jewish Arabs in Palestine for generations peacefully. And Jewish Arabs lived peacefully all over the Middle East. But the nekba changed those dynamics. Arab Jews are discriminated against in Israel and a lot have been ejected from their old Arab countries. The whole thing of boiling a person down to their ethnicity or religion just is not a great thing.

        There needs to be a political settlement soon. Palestinians deserve better and Israelis deserve peace.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          How do most Israelis feel about the West Bank or are they aware of it?

          Is the West Bank the foundational issue/disagreement?

              • caesar_salad83@lemmy.world
                42·
                1 year ago

                Gaza was controlled and settled by Isrealis. In 2005 Israel, by mean of law and force, disengaged from the gaza strip unilaterally. In the process, relocated all the settlers. I don’t think there’s any will, national or political, to annex gaza, not realistically.

                • yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world
                  21·
                  1 year ago

                  I will admit that I am not totally aware of the value of the land of the West Bank vs Gaza. But from what I’ve been reading and watching these few months on the history of the conflict, it seems that at some point the PLO stopped being violent after the second Infatada and Hamas took over Gaza and pushed them out to the West Bank. And ever since then the West Bank has been slowly carved up more and more by Jewish settlements, effectively making the Palestinian land in the WB never able to be contiguous, and thus making it impossible for there to be a Palestinian state to be formed there.

                  So if the WB land is valuable to the Israelis, I cannot see how Gaza wouldn’t be even more valuable. As Gaza has access to the sea, and there’s all the recently found offshore gas fields that would fall into Gaza’s EEZ if it ever were to be recognized as the Palestinian state.

                  So I don’t get why they’d disengage and leave Gaza alone when it’s valuable land, but they will also for obvious reasons never stop the blockade of Gaza. As an outsider that leans to the left, it seems like Gaza is purposefully put into the state that it’s in, to keep a threat around, so the conservatives running Israel can stay in power.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    101·
    1 year ago

    If your main question is if it leads to more morally correct decisions, then that would be a very hard no.

    Most people do believe they are doing the right thing. The Americans are, the Russians are and the Chinese are. They DO believe what they do is correct. Same with religion.

    But does that make any of the above groups more correct than the other? The answer is: No, it’s their actions that shows that.

    My point is, Israel will always think what they do is morally correct, no matter if it is or not. And when you act in that belief, you can justify almost anything in the world. Because you really think it’s the right thing to do.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      1 year ago

      Mabe morally correct isn’t quite the right notion. Maybe I was more getting at good faith plus worth the potential loss of a beloved member of their family for yhe greater good.

      Its very easy to make abstract bloody decisions and send strangers children to war if it never hits close to home so I was playing with that notion as a nexus to getting a better understanding of why Israel would engage in Hydra-busting (West Bank expansion etc) if they were on the hook (in terms of their offsprings lives) for the collateral damage likely to result from such controversial and perilous efforts

    • QaspR@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like what you are trying to articulate is the idea of ethical relativism.

      Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    2416·
    1 year ago

    I’m not Israeli - but I grew up in a disturbingly similar political environment, Apartheid-era South Africa. In theory, conscription applied to all white males of “military age” (ie, a kid that’s physically capable but still too dumb to resist the brainwashing). However, in reality, the children of the rich and powerful could buy their way out of it through various means (such as Phony Stark famously skipping South Africa right before his 18th birthday despite the fact that he wasn’t as allergic to white supremacism as he claimed to be), while working class whites couldn’t. I’m willing to bet that it pretty much works the same way in Israel.

    There are lots of reasons why the children of the rich and powerful could end up on the front lines in wars that are still mostly foisted onto the children of the poor - an abusive father might gaslight their children into it, or it may simply be a case that not participating in all the jingoism might have an effect on careers later on (which might be the case in Israel, considering that militarism is so entwined in politics over there that it would have seemed insane even in Apartheid-era South Africa). It could just be that Snot’s head has been filled with militarism and wouldn’t dream of not participating. But the rich do get a choice in whether their children will be “boots on the ground” or not.

    And no… the Israeli political establishment is no more making “ethically and morally correct decisions” than Apartheid-era South Africa’s was - it is, after all, a white supremacist settler-colonialist state. The only way to make “ethically and morally correct decisions” is to not serve the Israeli war machine in any way whatsoever.

    • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      98·
      1 year ago

      As a South African i couldn’t have said it better myself. Israelis and israeli apologists i notice get very offended when you compare israel to Apartheid South Africa, i mean the parallels are so clear to see.

      • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
        139·
        1 year ago

        No, I take offense to comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa because it’s dumb. Not even saying it’s wrong, it’s just a dumb comparison.

        Read again what the person you replied to said - it’s basically “I don’t have any information about Israel that’s relevant to the question, but I’ll just go ahead and assume Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the same thing and reply based on that. This will show Israel and Apartheid South Africa have a lot in common”.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        127·
        1 year ago

        Calling middle eastern jews white supremacists is fucking insane

        Are you talking about the European Jewish people who dominate Israel’s political and economic establishments? Have you noticed that Netanyahu doesn’t look Ethiopian, perhaps?

        No, Clyde… it’s perfectly obvious who it is that doesn’t know what it is they are talking about, and it’s the people doing apologetics for white supremacism. Ie, you.

        • ExIsraeliAnarchist@kbin.social
          75·
          1 year ago

          I don’t support the state of Israel, but I hate this bullshit argument so much - where do you think the European Jews came from to Europe, and why?

