Showing posts with label refusal to serve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label refusal to serve. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Breaking the Silence 'Breaks Into' the NYTimes

The Opinion Pages of the New York Times hosted as an OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR someone who write:


That was on January 11 and his name is Moriel Rotheman-Zecher

He's in Facebook and looks like this, sometimes:


He's friends with Avner Gevaryahu


with whom I am also acquainted as I was on a panel with him at last year's Limmud UK but here seen with me at the Haaretz Peace Conference last summer:



More of MRZ's output here.

Moriel is "an American-Israeli writer and activist, born in Jerusalem, raised in Ohio, and back in Jerusalem. He expresses himself on issues of militarism, racism, occupation, violence, justice and peace".  In short, he's breaking the silence, as it were.

Here he is commenting on Silwan in 2012

It is true that in Silwan Israel is acting "within the bounds of Israeli law," but that law is at it's core a racist one, and thus not something deserving of much credit, especially in the context of prolonged occupation of East Jerusalem, recognized as legitimate by virtually no country in the world excluding parts of Israel. This is what Judge Boaz Okun called, in 2005, “legalism without law." 
He's a military service refuser.

With that background you can understand why the NYT would highlight his views and provide him the privilege of publishing in its pages.

And now to his current content:

“...Why are you here?”

“I didn’t want to be part of a system whose main task is the violent occupation of millions of people.”

“In other words: You love Arabs, and don’t care about Israeli security.”

“I think the occupation undermines all of our security, Palestinians’ and Israelis’.”

“You’re betraying your people,” he said.

...Refusal to serve is portrayed by politicians and pundits — many of whom began their careers through service in elite units — as treacherous and marginal...Rarely do more than a few hundred Jewish Israelis publicly refuse to serve each year in protest against Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. The shrill condemnation of refusers is thus an indication of the establishment’s panic.

Panic?  Take note of his use of "aggression" here:
Aggression toward refusers is widespread. When I accompanied a refuser named Udi Segal to his draft station during the Gaza war this summer, we were met by a group draped in Israeli flags and chanting, “Udi, you’re a traitor! Go live in Gaza!” 
If that is "aggression", although I would call that using one's human rights to assemble and protest non-violently, what then can we describe his refusal, that of his friends and his propaganda efforts on its behalf?  could it be assistance to the aggressive actions of Israel's enemies?

Then he gets 'cute':
The reality is that a majority of Israeli citizens do not serve in the military, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, or the “fifth column,” as they are often branded, and the ultra-Orthodox, or “leeches,” as they’ve been called.
First of all, he would perhaps be among the first to protest enlistment of Arabs (note, too, his use of 'Palestinian citizens', as if there's a country or political entity so-named) as they would be forced to engage in actions against their fellow nationals.  As for the Haredim,

MRZ attempts to position himself as a moderate:
The reasons for not serving may differ between a Palestinian youth from Acre and a Haredi from Beit Shemesh, between an 8200 veteran and an Ethiopian immigrant, between me and the deserter in Military Jail No. 6, but there is a deeper consensus: We all refuse to see the government as a moral guide and military service as sacrosanct. As the Israeli government leads us further from peace, and the army faithfully executes its violent orders, this is the kind of treachery we need most.
I don't think he would accept my analysis that the ability to make peace or at least, negotiate a peace arrangement, is nigh impossible. that is his prerogative. But to assume that undercutting and subverting Israel's ability to defend itself, to protect its citizens from terror is horrific.  He knows that if there is but the smallest chance to save a Jewish life then the IDF is to be elevated not only as a civic duty but a religious one as well.

The article, by the way, was poorly constructed and the sole reason the NYT published it is its unrelenting anti-Jewish state campaign.

^

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Who Will Set A Boundary to Yesh Gvul?

This ad of Yesh Gvul, calling on soldiers and reserve active-duty soldiers to refuse to serve "in Hebron and the Occupied Territories" ('and'?  Hebron is somehow not "occupied" a la Yesh Gvul???), was published in your favorite Israeli daily - Ha-Ha-Haaretz his past Friday (page 2, bottom left):-


Some of the text:

The government of Israel, by means of the army, the GSS and violent settlers administers a reign of violent apartheid in Hebron. Under the cover of empty slogans about holy places, the GOI downtrods 100,000 people...

...the Hebron apartheid is what sprouted Goldstein, the Jewish Underground and more...

It then artfully notes that those who decided to refuse to serve this "terror regime" did so on their own but merited to receive support from Yesh Gvul.

^

Thursday, April 28, 2011

IDF Supports Policy of Refusal-to-Serve Action

No, not a refusal to serve when a Jewish community is being destroyed, or evacuated or a withdrawal is taking place.  Not that.  That's too, er, Zionist in character.

The IDF is a "humanist" army and is still improving it's Zionism.

Here's the story:

IDF reserve refuses to carry out return of African refugees to Egypt


Soldiers and officers had heard descriptions from colleagues who regularly serve in the area about abuse of the Africans by Egyptian border policemen.
Soldiers and officers in a reserve battalion that served on the Egyptian border in recent weeks have told their commanders they will not take part in "immediate return" - the sending back to Egypt of Africans sneaking into Israel. The brigade commander, meanwhile, has confirmed that the battalion will not carry out "immediate return."

