Israel and Gun Control

If you are worried about gun control in America, you would not want to be an Israeli citizen.

There are recent headlines and talk about Israel relaxing gun control laws and arming citizens since the Hamas terrorist attacks October 7th. But these narratives can be deceiving. One Israeli tactical expert, Yonatan Stern, has exposed some concerning actions on behalf of the Israeli government that tell a different story.

Yonatan Stern was born in Israel in 1984, and joined the Israeli police at age 16, after growing up in Hebron, where he witnessed constant terror attacks. At age 18, he joined the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), where he served for three years. He then attended college, where he studied government and counter-terrorism operations before moving to the United States in 2007. Several years later he founded the Cherev Gidon Israeli Tactical Training Academy. Cherev Gidon means “sword of Gideon,” referring to the military leader, judge and prophet whose victory over the Midianites is recounted the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible. Stern brings a unique approach to firearms training that aims to address weak spots that he has identified in Americans’ firearm habits.

According to Stern, “almost nobody is allowed to own guns at all” in Israel. But most citizens enter the Israeli military at 18, and they are issued a rifle. Americans who enter the military are also issued rifles, but the difference is that American soldiers aren’t permitted to keep their rifles in their possession off base. “But in Israel it doesn’t work like that, in Israel, the soldiers usually leave their bases carrying their rifles with them,” says Stern. Upon discharge from the IDF, however, the rifle is taken from the Israeli soldier...

I wonder if they simply don’t want to arm the arab civilian population. I sure haven’t seen anyone official claim it’s a reason, but maybe they wouldn’t like admitting it either.

If that’s the case, I think probably they should have just thrown up their hands and said, ‘hey it’s a Jewish state formed specifically to protect Jews.’ So only Jews get the 2nd amendment analogue. Maybe give big tax breaks or even flat annual payments to non Jewish citizens as a trade off or something.

That they just don’t allow their regular civilian populace effective small arms for their own protection is wild, considering what they have all around them and how much they rely on foreign military aid for high tech weapon systems. Seems like allowing your regular citizens to arm themselves would be a pretty cheap means of defense.

Freegards

I understand that point of view. I look at it strictly as a military function. I know there are females at the right of the bell curve who can outperform men at the left of the bell curve (shown below).

I view combat roles in three areas, logistics (separate supply chain with female specific items/drugs/habitation/pregnancy status), unit cohesion (issues with males and females in combat areas), and mission capability (durability, ability to perform a job, whether manually hauling things or fighting hand to hand in a foxhole), and women simply don't add anything to the equations.

To the point-the military, from an operational and logistical perspective deals with "Average capabilities and supply needs" in everything from operational capability to boot sizes and underwear dropped into a long term combat zone where resupply is in question or limited.

In my view, these don't matter as much in a push-button war, but if we ever get into a conflict where we don't have a push button war and our logistic train is not secure (we do not control the air and/or sea) and could be cut off, the logistics come into play. Birth control would be unavailable, female products might become unavailable, and evacuation of pregnant females might not be possible. Imagine our Marines on Guadalcanal in WWII or the Chosin Reservoir in Korea.

This is not my view because I do not respect females-I wholly do, and have worked in the civilian world under females that I respect as much as any male. Or more so. I feel this way because of the reality of combat, and combat veterans I have discussed this with universally feel the same way-when the fastest male can run a marathon ten minutes faster than the fastest female can, or a 150 lb female stands zero chance in a boxing ring with a 150 lb male, that tells you something.

I adopt this stance not out of disrespect for females, but in total respect of what the combat role physically requires. I believe we do men in combat a disservice by forcing women to serve in combat roles. I believe that social experiment is a formula for failure, and it will be a failure we will pay for in blood, loss of battles, and losses of wars if we persist in trying to go down that path.

Our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen in combat should have absolutely every single factor weighted in their favor for success and survival in combat situations. If we diminish that by even the smallest degree because it is politically advantageous to do so, I think that is criminal.

And I fully concede that their inability to recruit males who see this dynamic with clear eyes is going to provide believers in sexually integrated combat units with the justification they search for.

Regardless of the justification, I believe the end result is the same. I have fully accepted that society makes this choice for roles such as Police and Fire departments, and our civilian population seems willing to sacrifice this reduction in capability that the video you referenced (the four female police trying to arrest the guy) demonstrates, but I refuse to willingly go along with it in the military.

That said, go it will, whether I agree or not with it.

“That they just don’t allow their regular civilian populace effective small arms for their own protection is wild, considering what they have all around them and how much they rely on foreign military aid for high tech weapon systems. Seems like allowing your regular citizens to arm themselves would be a pretty cheap means of defense.”
————
In the early ‘90s, I gave someone serious consideration to the idea of moving to Israel. However, I have always been very interested in exercising my Second Amendment rights, and when I found out what their policies were, I decided that I will live here and visit there. While there always seem to be people around with rifles in the big cities, those are people who are active duty or traveling somewhere, but the average citizen is at the mercy of those who do not wish them well, and dependent upon others for their defense. I choose not to voluntarily put myself in that position.

Israel desperately needs to do a 180 on its firearms policies. It has proven itself in capable of protecting its citizens, so the only alternative is to let their citizens defend themselves, in addition to whatever protection, the government can reasonably and effectively provide against invasion, by conventional armies, and against rockets and missiles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.