Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Gilad Schalit's capture: In his own words

  1. #1
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default Gilad Schalit's capture: In his own words

    PART 1

    [*******#8F8F8F][*******#8F8F8F]By BEN CASPIT[/COLOR][/COLOR]
    [*******#8F8F8F]03/28/2013 17:23[/COLOR]

    Former soldier gives military investigators an account of the attack that led to his capture and the deaths of two of his comrades.

    In conversations with a psychologist after his return to Israel from five years in captivity, Gilad Schalit expressed fears over the IDF investigation he would undergo. Schalit knew exactly what he was worried about – he knew all too well the circumstances that led to his captivity. He knew that there was no military glory in what had happened there, on that night. He knew that he did not do his duty as an IDF combat soldier and did not even do the minimum to prevent his own capture.

    Schalit knew that he had effectively given himself up on June 25, 2006, been taken captive without firing even one bullet, despite the fact that he could have prevented the entire situation with relative ease. He was very concerned indeed over his meeting with the military investigators.
    CONTINUED: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Gilad-S...n-words-308015



    PART 2


    Former IDF soldier gives military investigators an account of the attack that led to his capture and the deaths of two of his comrades, and tells of his time in Hamas captivity in the Gaza *****.
    [*******#000000][FONT=Arial]
    [*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]The use of the hand grenades that were thrown into Gilad Schalit's tank casts doubt on the view that the main goal of the attack was to kidnap a soldier. If the militants had wanted to kidnap a soldier, it is unlikely that they would have thrown a grenade into the tank. They wanted to kill, to cause as much damage as possible and then get away quickly. [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]Somehow, Schalit survived the grenade blasts and exited the tank. As he left the tank, he saw the terrorist climbing the front of the tank which on the Merkava is referred to as "the knife."[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]In order to climb, the terrorist needed to use both hands, which meant that his personal weapon - a Kalashnikov - was strapped across his back. At this point, he was in close range, making him an easy target. Schalit, who was sitting on the dome of the tank, where the tank commander has a view of the surrounding area, saw the militant climbing toward him but could not see the second militant on the other side of the tank. [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]The militant had still not seen Schalit, and Schalit could have easily moved his hand 10 cm to take control of the .50 caliber tank machine gun and shoot him, cutting him to pieces in seconds. The .50 cal is not a weapon that you would want to have fired at you - its firing speed is lethal, and squeezing the trigger is quick and easy. But that is not what Schalit did; in fact, he did nothing. It is plausible to assume that if the machine gun had been fired, it would have killed the militant climbing the tank and caused the second man to flee. Even if it had not occurred that way, taking control of the machine gun would still have given Schalit, who was inside the tank with three guns and the main tank cannon at his disposal, a marked advantage over his adversaries.[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]“You never thought to shoot the terrorist?” Schalit was asked during the investigation. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]CONTINUED: http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-The...Part-II-308198

    The story of the capture of the most famous IDF soldier of the last years, Guilad Schalit, are known now. Schalit told his investigators all the details with full honesty, without trying to conceal the truth.
    It is a story full of failures. A tank crew who did nothing right and Schalit, the 19 years old conscript, who handled himself to his captors without any resistance.

    [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

  2. #2
    Senior Member Mastermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    6,301

    Default

    As a track commander in Vietnam who had three massive hits, I can tell you, Schalit can not be held accountable for his actions in the aftermath of the grenade blast inside his tank. One hit, was by a 57 mm reccoiless rifle, and I can tell you, it is almost unelievable that you survive such a fantastic blast. The RPG hit was in our fuel tank on the left rear of the vehicle and a massive sheet of flame shot up, descending thakfully outside the vehicle, if the wind had been blowing the other way, I would not be writing this today. But, the blast was enormous, my helmet was blown off, my shirt collar was shredded, thakfully, my flack jacket absorbed a large part of blast and schrapnell. You can not think, your ears ring like you can not beleive- you just feel awful- like collapsing in a heap on the floor. You try to think, but, can't get past a single thought- "Am I dead?"---You slowly recover, pick up a weapon, but, don't really know what to do with it- slowly your thought processes come back, but you can't hear anything for quite a wile. As you recover a bit more, you either continue the fight if the vehicle is capable or evacuate the thing and try to find cover or rescue by friendly forces. If any enemy forces were right up close and personal in the immediate aftermath, you would be easy pickings.