The Negev Brigade's elite reconnaissance battalion completed a three-week deployment on the border. Nearly every night, Africans crossed the frontier, mostly Sudanese and Eritreans, and at least one time, Libyans.
Early in the deployment, a family of Eritreans was stopped. A company commander was ordered to send the transients back toward an Egyptian checkpoint. The soldiers and officers had heard descriptions from colleagues who regularly serve in the area about abuse of the Africans by Egyptian border policemen - violence, rape and murder - and refused to carry out the order. The commander contacted the battalion commander, Lt. Col. (res. ) Avi Friedman.

Friedman supported his men and contacted the brigade commander, Col. Yair Barkat, who then agreed that the troops would not carry out "immediate return."

During the deployment, Africans received medical treatment, food, drink and were taken to a holding area on the Israeli side of the border.

An officer said this week that "this decision received the battalion's full support .... In no way was this a refusal to execute an order, but rather a respectable understanding between the battalion commander and the brigade commander, who was intelligent enough not to get into a conflict over this issue."

The battalion commander, Friedman, declined to comment other than to say he was "very proud of the battalion and fully supportive of the soldiers and officers."...

...Soldiers and officers from the battalion who spoke to Haaretz asked to remain anonymous. "We're proud of what we did, but we don't want to make a big deal out of it," one said. "What we had to say we said internally, to the battalion and brigade commanders. Israel has a problem, and they don't know what to do, so they fob it off on the army."

Now, don't get me wrong. I am all for human rights and liberties but I am just wondering, who gets to decide these matters and are similar situations capable of generating the same reactions, including that of Haaretz?

^

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

So Equitable

The father of Eyal Press is an Israeli doctor who stayed on in Buffalo, New York after coming to do advanced medical studies. Press himself is a Nation contributing writer and the author of Absolute Convictions: My Father, a City, and the Conflict That Divided America (Picador). He is working on a book about disobedience and dissent.

I found this a brief mention of his family in that book among others in which he noted:

a rift within my family: between the defiant Israelis on one side, and those with a vivid memory of surviving the Holocaust on the other.


His book provides insight into the abortion debate in Buffalo where a friend of his father, an abortion provider, was assassinated. His father, too, ran an abortion clinic. He touches on "the religious fundamentalism of his father's homeland" and "the lives of Press's defiant father, Shalom, who "at the core of his identity" couldn't "back down in the face of a threat," and his mother, Carla, a Holocaust survivor who endured comparisons of abortion clinics to Nazi death camps".

Well, Mr. Press has a book review essay out in the New York Review of Books, which is as left and Israel-critical as you can get within the sophisticated, liberal and progressive camp among the East Coast elite.

Called Israel’s Holy Warriors, and I do not as of this writing have the full text (*), he reviews these books: "Israel and Its Army: From Cohesion to Confusion" by Stuart A. Cohen, Routledge, 210 pp., $39.95 (paper); "Soldiers’ Testimonies from Operation Cast Lead, Gaza 2009" by Breaking the Silence, 112 pp.; "Israel’s Religious Right and the Question of Settlements a report by the International Crisis Group", 45 pp.; "Israel’s Materialist Militarism" by Yagil Levy
Lexington, 285 pp., $34.95 (paper).

His lead-in is the protest by two members of the Shimshon Battalion who held up the banner at their induction ceremony. He asserts that they

...were letting their commanders know that, if ordered to dislodge the settlers from Homesh again, they would refuse, out of loyalty to God.


While, of course, God is central for religious people, the fact that from every other ideological/political/security point of view the disengagement was a failure, and thus, all secular people would feel comfortable being in dissent, somehow escapes Press' scrutiny. He is focused on fundamentalist religious interference with the regular world.

He does record that

Until recently, displays of disobedience in the Israeli army were mainly carried out by so-called “refuseniks” on the left who risked being branded traitors (and sent to prison) to avoid serving in the occupied territories.


The rest of his thinking on this issue is, as I noted, beyond my reach but I see that something called New America Foundation is sponsoring Press at an event. The details:

Time and Location
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 9:00am - 10:30am
New America Foundation
1899 L Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC, 20036

Israel’s Holy Warriors
Religious Fundamentalism, Settlers, and the Israeli Defense Forces

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Eyal Press takes an in depth look at the explosive issue of settler religious nationalism in Israel’s army...Join us for a conversation about how the right-ward shift in Israel and growing strength of the religious settler movement is being reflected in Israel’s security establishment and how this can impact the bigger regional peace picture.

A light breakfast will be served.

Participants

featured speaker
Eyal Press
The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow
New America Foundation

respondent
Yoram Peri
Director, Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies
University of Maryland

moderator
Daniel Levy
Director, Middle East Task Force
Senior Fellow, New America Foundation


Well, isn't that a nicely balanced and fair panel?

Actually, it isn't. I know Yoram. Left of center. Levy is far left. Press seems to be way-left (he's into the economic inequality concern now.

The radical progressive camp - did I leave out democratic, humanist, ethical, et al.? - is so, er, equitable.



----

(*) Found it here

Israel and Its Army: From Cohesion to Confusion
by Stuart A. Cohen
Routledge, 210 pp., $39.95 (paper)

Soldiers’ Testimonies from Operation Cast Lead, Gaza 2009
by Breaking the Silence
112 pp., available at www.breakingthesilence.org.il

Israel’s Religious Right and the Question of Settlements
a report by the International Crisis Group
45 pp., available at www.crisisgroup.org

Israel’s Materialist Militarism
by Yagil Levy
Lexington, 285 pp., $34.95 (paper)

I.

