IDF reservist speaks out.

#1
IDF reservist now speaking on the World Service about his actions in the recent Lebanese campaign. He's talking anonymously as his comments will not be well received by the IDF.

He was an MLRS battery commander who launched, 'hundreds of rockets into Lebanon for political reasons.'

He explains quite well what and how he was supplied with missions. He accepts that there will be 'as many as 400,000 duds' lying in southern Lebanon and that the 'indescriminite use of the MLRS' was 'unjustified'.
 
#2
IDF spokeswoman now on trying to rebut the accusations that the political leadership deliberately employed the MLRS to deny Lebanese the possibility to return to the land.

Initially attacks the reservist by claiming that he is just some civilian and that his comments are thus irrelevant.

Then tries to whip up the fervour by asking what would we do if somebody launches rockets on London.

Apparently, launching 1,800 MLRS rockets loaded with cluster munitions was justified, because, "Hezbollah used a variety of rockets: 240mm, 122mm, 120mm and others."

Incredible!

No transcript, but a link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/outlook.shtml

Cluster bombs in southern Lebanon: an Israeli reservist speaks out
Hundreds of thousands of unexploded and potentially lethal cluster bombs are lying scattered in fields and villages in southern Lebanon following the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. On the programme today we have an exclusive radio interview with a former Israeli artilleryman, now a reservist, who tells us why he regrets firing cluster bomb rockets into Lebanon. We also speak to Major Avital Leibovitch from the Israeli Defence Force and we get an update from the Mines Advisory Group, whose teams are helping to clear unexploded ordinance in southern Lebanon.
 
#3
merkator said:
He's talking anonymously as his comments will not be well received by the IDF.

He was an MLRS battery commander who launched, 'hundreds of rockets into Lebanon for political reasons.'
Just how many MLRS Battery commanders does the IDF have?
 
#4
galgenberg said:
merkator said:
He's talking anonymously as his comments will not be well received by the IDF.

He was an MLRS battery commander who launched, 'hundreds of rockets into Lebanon for political reasons.'
Just how many MLRS Battery commanders does the IDF have?
My thoughts too. If he is who he claims to be, then the IDF witch-hunters will have started with about 5-6 names on a list. How long to whittle that down?

So. Does that mean he's a complete buffoon, a ringer, a liar, or a Vanunu mk. 2??
 
#6
Wouls a Battery commander be briefed on the political reasons for using his unit, or would his senior officers just point to the grid references and say, "do it"
 
#7
Don't forget that the Israelis have far, far more reservists as a percentage of the population than we do in the UK. The UK attitude where the military stands slightly apart from civil society is quite alien. There also tend to be a strong moral and religious imperative to fight the good fight, to do the right thing. Just look at 1973 for a good illustration.

So it's quite likely that this chap is genuine and may well represent what many are feeling in the ranks of the IDF.
 
#8
One_of_the_strange said:
Don't forget that the Israelis have far, far more reservists as a percentage of the population than we do in the UK. The UK attitude where the military stands slightly apart from civil society is quite alien. There also tend to be a strong moral and religious imperative to fight the good fight, to do the right thing. Just look at 1973 for a good illustration.

So it's quite likely that this chap is genuine and may well represent what many are feeling in the ranks of the IDF.
I forgot that bit Oots - I think the fact that he is a reservist battery commander takes him further out of the loop as far as knowing the reasons of his poitical masters for the strikes
 
#9
He could also be a MLRS vehicle commander and not battery commander. Combinations of Journos, Language and a tiny bit of Waltism may do the tric methinks. :roll:
 
#10
Let me try to rely a little more of what the chap said - from memory.

He first explained a bit about what the MLRS can do, how it works and why he believed it was the wrong weapon to use in this conflict. Along the lines of, 'it's an area denial weapon not a precision devise for targetting single, isolated terrorists or terrorist positions or single katyusha launchers.'

He explained that he was first told, 'that they would only use MLRS against "nature reserves"', which he explained, 'were areas of no human habitation etc.' Then he explained how targetting was initially made. First, a radar locating outpost would identify the approximate position of a katyusha launch. An MLRS battery would then be ordered to fire on these 'approximate' coordinates - irrespective of whether this was in or near a built up area.

He then went on to explain why, even though he had reservations about using MLRS, not only did he accept the call up, but also deployed and fired the things. His response was that, the 'international impact of telling his story AFTER the event would be far greater than a byline in a newspaper about a court martial for not accepting the call up or insubordination!' So, this was all planned for maximum damage to the Israeli government. Hmmmmm!

He then accused the Israeli political leadership for deliberately using the MLRS knowing that it was an area denial weapon AND that they knew that the number of duds would be so high that the land would continue to be denied for some time.....

He didn't pull his punches.
 