    Schalit has nothing to be ahamed of. That's my feeling on the matter.

  3. #3
    Senior Member GB_FXST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    7,027

    Default

    Good article. Thanks for posting.

    I agree with MM above.

  4. #4
    Senior Member TT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Schweden
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!

    Am I wrong to think though, that the author of this article is somewhat wrong in his expectations of post-captive G.S.?
    Perhaps G.S. initially did act too passively, perhaps he could have avoided putting himself in captivity for 5 years if he had resisted his capture and been more of a "hero". But I think it's really shameful to expect that G.S. should "give back" to Israel after all of this. IMHO, a military force should have the obligation to care about its soldiers, as IDF in this case showed, in order to make the soldiers feel a trust for whom they serve.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TT1 View Post
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!

    Am I wrong to think though, that the author of this article is somewhat wrong in his expectations of post-captive G.S.?
    Perhaps G.S. initially did act too passively, perhaps he could have avoided putting himself in captivity for 5 years if he had resisted his capture and been more of a "hero". But I think it's really shameful to expect that G.S. should "give back" to Israel after all of this. IMHO, a military force should have the obligation to care about its soldiers, as IDF in this case showed, in order to make the soldiers feel a trust for whom they serve.
    Yes, a military has an obligation to care about its soldiers. In a country like Israel, where everyone is required to serve, people have different expectations of the military than in other countries where the service is volunteer. What the Israeli military and government has to do if a soldier is kidnapped is not clear cut and defined anywhere. Obviously, Israel tried extremely hard to get Gilad back, and eventually traded 1000+ prisoners for him.

    However, in my opinion, the number one goal of a military is to physically defend the country and its citizens, and the trade hindered the military's goal. It is important to note that the trade had more to do with Bibi becoming a savior than with the IDF completing its mission of defending the country.

    While I am happy that Gilad is back, I still think that the trade was an extremely bad decision from a military and future political standpoint. I was stationed on the Gaza border during Gilad's release. Prior to the release, the border was fairly quite. There were a few attempts at placing ieds where we patrolled as well as the occasional small arms fire at us. After the release, like the next day, the intelligence we received said that that every terrorist group in Gaza and their Uncle's were trying to figure out how to kidnap another soldier. Because of the release, personally, I was affected. My life was put in mortal danger more a few times and could be accredited specifically to the release of Gilad. Thankfully, I'm still here. The units deployed after us were not so lucky. There was an exponential increase in the amount of attempts to place an ied/shoot at a patrol/dig a tunnel in order to kidnap another soldier. The release of 1000's of prisoners, some with life sentences for participating in terrorist attacks, only encouraged the terrorists. It rewarded them for kidnapping a soldier.

    The military's objective is to defend the country. Releasing hundreds of terrorists and validating the benefit of kidnapping soldiers from a terrorist view point is detrimental to the objective. Unfortunately, people are killed in war. People are also kidnapped. But to encourage kidnapping by releasing soldiers is not a strategic move for the military (however, Bibi gained himself a lot of political points for this). The military has spent countless hours rearresting some of the released prisoners due to their return to terror.

    I know Gilad did not have a say in this, but the fact is that he did cost the military something. While the military does owe each soldier something, to suggest they owe trading 1000 prisoners for each soldier is absurd. Because, in his case, he did receive special treatment, I do wish to see him "give back" to Israel somehow. I do not know how he should - or even if there is a way to - repay Israel, but if there somehow is a way, I expect him to fulfill his obligations.

  6. #6
    Senior Member TT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Schweden
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amerikie View Post
    ...
    First of all, I want to thank you for your answer filled with interesting information, giving one another perspective to look through!