One evening last October, several hundred new recruits to the Shimshon Battalion filed into the vast plaza adjoining the Western Wall in Jerusalem. At a site normally thronged with worshipers, the soldiers gathered to be sworn in to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), surrounded by parents and well-wishers who snapped pictures and recorded the proceedings with handheld video cameras. One of the videos would soon make news, capturing the moment when, instead of proudly reciting the oath of loyalty in which military induction ceremonies traditionally culminate in Israel, two of the recruits unfurled a banner that left the nature of their loyalties unclear. ‘Shimshon Does Not Evacuate Homesh,’ the banner proclaimed.

Homesh is a Jewish settlement whose existence may have slipped the minds of some Israelis, not least since, officially speaking, it doesn’t exist anymore. Situated on a steep hill a few miles northwest of Nablus, the remote, sparsely populated outpost was one of four West Bank settlements from which Israel withdrew in 2005 in connection with the Gaza disengagement plan carried out by Ariel Sharon. Houses were demolished, residents were relocated, and the area surrounding the vacated village was turned into a closed military zone. This hasn’t stopped some messianic Jewish settlers from returning to rebuild it. Again and again in recent years, the IDF has dispatched soldiers to remove them, but the settlers keep coming back, organizing pilgrimages, opening a yeshiva, and turning the ruins of Homesh into a symbol of their spiritual resolve.

The members of the Shimshon Battalion who held up the banner at the induction ceremony were letting their commanders know that, if ordered to dislodge the settlers from Homesh again, they would refuse, out of loyalty to God. The Israeli military wasted no time in dismissing their gesture of defiance as ‘a disgraceful disciplinary aberration.’ Those responsible were sentenced to twenty days in prison, expelled from the brigade, and denounced in a speech before the Israeli Knesset by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Yet a few weeks later, another sign appeared, this one suspended from the roof of a dining hall on a military base by members of the Nahshon Battalion, which declared, in solidarity, ‘Nahshon Also Does Not Expel.’ Two of the soldiers involved were squad leaders who, earlier that day, had refused an order to block right-wing activists from reaching another West Bank settlement where the Israeli Civil Administration had ordered the demolition of two illegal buildings. This was followed by a third sign, put up at the training base of the Kfir Brigade: ‘Kfir Does Not Expel Jews.’

Until recently, displays of disobedience in the Israeli army were mainly carried out by so-called ‘refuseniks’ on the left who risked being branded traitors (and sent to prison) to avoid serving in the occupied territories. The refuseniks making noise today come from Israel’s religious right, and they want to preserve the occupation, not end it. ‘Today, over a quarter of young officers wear skullcaps, ‘an Israeli general recently told the International Crisis Group, which devoted part of a July 2009 report to the trend. ‘In the combat units, their presence is two or three times their demographic weight. In the Special Forces it’s even higher.’

Some of these soldiers enter the military after attending pre-army Torah colleges, state-funded preparatory schools where high school graduates enroll for one year of ‘spiritual fortification’ before joining their peers. Others go to places like the Birkat Yosef Hesder Yeshiva, a religious academy funded by the government under a formal arrangement with the Ministry of Defense, where roughly 250 students divide their time between Torah instruction and military service over a five-year period. The first hesder yeshiva opened its doors in 1965: around 50 such institutions are spread across Israel and the West Bank today. Some of the soldiers responsible for the recent sign-waving incidents were graduates of Birkat Yosef.

Last November, I visited Birkat Yosef, which is set on a hillside overlooking the orange-roofed houses of Elon Moreh, a settlement near Nablus. The adjoining valley is where, according to Genesis, Abraham first entered the land of Israel, and where in the 1970s members of Gush Emunim, the movement dedicated to establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, began appearing with prayer books in hand. I met the academy’s director, Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, in his office, where he sat beneath a framed photograph of his mentor, the late Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, the spiritual father of the settlement movement, with whom he studied for sixteen years. I asked him what would happen if the army ever ordered a large-scale removal of Jewish settlers from the West Bank, which he regards as sacred Jewish land. ‘This will destroy the army,’ he said. ‘The order to do it will destroy the army.’ He compared it to being asked to eat nonkosher food. ‘If a [religious] soldier is told to eat milk and meat, what will he say? ‘Because they’re telling me, I’ll eat it?’ He won’t eat it.’

II.

The Israeli army has long maintained that it is up to commanders, not soldiers or their rabbis, to decide which missions to perform. But the IDF has never been a purely secular institution. As Stuart A. Cohen notes in Israel and Its Army, the desire to integrate religious soldiers into the military led Israel’s secular founders to chart an accommodating path. From the start, army bases were equipped with synagogues; mess halls observed kosher dietary laws. Copies of the Old Testament were given out to soldiers at induction ceremonies, and all troops were required to attend ceremonies such as the blessing of the wine before the Friday evening Sabbath meal. The goal, in part, was to foster cohesion. ‘Our army will be a united army, without ‘trends,’‘David Ben-Gurion insisted. The IDF’s accommodation of religious observances had the added benefit of imbuing military service with spiritual meaning.