#11
merkator said:
Let me try to rely a little more of what the chap said - from memory.

He first explained a bit about what the MLRS can do, how it works and why he believed it was the wrong weapon to use in this conflict. Along the lines of, 'it's an area denial weapon not a precision devise for targetting single, isolated terrorists or terrorist positions or single katyusha launchers.'

He explained that he was first told, 'that they would only use MLRS against "nature reserves"', which he explained, 'were areas of no human habitation etc.' Then he explained how targetting was initially made. First, a radar locating outpost would identify the approximate position of a katyusha launch. An MLRS battery would then be ordered to fire on these 'approximate' coordinates - irrespective of whether this was in or near a built up area.

He then went on to explain why, even though he had reservations about using MLRS, not only did he accept the call up, but also deployed and fired the things. His response was that, the 'international impact of telling his story AFTER the event would be far greater than a byline in a newspaper about a court martial for not accepting the call up or insubordination!' So, this was all planned for maximum damage to the Israeli government. Hmmmmm!

He then accused the Israeli political leadership for deliberately using the MLRS knowing that it was an area denial weapon AND that they knew that the number of duds would be so high that the land would continue to be denied for some time.....

He didn't pull his punches.
So it was anacdotal and not knowledge which was the basis of his accusations of a political basis for firing MLRS
 
#12
Sven said:
So it was anacdotal and not knowledge which was the basis of his accusations of a political basis for firing MLRS
Did he provide the BBC with a written order signed by Olmert or Peretz demanding the indescrimiate rocket attack on Lebanese civilian areas? No.

Did he provide the BBC with audio tapes where Olmert or Peretz order the indescrimiate rocket attack on Lebanese civilian areas? No.

Has this reserve IDF officer, in charge of an MLRS battery (if he's genuine) actually taking part in the rocket attacks, spent the last few weeks gathering as much information as possible to discredit the Israeli government? Yes.

What the nature is of this information, I don't know any more than you do. I suspect that he has deliberately engaged as many senior officers as possible trying to establish the details behind the thoughts: who said what, when and why etc etc. Whether his case is weak or strong, he feels bold enough to go public and, I expect, to receive a major assault on his integrity, loyalty and god knows what else.
 
#14
Sven said:
The shortfall in his integrety is that he was prepared to go public.... anonymously
Maybe he should have written a memo - and then leaked it! :D
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#15
Now its not like the Israelis help themself with public opinion, but wasn't this op called 'Op Samson'. If I'm not mistaken Samson was a physically (read miltarily) strong chap who ended up bringing down the temple around him. Now I'm not suggesting that the IDF are bored of the Middle East and would prefer St. Tropez, but it did cross my mind when I heard the operation name...
 
#17
Untill this "officer" is`willing to go public and on the record this story carries no weight.

It could be anyone with an axe to grind against the IDF.
 
#18
mark1234 said:
Untill this "officer" is`willing to go public and on the record this story carries no weight.

It could be anyone with an axe to grind against the IDF.
Of course it could be any one, but we do know the warheads got there, we have seen the UN reports on the scale and timing of the delivery of them. His story may not yet be fact as he seems unwilling to spend 20 odd years in jail if he can avoid it, but surely it deserves further investigation.

What if no one had believed deep throat, because he was anonymous.

Peter
 
#19
mark1234 said:
Untill this "officer" is`willing to go public and on the record this story carries no weight.

It could be anyone with an axe to grind against the IDF.
FFS Mark, if a 10 minute interview on the BBC World Service isn't "public", then please do tell what is.... He's also pretty much on record - anonymously. :evil:

OK. So, he decided to speak anonymously, but so what... Either the information is, or is not accurate. Either his accusations are, or are not justified. Time will tell as to the accuracy and the justification - but the fact is, his interview opens a serious debate which needs to be held. If his name does not become known very soon (for the reasons highlighted above) then I will serious become concerned about his comments. Why? Because if he is really who he claims to be, then he does have 'some' knowledge of this, and it will be in the Israeli Govt's interest to cover this up.

Why is it that people now have to provide a full CV before they are listened to? Either the words are valid or they are not. That's important, not the messenger.
 
#20
He could be anyone, he may not even be in the IDF and his annonimity gives him the opportunity to lie through his teeth, he can say whatever he wants because he will not have to answer for it.

I think this point I have raised is an important one, but so many isreal haters will take his word as gospel before they even know who he is.

And I don't think his position is even remotly comparable with vanunu, he was imprisoned for taking pictures or installations and exposing nuclear secrets, but there are many anti war Isrealis, and they have a conscript/national service army so all of those who are anti war will probably serve at some time.

SAS man Grithen I have a wee bit more respect for, because he has come out with his allegations and made himself known, so he is answerable if he is lying.
 

Similar threads

Top