    ...
    However, in my opinion, the number one goal of a military is to physically defend the country and its citizens, and the trade hindered the military's goal. It is important to note that the trade had more to do with Bibi becoming a savior than with the IDF completing its mission of defending the country. ...
    Actually, what you say might have required military actions to freeze for a period of time, I agree, but - IIRC - there were discussions even here that IDF was actively being hindered to act because of his captivity, as they didn't exactly know where he was hidden, thus making it hard to know whether if it was OK to bomb a certain target/building where he surely was not at. Imagine the consequences of an air attack conducted by IDF on, lets say an suspicious IED workshop, and the kidnappers were to hide G.S. there at the same time. His death would been made into a huge PR-campaign, since "he got killed by his own", no?

    ...
    The military's objective is to defend the country. Releasing hundreds of terrorists and validating the benefit of kidnapping soldiers from a terrorist view point is detrimental to the objective. Unfortunately, people are killed in war. People are also kidnapped. But to encourage kidnapping by releasing soldiers is not a strategic move for the military (however, Bibi gained himself a lot of political points for this). The military has spent countless hours rearresting some of the released prisoners due to their return to terror.
    ...
    I can only agree on this point. A country's military force should be responsible of defending the country and politics should not interfere with their job, nor vice versa.

    ...
    I know Gilad did not have a say in this, but the fact is that he did cost the military something. While the military does owe each soldier something, to suggest they owe trading 1000 prisoners for each soldier is absurd. Because, in his case, he did receive special treatment, I do wish to see him "give back" to Israel somehow. I do not know how he should - or even if there is a way to - repay Israel, but if there somehow is a way, I expect him to fulfill his obligations.
    Of course, he has had the government's attention more than the average person living in Israel. But as you also state, he had no say regarding his own situation after his capture. While you can blame him for not acting properly prior to his capture, I find it too absurd to require something back from him after his release to compensate for the "costs" he have caused. There are people that are more productive and people that are less in every country, but making people that have had the unfortunate chance of costing too much pay for it is something that's too much, IMO. At the end of the day, he is the one who have suffered the most. As if 5 years in captivity isn't enough, now he have people who expect him to pay back :/

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TT1 View Post
    First of all, I want to thank you for your answer filled with interesting information, giving one another perspective to look through!



    Actually, what you say might have required military actions to freeze for a period of time, I agree, but - IIRC - there were discussions even here that IDF was actively being hindered to act because of his captivity, as they didn't exactly know where he was hidden, thus making it hard to know whether if it was OK to bomb a certain target/building where he surely was not at. Imagine the consequences of an air attack conducted by IDF on, lets say an suspicious IED workshop, and the kidnappers were to hide G.S. there at the same time. His death would been made into a huge PR-campaign, since "he got killed by his own", no?
    Maybe it would have been made into a huge pr-campaign, but friendly fire is one of the costs of war. As to whether or not the IDF was not bombing certain locations because of Gilad possibly being there, I'm not sure which members made such a claim or their source for the claim, so I cannot comment one way or the other. If you look at Cast Lead, Israel attacked Gaza quite fiercely, despite Gilad being held within the *****, leading me to believe that the IDF was not as worried as you describe.

    Of course, he has had the government's attention more than the average person living in Israel. But as you also state, he had no say regarding his own situation after his capture. While you can blame him for not acting properly prior to his capture, I find it too absurd to require something back from him after his release to compensate for the "costs" he have caused. There are people that are more productive and people that are less in every country, but making people that have had the unfortunate chance of costing too much pay for it is something that's too much, IMO. At the end of the day, he is the one who have suffered the most. As if 5 years in captivity isn't enough, now he have people who expect him to pay back :/
    Again, I have no idea if there is a way to even pay back the costs (not in a financial sense of the word), but if there is a way, I feel that he should do his part and pay back. I guess since he is receiving money from the government because he is a disabled veteran, you could argue he has paid up front.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TT1 View Post
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!

    Am I wrong to think though, that the author of this article is somewhat wrong in his expectations of post-captive G.S.?
    Perhaps G.S. initially did act too passively, perhaps he could have avoided putting himself in captivity for 5 years if he had resisted his capture and been more of a "hero".
    This passivity is the problem. According to the author, GS has adopted the attitude that is called 'small head' in the IDF. A 'small head' is a person who lacks motivation, lacks initiative, does the minimum required from him, flees responsibilities, cares about his own comfort in all circumstances. This behavior is reflected in all the deeds of the soldier and, ultimately, it can endanger himself and his comrades.