Still, for many years religious young people either had an inconspicuous part in the army or avoided being drafted by requesting a deferment available to yeshiva students who wished to pursue full-time Torah instruction. The IDF’s senior levels were dominated by secular Ashkenazi Jews of European extraction and its elite battalions manned disproportionately by soldiers raised on kibbutzim. To some extent, the changes simply mirror how Israel itself has changed. A few decades ago, when becoming an officer was regarded as a means of upward mobility, young Israelis from the secular middle class competed fiercely for spots in the army’s top units. Today, many such young people aspire to be tech workers, patent attorneys, or filmmakers. They live in and around the prosperous commercial center often referred to as the ‘Tel Aviv bubble,’ where few people go around boasting of being officers anymore.

Practically all secular Israelis still fulfill the basic terms of military service required of citizens once they reach the age of eighteen-three years for men, two years for women, followed by reserve duty whose length and frequency varies depending on the unit. But many no longer grow up hoping to serve in elite front-line units or become officers, a trend dating back several decades. New groups-immigrants, religious soldiers-have taken their place. Not only are some 30 percent of officers openly orthodox but an estimated 50 percent of soldiers in officer training colleges are now religious. While many secular recruits from less nationalistic backgrounds have gravitated to noncombat units, their religious counterparts have volunteered for infantry battalions in which they not only serve but also lead. ‘In a few years, religious soldiers will make up the majority of brigade commanders in all areas,’ a ‘military Torah college head’ told the International Crisis Group.

The transformation of the political landscape has accelerated the shift. The nationalism that swept through Orthodox circles after the1967 Six-Day War created a large pool of highly motivated religious conscripts. Later, the 1982 Lebanon war and the first Palestinian intifada disillusioned many secularists, some of whom went on to become refuseniks. Meanwhile, the hesder yeshivas and, later, pre-army Torah colleges emerged, smoothing the recruitment and advancement of religious soldiers.

As a result of these changes, religious soldiers now ‘see themselves as leading the army,’ said Amos Harel, the military correspondent for Haaretz. Harel told me the story of a recent ceremony for an elite paratroopers’ brigade at which a female soldier rose to sing an anthem, unaware that she was violating a Jewish religious ruling known as kol haisha arve, which holds that listening to the voice of a woman is improper. The religious soldiers in the audience decided to boycott the performance. ‘I think about one hundred soldiers left, because they refused to listen to or watch a woman singing,’ Harel said. At the Shimshon Battalion’s swearing-in ceremony where soldiers held up the protest sign, three different religious leaders delivered sermons during the proceedings, interspersed with spiritual songs, according to Dror Ze’evi, a professor of Middle East studies at Ben-Gurion University, who was there because his son was among the inductees. Ze’evi himself had been inducted into a paratroop brigade a few decades earlier, also at the Western Wall, in a simple service with no preaching. The contrast with his son’s ceremony, he told me, disturbed him.

Overt preaching has cropped up on the battlefield as well. While serving in the Gaza war last January, a reservist I’ll call Avi Shalev (he did not want his real name used) attended a pep talk on his military base by a rabbi who cast the Gaza war as a battle between bnei ha-or-the children of light-and bnei ha-hosheh-the children of darkness. ‘In Hebrew literature, this is an eschatological war, a messianic war,’ Avi, who was himself brought up in the religious education system, told me. His disquiet deepened after he acquainted himself with some of the religious pamphlets strewn around the base.

One called for soldiers to show no mercy toward the enemy. Another consisted of a series of questions and answers. ‘Is it possible to compare today’s Palestinians to the Philistines of the past?’ it asked. ‘A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives…. The Palestinians claim they deserve a state here, when in reality there was never a Palestinian or Arab state within the borders of our country.’ The pamphlets were inscribed with the insignia of the army rabbinate and the IDF, which Avi said would have troubled him whether or not he agreed with the message. ‘Every person in the country is supposed to go to the army and in order for that to take place the army has to be a neutral place,’ he said.

Avi eventually took his concerns and some copies of the pamphlets to the group called Breaking the Silence, which recently published a collection of soldiers’ testimonies from the Gaza attack-called Operation Cast Lead-that features similar accounts from other reservists. An official in the army’s education department said that the more incendiary rabbis were outsiders. The IDF affirmed in a written statement that its chief rabbi, Avichai Rontzki, did not see or approve any published material that deviated from the ‘inclusive policy’ he set, a characterization that some of the army’s own officers might find curious. Before the war, Rabbi Rontzki expanded the activities of a unit responsible for inculcating soldiers with Jewish values but that some officers complained was engaging in religious proselytizing and political ‘brainwashing.’[1] Appointed by then Chief of Staff Dan Halutz in 2006 in an effort to appeal to the national-religious community, Rabbi Rontzki lives in the settlement of Itamar. (He wouldn’t be interviewed for this article, and will soon be replaced by Rafi Peretz, a rabbi from a similar background who is regarded as less divisive.)

Some Israeli commentators regard the growing influence of the religious right in the IDF as an ominous development. ‘Up until this period, the military prided itself on being very just-war oriented-that was the language we spoke,’ said Mikhael Manekin, co-director of Breaking the Silence (and himself a former IDF officer). ‘That’s the military ethical code and I think it’s common to most Western militaries. Now you’re talking about a different voice within the military. And a different voice openly within the military and sometimes prominent in the military.’

III.