          They came from Israel (the region, not the state, which didn’t exist then) which they were expelled from, over generations, again and again, buy actual colonisers. And only wanted too return after centuries of pogroms that culminated in the holocaust, which was perpetrated by actual white supremacists.

          Are racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and colourism all happening, and are influenced by white supremacy? Yes. Can Jews ever really be considered white supremacists? Not by any actual white supremacist, so no…

          Is the state of Israel and the illegal settlements it supports now occupying some lands that aren’t theres and oppressing the Palestinians whos lands those are? Yes.

          Should they give those lands back and let their rightful residents live on them in peace (and be willing to share the places that are culturally and historically to both)? Yes.

          Is Israel an apartheid state that discriminates against its Arab citizens? Yes.

          Do Palestinians deserve freedom? Yes.

          Does any of this erase thousands of years of history and mean that Jews, from wherever the fuck they were expelled to in the diaspora don’t also have a rightful place on the land or are in any way comparable to actual colonisers who went to foreign lands they nor their ancestors had never set foot on and take them over? Absolutely fucking not.

          More people really should actually study the history before making such ignorant claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            126·
            1 year ago

            know more than me

            I know you better than you think, Clyde… we were pretty much raised drenched in the same kind of propaganda. After all… Apartheid-South Africa and Israel were besties, weren’t they? And despite the fact that the National Party took their white supremacism (and their antisemitism) straight from the nazis, too - imagine that?

            It’s no surprise

            Of course it isn’t! For sure! You have that in common with every other white supremacist colonialist project out of sheer coincidence… totally not because the people sitting at the top of Israel’s political and economic establishments learned their white supremacism from the best in the business - ie, the west.

            You know… the west? The people who invented antisemitism right before they invented white supremacism?

            • ExIsraeliAnarchist@kbin.social
              43·
              1 year ago

              we were pretty much raised drenched in the same kind of propaganda

              “pretty much” being the key words, since the white people who colonised SA had never set foot there before nor had any history or claim to the land, while that absolutely isn’t the case for Jewish people returning to their homeland.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                62·
                1 year ago

                since the white people who colonised SA had never set foot

                Neither has the Europeans who colonised Palestine and created Israel, Clyde.

                while that absolutely isn’t the case for Jewish people returning to their homeland.

                European Jewish people’s “homeland” is Europe, genius. You know… the place where they were born and lived for more than a millenium before western antisemitism drove them out?

                There is no valid Zionist “claim” to any part of the middle-east - never was, never has been. You might just as well “claim” Jerusalem as “western” because the Crusaders massacred it’s population once.

  • SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world
    81·
    1 year ago

    Everybody is mandatory drafted in Israel except ultra orthodox jews and arabs. Being a politician’s family isn’t on that list. And also its very common. All politicians at some point either serve or served at the army, including their children. It just so happened that someone who died is also the son of the one who calls the shots about the war.

    • ExIsraeliAnarchist@kbin.social
      81·
      1 year ago

      Mandatory service doesn’t mean they don’t get cushy jobs (if they want them) though.
      Yair Netanyahu was never going anywhere near the front lines (he was in the Spokesperson’s Unit), and nor do many other children-of (not only politicians of course, but they do have a lot of influence), they get jobs at headquarters or some other nice safe place, the military bands/entertainment units are notoriously where many a nepo-baby has got their start…

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
        51·
        1 year ago

        This is kinda more what I’m obliquely referring to. Like, not like John F Kennedy who seems to have literally been involved in dangerous shit that got him significantly injured

  • demystify@lemmy.mlEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    In theory. In practice, I doubt it.

    The Israeli parliament consists of 120 politicians. Their children would need:

    • to not be Haredi, which are exempt from service
    • to be between the ages of 18-21, which is when their mandatory service runs
    • to serve in combat units

    Chances are only a few of them answer this criteria (even less considering the extremist portion of this specific government which didn’t serve, and their children likely don’t serve either), and even they are likely not above pulling strings to get them out of danger. Except for that politician you talked about, apparently.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      That is absolute bullshit about the Heredi. Its like, ok you can live in this unlrotected/untaxed area and be self-governing. Best of luck, let the Lord ur God fight off your/his enemies 🙄

      They are gonna have to form their own army and I suspect they’re way to freaking soft and parasitic to be able to do so unilaterally or even on Easy mode

      Edit: do they at least pay taxes or are they basically a completely mooching cancer on Israeli society that just fucks and prays and creates sewage they dont bear the cost of?

  • idiocracy@lemmy.zip
    39·
    1 year ago

    Edit: I’m assuming they actually care/give a shit about their offspring and family, even if only just for appearences

    one of the more quietly racist things I’ve read lately, congrats

    • quackers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      132·
      1 year ago

      There is only a racial implication if you look deep into it or your brain is wired to see everything as racist.

        • quackers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2·
          1 year ago

          Or maybe if you see racism everywhere, you’re the problem.
          A big part of the problem that the average person has in relation to race is that they constantly need to be aware of it as to not offend someone who looks to deep into it, and usually isn’t even part of the race that’s supposedly offended. This constant awareness tends of lead to people forming actual opinions about race.

          If your opinion is that jews should not be criticized because they happen to be jews, and you say that as a deflection from the actual argument, you now created someone who has more dislike towards jews because their race is used as a shield from criticism.

          And just to clarify, both perspective are stupid, but if you look at how right wing racists think, this is a big part of it.