    I guess this attitude exists in all conscript armies.
    From my own experience in the IDF, there was a 'small head' in each platoon of new conscripts. Each of them knew that his behavior is contrary to what the army expects from him. But the army knew very well how to deal with 'small heads'. The commanders had a panoply of punitive and inciting measures to make them change their attitude. In most of the cases, it worked, but when it didn't, one had to get rid of the soldier by sending him back to the manpower officer. He would affect him then to another job; usually a less rewarding or more painful job, because 'small heads' should never be rewarded.
    Furthermore, if the attitude of 'small head' is adopted by a commander, his own soldiers should oppose him, if necessary they should denounce the failures of their commander, because he may endanger them and others. Such was the philosophy of the IDF 30 years ago. It might have been relaxed a bit since then.

    GS knew that his behavior is wrong. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to blame him alone for what he was. His commanders should have been blamed too for the existence of a 'small head' in their unit.
    Furthermore, GS was a gunner. The gunner becomes the tank commander if the commander is killed or if he is wounded and is unable to continue to command the crew. An affectation of a 'small head' to the job of the tank's gunner is a double wrong.

    -------

    Actually, the crew of this tank was completely dysfunctional that day.
    Before entering the details of what they did wrong and what, more precisely, GS did wrong, it's necessary to give few more details that are absent in the article.
    The tank operated an ambush with an infantry force from Sayeret Yahalom. In such ambushes, the infantry is positioned in a way to provide close protection to the tank, while the tank dominates a larger sector.
    The infantry force ended the ambush and redeployed itself just before daylight. It was the correct procedure, because the infantry is not armored. But from the moment the infantry redeployed itself, the entire tank crew should have been already awaken. In any case, the crew should have been awaken with the arrival of daylight.
    The attack occurred an half an hour after into daylight; an half an hour during which the tank was visible to the surroundings, lacking close protection and with 3 of its 4 soldiers sleeping.
    The infantry soldiers redeployed just few hundreds meters away. (There was a heavy fog that morning and visibility was poor.)

    -------

    The crew of the tank was awaken by the hit of the RPG. The tank was not damaged and the whole incident could have ended with the firing of smoke flares and the retreat of the tank from the scene.
    But the commander and the loader made the mistake to leave the tank, to fight the terrorists as simple infantrymen, while GS followed the right procedure. He remained inside the tank. It was the safest place indeed, but from this moment on, GS became the new tank commander:

    • He should have assisted, from inside the tank, his comrades that were fighting, outside the tank. It was his duty towards them. Had he fought, the outcome of the battle might have been different.
    • Had he listened to the briefing prior to the ambush, he would have known that the soldiers of Sayaret Yahalom were redeployed nearby. If they were alerted, they could arrive quickly to rescue the tank crew. He should have informed by the radio the chain of command that the tank has been attacked.
    • When the commander of the tank and the loader got killed outside the tank, GS should have fired smoke flares and should have ordered the driver to get the tank out of the scene. (Actually, the driver was wounded and was trying, unsuccessfully, to open his shelve and get out of the tank, as the last order he has heard from the tank commander was to evacuate the tank. The driver was lucky that he couldn't get out and that the terrorists did not capture him too. Later, recovered from his wounds.)

    At this stage, the passivity of GS was hardly justified. And this passivity could have cost him his life. It lasted long enough to leave the terrorists the time to throw 2 grenades inside the tank.

    [*******#222222][FONT=Times]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mastermind View Post
    As a track commander in Vietnam who had three massive hits, I can tell you, Schalit can not be held accountable for his actions in the aftermath of the grenade blast inside his tank. One hit, was by a 57 mm reccoiless rifle, and I can tell you, it is almost unelievable that you survive such a fantastic blast. The RPG hit was in our fuel tank on the left rear of the vehicle and a massive sheet of flame shot up, descending thakfully outside the vehicle, if the wind had been blowing the other way, I would not be writing this today. But, the blast was enormous, my helmet was blown off, my shirt collar was shredded, thakfully, my flack jacket absorbed a large part of blast and schrapnell. You can not think, your ears ring like you can not beleive- you just feel awful- like collapsing in a heap on the floor. You try to think, but, can't get past a single thought- "Am I dead?"---You slowly recover, pick up a weapon, but, don't really know what to do with it- slowly your thought processes come back, but you can't hear anything for quite a wile. As you recover a bit more, you either continue the fight if the vehicle is capable or evacuate the thing and try to find cover or rescue by friendly forces. If any enemy forces were right up close and personal in the immediate aftermath, you would be easy pickings.