Rabbi Moshe Hagar-Lau, a tall, rangy man with a bristly black beard, runs the Beit Yatir pre-army Torah college in the southern Hebron Hills, across the Green Line. In his sparely furnished office, I spotted a familiar picture on the wall, a photograph of Rabbi Yehuda Kook, who he affectionately referred to as ‘my rabbi.’ Pinned up next to Kook’s picture was another photo, however, of the person Rabbi Hagar-Lau called ‘my commander’-Defense Minister Ehud Barak. ‘In the army, there is only one commander,’ he said, which is why students at his academy were taught to obey orders whether they agreed with them or not.

Rabbi Hagar-Lau led me to the dining room, where lunch was being served. I asked a cluster of students in jeans, T-shirts, and yarmulkes what they would do if given an order to evacuate settlers. One who used to live in Gush Katif, a bloc of seventeen settlements in the Gaza Strip that was dismantled in 2005, told me this would be extremely difficult for him. But he said he would do it. All the others nodded.

Some analysts, including Stuart Cohen, believe that the threat of insubordination is overblown. Back in 2005, before Gush Katif was evacuated, numerous observers predicted that an attempt by the IDF to close such settlements would divide Israel and lead to mass refusal among the several thousand soldiers deployed for the mission. In the end, sixty-three soldiers were punished for disobeying orders, but there was no mass refusal. The event showed how strong the bonds of loyalty and discipline are in the army. Yet as the sociologist and IDF analyst Yagil Levy has shown, the smoothness of the disengagement owed a great deal to the meticulous planning that preceded it. Before a single settler was removed, units with a high percentage of religious conscripts were not allowed to deal directly with the settlers. [2]

A senior IDF official told me that commanders are being trained to deal with future outbreaks of disobedience. But if a similar withdrawal from the West Bank were planned, Levy does not believe that such a smooth operation could be repeated; in the West Bank, there are far more settlers. For Israel’s religious right, he said, settlements such as Hebron and Elon Moreh are ‘the real game.’ A senior Israeli military officer told the International Crisis Group that he would ‘rather give back Tel Aviv than Hebron,’ which he described as ‘Jewish land’ that ‘is promised to us by the Bible, by God…This ideology is the backbone of the army, and so I will not obey such an order.’

During the Gaza disengagement, many settler leaders and rabbis called on soldiers not to disobey because, as they saw it, disobedience would turn the country and the security establishment against them. By contrast, when the Israeli government introduced a plan to dismantle twenty-six illegal settlement outposts in the West Bank last May, a coalition of rabbis based in the settlements advocated refusal. ‘The holy Torah prohibits taking part in any act of uprooting Jews from any part of our sacred land,’ they wrote. After the incidents in which conscripts waved signs, some of the same rabbis met to praise them as ‘heroes.’ An organization on the far right called SOS Israel, which strenuously opposes ceding any part of the Holy Land to non-Jews, held a ceremony in Jerusalem to bestow 20,000-shekel cash prizes on the members of the Shimshon Battalion who started the trend.

Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned after the sign incidents that challenging the IDF’s hierarchy could ‘bring about the collapse of the state,’ Aryeh Eldad of the National Union party and Tzipi Hotobeli of Likud responded by introducing a bill that would prohibit the army from carrying out any future evacuations; eleven ministers joined as cosponsors. The measure calls for restricting such politically sensitive missions to the police-a force without the manpower or resources to execute them. Although the bill stands little chance of passing, it shows how much the political climate in Israel has shifted to the right since the Gaza disengagement, with a bloc of Knesset members now openly challenging the IDF’s authority to carry out missions in the territories that they believe, perhaps not wrongly, could spark mass mutiny.

Until recently, Ilan Paz, a retired brigadier general who served as head of civil administration in the West Bank, regarded pro-settler disobedience as a minor danger. He no longer feels this way: ‘I’m less worried about the problem of the soldiers-because with soldiers the army knows how to deal-than with the public support this phenomenon gets from the more right-wing sectors of society, from rabbis, from heads of the yeshivot hesder…from members of the Knesset.’ Paz noted the irony of right-wing Israelis-long-standing allies of the settlers-suddenly demanding that the IDF not intervene in political matters related to the occupied territories. ‘If we don’t find a way to stop this phenomenon, in my opinion it will proliferate, and the army won’t be able to do anything in the territories,’ he said.

In December, Defense Minister Ehud Barak ended the IDF’s relationship with the Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva, whose leader, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, had published a book distributed to its graduates that unabashedly promoted refusal.[3] It was an unprecedented step, a signal from the defense establishment that rabbis preaching insubordination will not go unpunished. Yet the other academies in the program, including the one run by Rabbi Levanon, are still being funded by the government, despite evidence that some of their leaders occasionally preach a similar line. In January, it was revealed that Rabbi Haim Druckman, who heads the committee that oversees hesder yeshivas and is considered a relative moderate, endorsed insubordination in a leaflet distributed in synagogues. At a subsequent meeting with an aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Rabbi Druckman insisted that he did not support refusal, but went on to say that there were times when a soldier could not obey an order that violated his conscience, which in his view did not constitute insubordination.

For a generation of national-religious youth who grew up in its aftermath, the Gaza disengagement has become a symbol of shameful acquiescence. Some of them are in the IDF now; others, like Moshe Frumberg, will be soon, unless they or their commanders have second thoughts. A seventeen-year-old settler with six-inch side-curls, Frumberg was recently summoned to a draft center in Jerusalem to undergo an initial round of tests the army conducts for recruits. Before leaving, he and two friends hung a sign at the entrance that declared, ‘We Won’t Be Drafted to Evacuate Jews!’

