"We refuse to serve in the Israeli occupation"

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Well, I'm torn here. Not about the whole "Israeli vs Palestinian" thing, I know where I stand on that. I mean my feelings on these kids.

On one hand, I can admire the fact they're standing up for what they believe in and are willing to go so far without resorting to unlawful (or at least, violent) practices to get their message across. That's something I've never understood about protesters who decide to set police officers on fire. It might make a great photo opportunity, but you're definitely going to jail and no one is listening to your side of the story after that. If these kids truly believe serving in the Israeli military is wrong and something they can't do, then perhaps they shouldn't be there, if for no other reason, they'll be a liability to the soldiers who'd otherwise depend on them.

On the other hand... it's an extremely well-known law that all citizens (men and women) of Israel must serve a stint in the military. This really isn't about personal feelings, it's about doing your duty and protecting your home country. There are plenty of ways to serve without actively firing any weaponry. Support roles are always needed and what soldier would ever turn away a good medic? In some ways, it almost sounds to me like these kids are attempting to avoid their legally-bound military service, under the guise of "it's wrong, so we refuse." While I disagree with a draft, the nation of Israel is so small, that most countries have more people in their own military forces than Israel has in its entire country! Mandatory enlistment, in Israel's case, is an unfortunate necessity of life.

If Israel were the size of the U.S. (or practically any other country, with the possible exception of Luxembourg), I'd say losing a few new recruits wouldn't be a big deal. In Israel's case, it is. Furthermore, allowing these kids to get away with actions such as this may set a dangerous precedent for others.

True.

Enemies of Israel would like to see all of Israel disarmed. Remember, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by tribal idiots that would like to wipe them off the map.

[IAMX 3,055]

I fail to see how that differs with what I wrote earlier. A "conscientious objector" could easily perform one of the many non-combatant roles that the military requires. Just because you aren't hefting a rifle, manning a tank or flying a plane, that doesn't mean you aren't providing a necessary (and often overlooked) service.

Conscientious objection mostly doesn't mean "I don't have a rifle in my hand but I'll serve in some other way". It may to the few who wouldn't serve based upon some objection to guns. However, what it does mean is "I refuse to serve for the military of a nation in which I question/object to their reasons for war". So it would make no sense to serve anyways doing something else.

"A conscientious objector (CO) is an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organization armed forces. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the CO objects to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service."

The above quotation is from Wikipedia. Granted, that can be a shaky source at times; however, the "first case" (the part I have in bold) is the form of conscientious objection I am the most familiar with.

That's the government version of a CO, not a CO's definition of a CO. The second choice is a more accurate depiction.

Edited August 29, 2008 by SRVT

[Otto 83]

Cant speak for Israel but in Germany, if you don't want to serve the mandatory military service, you can do community service instead...

[DeadPoolX 9]

I fail to see how that differs with what I wrote earlier. A "conscientious objector" could easily perform one of the many non-combatant roles that the military requires. Just because you aren't hefting a rifle, manning a tank or flying a plane, that doesn't mean you aren't providing a necessary (and often overlooked) service.

Conscientious objection mostly doesn't mean "I don't have a rifle in my hand but I'll serve in some other way". It may to the few who wouldn't serve based upon some objection to guns. However, what it does mean is "I refuse to serve for the military of a nation in which I question/object to their reasons for war". So it would make no sense to serve anyways doing something else.

"A conscientious objector (CO) is an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organization armed forces. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the CO objects to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service."

The above quotation is from Wikipedia. Granted, that can be a shaky source at times; however, the "first case" (the part I have in bold) is the form of conscientious objection I am the most familiar with.

That's the government version of a CO, not a CO's definition of a CO. The second choice is a more accurate depiction.

A CO's definition of themselves is irrelevant. If someone is legally bound to perform a task for the military, then they have two choices -- take on a role that is either more violently-oriented or one that isn't. I'd think that a CO would prefer being a medic, since that's a position where he or she can save lives (and not just of their countrymen, but of the opposition as well). If a CO chose to do nothing, all of those people he or she could have saved would likely die. Now there's a good choice for peace, if I ever saw one!