    Schalit has nothing to be ahamed of. That's my feeling on the matter.
    [/FONT][/COLOR]

    From this moment on, I agree with you that it is difficult to blame GS for not fighting back. One can not judge him, unless he was not in his position. Nevertheless, as GS did not fight back before the grenades were thrown inside the tank, it's impossible to know to what degree his behavior resulted from the trauma of the explosion of the grenades or was it a continuation of his previous passive behavior.

    Nevertheless GS went further. He has obeyed to the instructions of the terrorists and facilitated their retreat.
    GS was not the first soldier to be captured by terrorists and every soldier knows that he should attempt everything to make the task of his captors difficult, because the IDF will have to pay a heavy price to free him. This price is not always the release imprisoned terrorists: soldiers of IDF SF paid with their lives, attempting to liberate captive soldiers that were held hostages by Hamas and other groups.

    GS was wrong to cooperate with his captors during their retreat. Had he remained passive, had the terrorists been forced to tie and to carry their hostage on their back, their retreat would have been significantly slowed and GS might have been liberated by the forces that were on their way to the scene.

    But I think it's really shameful to expect that G.S. should "give back" to Israel after all of this. IMHO, a military force should have the obligation to care about its soldiers, as IDF in this case showed, in order to make the soldiers feel a trust for whom they serve.
    The IDF made the necessary to liberate its captive soldier and paid the full price, as the IDF has always done. But you should know that, in the past, soldiers were judged by military courts after they return from captivity, if they had a responsibility in the circumstances that led to their capture.
    It was not the case of GS who paid with 5 years in captivity. But for theIsraeli society, he became a celebrity and a hero. I think the author is upset by the fact that GS is lauded, while he shouldn't be. His history should be thought to young conscripts as an example of a wrong and condemnable behavior.
    Last edited by Camera; 04-01-2013 at 03:10 PM. Reason: More precisions

  9. #9
    Senior Member Mastermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    6,301

    Default

    @Camera's post- Excellent assessment. I have to agree with you overall. I think you have made a good observation, too about the wrong people in the wrong jobs. No doubt, that is the commander's responsibility. And, I can certainly understand how you conclude it is a failed responsibility in this case. I strongly agree.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Africanadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kyk noord en fok voort.
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Shalit is the type of person who it appears should never have been in a combat unit. He might have been an awesome clerk or cook, or something that he was more suited to. I would bet looking at his training reports from boot through to advanced training would have shown that he was simply not suited to the role he was shoved into. This ultimately led to his and the military's failure on that day. The weakest link in a combat unit is a big liability, the issue lies with him and his superiors for not moving him out of a combat unit.

    I would though say that his behaviour cannot be judged as being up to any acceptable military standard, yes, I was not in his position, but if I was, would I be able to say that I had not acted in a cowardly fashion? No, I'd have to bottle up and accept that I had been cowardly in this action. He wasn't a hero, just a scared kid who did not perform up to standard.