Frumberg lives in Havat Gilad, an illegal settlement outpost populated by young people known for their militant views. An admirer of the late Meir Kahane, he told me he’d slash the tires of trucks to prevent settler evacuations. Where was the limit to what he would do, I asked? ‘There is no limit,’ he said. Even among settlers, such views are extreme. But opposition to giving up more land-and a stated willingness to act on this belief-is increasing. While I was in Israel, a television reporter asked new recruits whether they would refuse orders to evacuate settlements. One after another said they would. A poll commissioned in February by the Maagar Mochot, an Israeli research institution, found that 48 percent of Israeli high school students would disobey evacuation orders. Of this group, 81 percent described themselves as religious.

On November 25, Netanyahu announced a ten-month freeze on some settlement construction. Settlers responded by blocking roads to prevent inspectors from handing out orders and, in one case, torching and desecrating a mosque, part of a new strategy to exact a heavy ‘price tag’ for any measure detrimental to their interests.[4] So fierce a reaction can be viewed as a sign of their fear that, like Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu may betray them. It can also be viewed as the predictable consequence of policies that have led settlers to feel they are entitled to take the law into their own hands. For all the outrage at the freeze, Dror Etkes, a researcher who has observed settlement activity for nearly a decade, told me that a halt in settlement construction has been observed at no more than a dozen West Bank sites and ignored at roughly fifty others. There is, he said, more construction underway across the Green Line today than a year ago.

Back in November, just before the freeze made headlines, Etkes took me to Haresha, a hilltop community near Ramallah that was established more than a decade ago without a legal permit. Today it has a synagogue, a school, an outdoor basketball court, and several houses built on what Etkes said used to be private Palestinian land, which the Israeli Civil Administration now claims is ‘state land.’ A paved road connects houses that have been hooked up to the same electricity grid and water supply that serve other legal and illegal settlements nearby. The Ministry of Housing helped subsidize construction. Orders to demolish the houses have been ignored. At one point, Etkes pulled to a stop in front of a bus station where a poster had been taped up on a glass window. It was a notice alerting residents to the event being held to honor ‘the loyal soldiers’ of the Shimshon Battalion who disrupted their swearing-in ceremony.

Notes:

[1] See Amos Harel, ‘Israel Military Rabbi Under Fire for ‘Brainwashing’ Soldiers,’ Haaretz, October 23, 2008. ‘In a number of cases it is religious brainwashing and, indirectly, also political [brainwashing],’ a senior officer quoted in the story complained about Rontzki’s activities.

[2] See Yagil Levy, ‘The Embedded Military: Why Did the IDF Perform Effectively in Executing the Disengagement Plan,’ Security Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2007), pp. 382-408.

[3] In the book, Revivim, Rabbi Melamed writes, ‘A simple halakha [law] is that it is forbidden for any person, whether a soldier or an officer…to participate in the strictly forbidden act of expelling Jews from their homes and handing over any portion of the Land of Israel to enemies.’ See Amos Harel and Anshel Pfeffer, ‘Meet the Rabbi Spurring IDF Troops to Refuse Orders,’ Haaretz, November 18, 2009.

[4] The strategy is described in detail in the report ‘Israeli Settler Violence and the Evacuation of Outposts,’ United Nations, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, occupied Palestinian territory, November 2009.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Let's Keep Politics Out Of The Army?

In response to the sign-waving of some soldiers who are perturned at the use of soldiers for evacuating Jewish homes and in cases, destroying them in Judea and Samaria, the cry has gone up: "keep politics out of the army".

Like this example:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday joined those condemning the actions of the Nachshon Battalion soldiers who declared Sunday that they would not throw Jews out of their homes in what the government terms illegal outposts. "I
condemn the phenomenon of soldiers refusing to evict people at outposts. We will
not all this activity to spread. Throughout the IDF's history, we were able to keep it out of the political debate in this country, and we will continue to do so," Barak said at a Beersheva high school.


Hmmm.

And what happens on the 'other side'?

This:

The Israeli security establishment is in a state of alarm over the possible departure of Mr. Abbas, whom it considers a genuine moderate. Some of its top members are urging their government to make far-reaching offers — “not just lifting a few roadblocks,” in the words of one — that would persuade him to stay in power and resume negotiations with Israel on a solution that involves creating an independent Palestinian state.


Gee, doesn't that read like politics to you?

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Look Who Is Excited

Code Pink and Jewish Voice for Peace are excited


And why?

As they write:

Maya Wind and Netta Mishly both signed the 2008 Shministim Letter: a declaration by Israeli high school students that they would not enlist in the IDF to occupy Palestinian territories and rule over Palestinian life. Since military service is mandatory for Israeli Jews upon completing high school, Maya, Netta, and many of the dozens of teenagers who signed the letter have been sentenced to military prison, sometimes for multiple terms. Code Pink and Jewish Voice for Peace are excited to be organizing a nationwide tour through the United States this Fall, in which these two women recount why they refused, what they have experienced as a result, and what it all means.


Further reference here.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Left-wing "Morality" in Israel

A mid-"Cast Lead Operation" advert calling for a 'discussion' on refusing to serve in the military:


Translation:

Boundaries of Refusal
Public Discusssion: Is It Moral To Refuse to Serve or To Serve in "Operation Cast Lead"

sponsored by

Courage to Refuse

Monday, August 20, 2007

And His Sons?

the Prime Minister's Office is considering publishing a blacklist of such artists so that local councils will know not to hire them for official celebration events.

The prime minister's adviser for social affairs, Vered Swid, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday she has been urging mayors nationwide "to take affirmative action on behalf of artists who have served their country"


Source.

Funny, but didn't one Olmert son refuse to do a reserve duty tour during the first lebanon War and did not the second skip his military service altogether?

An Off-Tune Singer

Max Singer takes up cudgels with Moshe Dann in a letter to the editor in the JPost.

Moshe had written:-

The IDF is a citizen army. Soldiers are conscripted; they serve with pride and without question. The IDF's strength and character are rooted in their mission to protect us. Its morale depends on the fact that we are proud of their sacrifices we support them wholeheartedly. Their battlers are ours -- and their losses. We pray for and celebrate them because they are us.

The purpose of the IDF is to defend its citizens, not to destroy their homes.

If the government wants remove Jews from their homes and destroy them, it should be done by a special force -- voluntary and paid -- not by the IDF. Enforcing Law and Order is the job of the police.


Singer writes:-

He is wrong, because the government orders the expulsion of Jews because it claims to believe that the expulsion is part of a program needed to protect the existence of the country. I believe that the expulsion program is part of a foolish policy that will increase rather than reduce the danger to Israel. But the government's foolishness is not an excuse for a soldier to disobey his commander's orders.

In order to change the government or its policy people have to make the sacrifices required to produce effective political majorities - either changing some of their ideas or doing the work and relationship-building required to change others' ideas. A minority, however idealistic, cannot separate itself from the majority, however flaccid, and claim the right to reject the majority's decisions as illegitimate.


Methinks Singer doesn't fully grasp democracy, morality in politics and the history of minority struggles.


Singer continues:-

But we cannot avoid having a government which may break the rules. When someone who wants to live in a Jewish country thinks the government is breaking God's rules, he or she has to face the unpleasant fact of being implicated in breaking God's rules. The choice is between deciding not to have a Jewish country because its government may or does break God's rules - although God seems to have told us to have one - or living with the country's sin, if that is really what it is, until politics can stop the sinning.


This is silly.

I don't want to argue the specific instance but direct nonviolent action by persons willing to suffer punishment is time-honored by Jews, especially, starting with the two midwives in Egypt who refused a direct order. Philosophically, Singer is off-tune.

MAX SINGER
Jerusalem

Friday, August 17, 2007

'Madman' Hillel Weiss

Excerpts from Hillel Weiss' Proud to be a madman

Israel faces physical annihilation from without, spiritual annihilation from within / My freedom is precious to me. My job as well. But some things are even more precious...I cannot be intimidated too much. There are too many examples in history of devotion and self-sacrifice. The real freedom is to worship God. All the rest is nonsense.


I apologized for cursing several times in most broadcasts on the day following the evacuation, and especially on Monday this week. After the widespread assault against me, one reporter told me, "But you already apologized last week." But it's not the apology they are interested in, it's my blood they are after. Me and my friends are the dam blocking the leftists' jihad against the Jews, and Jews like myself shall triumph, with God's help.

The discussion surrounding the boundaries of insubordination was not invented by the Right or the Left in Israel. Man's freedom has been earned by refusal, when just and moral. The leftist organization Yesh Gvul and the Shalem Institute on the Right have gathered and interpreted historical wirings about moral refusal. Man's honor lies in his refusal.

Just like there is a physical, eternal enemy that is threatening the Jewish people, there is a spiritual enemy that dwells in most of the Western universities, and has secured a stronghold at Bar Ilan University as well. This enemy has threatened University President Professor Moshe Kaveh with a High Court petition in order to have the university's title as a religious institution revised, based on democratic arguments. In their persecution of me they demonstrate the value of academic freedom, of freedom of speech and the democratic movement. I don’t know how the university's president managed to appease this hostile element, which I now realize has succeeded in shattering the moral backbone of those who signed the petition against me.

...Under the current circumstances, I am proud to be a madman. Yes, there are times when an honest man belongs in jail...

...I do not know how the witch hunt against me will end, but I wish to say that the Israeli authorities' abuse of Pollard has set a very high price tag for self-sacrifice. If I suffer even the smallest fraction of the burden of revealing the betrayal as he did, this would not be a surprise. The champions of democracy are capable of adopting, either freely or forcefully, any dictatorship.


P.S. Here's Rabbi Yuval Sherlo's position:-

Precisely because of a moral position based on Jewish law, it is our obligation to save the duty of insubordination to those rare times where this is truly a duty, and to those cases where there is indeed no point to the existence of government institutions if those are the decisions they make.

Insubordination is a worthy deed when we find ourselves in a situation where it's better to topple everything as long as the terrible order does not remain intact. Any other use of this moral principle, and particularly when we're talking about cases that are very far removed from the ones dealt with by various refuseniks, creates two grave injustices: Firstly, it erodes the duty of refusal and deteriorates it into a political manipulations. Secondly, it creates a moral injustice in the face of other considerations on the opposing side of the issue.

Therefore, the weapon or refusal must be taken out of the arsenal of tools used in our very just struggle for getting back the stolen Jewish property in Hebron. This kind of insubordination is a deed whose morality is somewhat distorted and it is being undertaken without genuinely examining the conscience, particularly when this is done as a collective act.

The very moral struggle for settlement in Hebron must be undertaken morally.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Sedition or Just Plain Silly

Yehuda Ben-Meir, a former Bobsey-twin (Zevulon and Yehuda of the Young NRP Guard) who palyed the Gush Emunim card for all it was politically worth, has an insight:-

...we are not talking here about the refusal to carry out orders on the part of young soldiers, but rather about a much more serious, deep-seated and dangerous phenomenon.

We are facing an organized, calculated attempt at sedition, pure and simple. In effect, it is a conspiracy to chip away at and destroy the ability of the Israel Defense Forces to fulfill its purpose and mission as a people's army in a democratic state. In other words, what we are dealing with is an effort to prevent the IDF from being the long arm of the lawful, legitimate government and carrying out any task assigned by the elected leadership of the state. It is essential that Israeli society understand what it is facing, because only then can it take the actions necessary to avert the plot.

There is a small but well-organized group of extremists, led by a few zealous rabbis, that has resolved to prevent the evacuation of Jewish communities in the territories at any cost. These people have no "red lines" and are scornful of the democratic process.


Granted, Ben-Meir can have his point-of-view. But after all, politicians also use the IDF for their own political desires and these can be innocent, silly or stupid. They could also be wrong.

Ben-Meir, of course, will say that in a democratic society, the citizen must yield before the elected officials. Non-violent direct action folks would say that the citizen has not forsaken his obligation in-between elections and by his actions, such as refusal to serve, to pay taxes, to buy this or that, etc., assumes joint responsibility to run the state. He must except the punishment as prescribed by law, true.

But, in our case, if the citizen is convinced that the policies of retreat and withdrawal over the past 40 years have not brought peace and security and have only encouraged Israel's enemies - and I leave out ideology or theology - then each citizen needs make, everyday, a moral choice.

That, Prof. Ben-Meir, is not sedition. It's called democracy.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

On Refusing to Fulfill an Order

Who wrote this?

It wasn’t easy for me to come out with a public call last week to Israeli residents to oppose the evacuation of Jews from Hebron. Hebron is Jerusalem, NOT Yamit.

I called for passive, non-violent resistance against the declared intentions of the government in Hebron. It was only because I am convinced that the security and inalienable rights of Jews in every part of Eretz Yisrael will be irreversibly eroded if the government carries out its plans in Hebron, that I decided that we must arise and passively resist the uprooting of Jews from Hebron. And if, G-d forbid, the government does carry out its intention, it should know, in advance, that we will return to Hebron.

I have no doubt that the Jews in Israel and abroad feel that the government of Israel has lost its sense of Jewish-Zionist direction. The mere thought of sending IDF soldiers to evacuate Jews from Hebron is clear proof of this. Jews feel, justifiably, that the fate and future of the State of Israel is being threatened.
For most of my life I have obeyed orders as well as issued them as a soldier and commander in the IDF. Therefore, I am aware of the absolute importance of the duty incumbent on every soldier to carry out the legal orders, in order to preserve the military system which defends us.

At the same time, warning must be given, that if the Israeli government dares to uproot Jews from the heart of Eretz-Yisrael – a situation will develop in which the military will eventually have nothing to defend except itself, and will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate. After all, the IDF was organized to defend the Zionist settlement drive, which was threatened from the start as a result of Arab aggression, even before we returned home to Hebron. It was only with tremendous pain that we were able, in 1948, to retain part of Jerusalem.

If the government uproots the Jews of Hebron, it will be uprooting a vital cornerstone of the IDF -- which is indispensable for the defense of all parts of Israel. Therefore, although every soldier and commander must obey the legal orders of the government, so too, must every citizen in a democratic country ask himself what he is supposed to do when he is convinced that the policy of the government endangers him, his future and his family.
This question is a particularly burning one, with regard to the security of the Jewish state which is increasingly being jeopardized as the government continues to give the PLO a hold on our land by undermining and uprooting Jews from their homes.

Every Jew must feel as if he is personally going to be ousted from Hebron. Each one of us must understand that if we will not stand up to stop the uprooting of Jews form Hebron, we may very well – in the future – be uprooted from Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba or from any other place.

In contrast to the days of exile, it is not only the right, but the obligation of every Jew, in a Jewish democratic state, to stand up and warn his government, through passive resistance, of the disaster that it is bringing upon all of us. What Jews could not do in Germany and Poland before their extermination, they must do in their own country. They have to rise en masse and resist.


Who wrote this?

Ariel Sharon, April 15, 1994, “Israel Is Being Used As A Guinea Pig for The Oslo Peace Experiment” The Jewish Press.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Yeshayhu Leibowitz's Call for Civil War & Refusal to Serve

I came across this clipping I had been saving and I figured now is as best a time as ever to put it up (before I lose it again).

It's entitled, "Prof. Leibowitz to Soldiers: Refuse to Serve in the Territories - Appeared at Tel Aviv University and announced: A civil war is not the greatest tragedy than can happen to us".

Here's the Hebrew original -



Now, I just wanted this up here for the record. This icon of the far-left, who viewed him as their secular saint although he was a Halachic as the best, couldn't give a darn about Jewish blood.

And what is the greatest tragedy a la Leibowitz?

National consensus of evil foolishness and foolish evil.


Sop, now, paraphrasing what George Bernard Shaw once said, it's now only a matter of who is the fool.