[IAMX 3,055]

A CO's definition of themselves is irrelevant. If someone is legally bound to perform a task for the military, then they have two choices -- take on a role that is either more violently-oriented or one that isn't. I'd think that a CO would prefer being a medic, since that's a position where he or she can save lives (and not just of their countrymen, but of the opposition as well). If a CO chose to do nothing, all of those people he or she could have saved would likely die. Now there's a good choice for peace, if I ever saw one!

As a CO, I would disagree. It makes little sense to support the military when disagreeing with the basis of the war. That's the entire point of raising the objection.

As for the latter, I can't be responsible for others who decided their way, and others deciding to serve doesn't mean I must follow or support them in any way concerning the war.

Edited August 29, 2008 by SRVT

[DeadPoolX 9]

A CO's definition of themselves is irrelevant. If someone is legally bound to perform a task for the military, then they have two choices -- take on a role that is either more violently-oriented or one that isn't. I'd think that a CO would prefer being a medic, since that's a position where he or she can save lives (and not just of their countrymen, but of the opposition as well). If a CO chose to do nothing, all of those people he or she could have saved would likely die. Now there's a good choice for peace, if I ever saw one!

As a CO, I would disagree. It makes little sense to support the military when disagreeing with the basis of the war. That's the entire point of raising the objection.

As for the latter, I can't be responsible for others who decided their way, and others deciding to serve doesn't mean I must follow or support them in any way concerning the war.

In the case of a volunteer military, I'd agree. However, Israel doesn't have that. At the very least, it requires a small amount of service from each individual. Israelis aren't "deciding" to serve. It's written into their contract as citizens of their country. Sure, some can disobey, but the consequences for such actions are often quite harsh. I'd have to assume that there are both professional and social repercussions for refusing to serve in the military as well, since doing so is considered "an Israeli's duty to their country."

This is like a lot of issues in life, really. While you can do something, it wouldn't be wise to do it, since going ahead with it would be -- more or less -- shooting yourself in the foot. Some causes just aren't worth it if in the end, all it does is wreck your life.

[IAMX 3,055]

A CO's definition of themselves is irrelevant. If someone is legally bound to perform a task for the military, then they have two choices -- take on a role that is either more violently-oriented or one that isn't. I'd think that a CO would prefer being a medic, since that's a position where he or she can save lives (and not just of their countrymen, but of the opposition as well). If a CO chose to do nothing, all of those people he or she could have saved would likely die. Now there's a good choice for peace, if I ever saw one!

As a CO, I would disagree. It makes little sense to support the military when disagreeing with the basis of the war. That's the entire point of raising the objection.

As for the latter, I can't be responsible for others who decided their way, and others deciding to serve doesn't mean I must follow or support them in any way concerning the war.

In the case of a volunteer military, I'd agree. However, Israel doesn't have that. At the very least, it requires a small amount of service from each individual. Israelis aren't "deciding" to serve. It's written into their contract as citizens of their country. Sure, some can disobey, but the consequences for such actions are often quite harsh. I'd have to assume that there are both professional and social repercussions for refusing to serve in the military as well, since doing so is considered "an Israeli's duty to their country."

This is like a lot of issues in life, really. While you can do something, it wouldn't be wise to do it, since going ahead with it would be -- more or less -- shooting yourself in the foot. Some causes just aren't worth it if in the end, all it does is wreck your life.

Isn't part of the reason for immigration for a "better life"? If one has it mandatory they serve and want to jail them, they should also give the option of living elsewhere. Of course, that wouldn't happen, and it would mean evading Israel authorities, and the U.S. has it's head firmly planted up Israel's rear end, so good luck with that.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

... it's an extremely well-known law that all citizens (men and women) of Israel must serve a stint in the military. This really isn't about personal feelings, it's about doing your duty and protecting your home country. There are plenty of ways to serve without actively firing any weaponry. Support roles are always needed and what soldier would ever turn away a good medic? In some ways, it almost sounds to me like these kids are attempting to avoid their legally-bound military service, under the guise of "it's wrong, so we refuse." While I disagree with a draft, the nation of Israel is so small, that most countries have more people in their own military forces than Israel has in its entire country! Mandatory enlistment, in Israel's case, is an unfortunate necessity of life.

Incorrect. Israel's Ministry of Defense has automatically exempted all non-Jewish women and all Arab men (except the Druze) from compulsory military service ever since Israel was established. In addition, many Haredi Jews refuse to serve in the Israeli military for religious reasons -- those enrolled in yeshivas are legally exempt from military service. Also various Hasidic groups are permitted to refuse any Israeli military service.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Enemies of Israel would like to see all of Israel disarmed. Remember, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by tribal idiots that would like to wipe them off the map.

What are you babbling about ? None of these Israeli youths have said that Israel should "disarm." They are saying that they won't take part in Israel's illegal and immoral military occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

[desert_fox 32]

Sounds just like the draft dodgers from Viet-Nam days....2 years in a fed prision or go to Canada.

A CO in the US does not get to choose which wars are just o unjust. He must be opposed to all war. The CO's in Viet-Nam served as hospital orderlys. At least they got paid and an an honorable discharge.

[Ggreen 12]

Enemies of Israel would like to see all of Israel disarmed. Remember, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by tribal idiots that would like to wipe them off the map.

What are you babbling about ? None of these Israeli youths have said that Israel should "disarm." They are saying that they won't take part in Israel's illegal and immoral military occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

I think he didn't read the topic.... as usual.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Sounds just like the draft dodgers from Viet-Nam days....2 years in a fed prision or go to Canada.

A CO in the US does not get to choose which wars are just o unjust. He must be opposed to all war. The CO's in Viet-Nam served as hospital orderlys. At least they got paid and an an honorable discharge.

#1. A conscientious objector is not the same thing as a draft dodger. COs go through the legal system to be granted the legal right to refuse service.

#2. Not all COs during the Viet Nam war served as hospital orderlies, although some did. Normally, their assignment depended on their personal beliefs about serving in a non-combat military capacity. Usually, COs were ordered to perform an "alternative service of two years of low-paying work in the public sector in a location beyond commuting distance from home." This could include working in a military or civilian hospital, community health care, education, conservation, or even caring for the elderly, among other things.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Israeli Concientious Objector Goes to Prison

August 26th, 2008

Sahar Vardi, 18, has long been a friend of PSP and a committed solidarity activist in the Occupied Territories. Palestine Solidarity Project is honored to work with her and support her and the other Israeli youth who refuse to serve in the Israeli Occupation Forces. These young men and women, who have made a huge commitment to Palestinian liberation by not supporting their government’s policies and participating in the solidarity movement inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories, are true solidarity activists.

She is part of a larger group of High School seniors who signed a joint letter informing the Israeli Ministry of Defence of their intention to refuse to serve.

On August 25 Sahar was sentenced to an initial 7 days in prison, which is expected to be renewed when completed. A demonstration was held outside an induction base before she was put into military prison later in the day (see video below). The demonstration was confronted by a small group of counter-demonstrators who became violent with the peaceful demonstration but overall the event was a celebration of Sahar and other young Israelis refusing to serve.

http://palestinesolidarityproject.org/

[Y's_habibitk 2]

Thanks for sharing WOM, I LOVE it!

Cant speak for Israel but in Germany, if you don't want to serve the mandatory military service, you can do community service instead...

Go on Germany! Thats really a great alternative.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Y_habibitk

[Nasturtium 500]

Enemies of Israel would like to see all of Israel disarmed. Remember, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by tribal idiots that would like to wipe them off the map.

1. Not all peoples who surround Israel or want it to be destroyed are tribal. The majority are NOT tribal.

2. What, exactly, would you define the Jews as then? They do come from 12 tribes if you remember.