  11. #11
    Tel Aviv Stud tanks_alot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    6,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    [*******#3E3E3E]The crew of the tank was awaken by the hit of the RPG. The tank was not damaged and the whole incident could have ended with the firing of smoke flares and the retreat of the tank from the scene. [/COLOR]
    [*******#3E3E3E]But the commander and the loader made the mistake to leave the tank, to fight the terrorists as simple infantrymen, while GS followed the right procedure. He remained inside the tank. It was the safest place indeed, but from this moment on, GS became the new tank commander:[/COLOR]
    From what I remember, the RPG hit activated the fire extinguisher system inside the tank, in which case the crew does indeed need to evacuate the tank and that's probably why they got out, however, there are certain procedures on how to do so when in a frontal position - which had they been followed, this whole fiasco would have been avoided. hence, it was the officer who commanded the tank, who was at fault (on a number of other things as well). blaming Shalit, who without a doubt is no great hero, is a bit like blaming the shin gimmel.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tanks_alot View Post
    From what I remember, the RPG hit activated the fire extinguisher system inside the tank, in which case the crew does indeed need to evacuate the tank and that's probably why they got out, however, there are certain procedures on how to do so when in a frontal position - which had they been followed, this whole fiasco would have been avoided. hence, it was the officer who commanded the tank, who was at fault (on a number of other things as well). blaming Shalit, who without a doubt is no great hero, is a bit like blaming the shin gimmel.
    Actually, it seems that the extinguisher was not activated by the RPG, but by the blast of the fragmentation grenades that were thrown inside the tank, later. It's only then that Shalit said he was disturbed by 'smoke' and tried to get out of the tank; 'smoke' which probably originated from the extinguisher, because fragmentation grenades do not produce much smoke.
    Last edited by Camera; 04-05-2013 at 01:41 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Kaplanr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Eating eggs & hash browns. Nahal %^&*@strong 111.
    Posts
    5,984

    Default

    Not so sure I agree, at least on the Shin-Gimel (gate guard) part. The infantry's GS moment (or the Nahal's anyway) was 'Night of the Hang Gliders" in 1987. Had the Shin-Gimel stood his ground, would the other 5 have been killed. The ultimate irony being that it was the cook who ended the incident. Shalit never looked like he should have been there, but then neither did Tzvika Greengold of the YK War. I don't think it's appropriate to call him out at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by tanks_alot View Post
    From what I remember, the RPG hit activated the fire extinguisher system inside the tank, in which case the crew does indeed need to evacuate the tank and that's probably why they got out, however, there are certain procedures on how to do so when in a frontal position - which had they been followed, this whole fiasco would have been avoided. hence, it was the officer who commanded the tank, who was at fault (on a number of other things as well). blaming Shalit, who without a doubt is no great hero, is a bit like blaming the shin gimmel.

  14. #14
    Senior Member DasVivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Computer
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    Nevertheless GS went further. He has obeyed to the instructions of the terrorists and facilitated their retreat.
    GS was not the first soldier to be captured by terrorists and every soldier knows that he should attempt everything to make the task of his captors difficult, because the IDF will have to pay a heavy price to free him. This price is not always the release imprisoned terrorists: soldiers of IDF SF paid with their lives, attempting to liberate captive soldiers that were held hostages by Hamas and other groups.

    GS was wrong to cooperate with his captors during their retreat. Had he remained passive, had the terrorists been forced to tie and to carry their hostage on their back, their retreat would have been significantly slowed and GS might have been liberated by the forces that were on their way to the scene.
    So to play devils advocate, have you been captured to know how you would behave at the barrel of a Gun/Multiple Guns? In this forum we see alot of talk about People judging others who have not shared the same occupation or indeed experiences, so here I will go and ask, why should this man be treated any different? The vast majority of even Infantry Soldiers behavior somewhat submissively when captured, the reason being both the shock and uncertainty that awaits them.

    He might be wrong to an ideal form of conduct but realistically how many would be right if faced with a similar situation and how much is his blame and how much lies with those who put him in such a position if he was illsuited.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaplanr View Post
    Not so sure I agree, at least on the Shin-Gimel (gate guard) part. The infantry's GS moment (or the Nahal's anyway) was 'Night of the Hang Gliders" in 1987. Had the Shin-Gimel stood his ground, would the other 5 have been killed. The ultimate irony being that it was the cook who ended the incident. Shalit never looked like he should have been there, but then neither did Tzvika Greengold of the YK War. I don't think it's appropriate to call him out at this point.
    I fully agree with you.
    It's clear that there were problems in this tank and that they should be put on the account of the commander who ultimately was killed while fighting. There were maybe problems on higher echelons too, but all this does not discount the wrongs of Shalit.
    The example of the 'Night of the Gliders' is accurate. The terrorists surprised and killed Nahal soldiers in their sleep and the one who liquidated them was the cooker of the base who had little combat instruction.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •