If they oppose the occupation, shouldn’t they be volunteering to evacuate settlers?

Bullshit! While I am disgusted by those who refuse to serve I don’t believe your statement “The number of secualr draft-dodgers already passed the charedim some time ago.” Back that up with some facts please. For the record, I am a secular Jew living in Israel that serves in Miluim. Majority of my friends do as well. Where do you get this shit from?

Asaf, if you believe that the actions of these refusniks are commendable, do you also believe that all israelis should refuse to serve until israel changes its policies? Or is this more of a selfish ideology in which only you and your over-privileged, rebellious, dimwitted, pseudointellectuals friends are entitled to proscribed?

They deserve their sentences for their insubordination. What gives them the right to choose not to serve, when other Israelis, even those who do not agree do so all the time. Isreal’s army is essential to its survival period. Besides 150 is hardly a drop in the bucket and at the far end of the bell curve, hardly worth even noting.
“of course i think all israleis should refuse. obviously israel wont be able to afford such a situation while trying to sustain the occupation.” You would probably welcome such an occurence to impose what you feel is right on all of Israel, such an action would probably destroy Israel but this probably doesn’t matter to you

While I vehemently disagree with currently commissioned and conscripted members of the IDF refusing to carry out their orders, and fully support harsh punishment for them, I support these students’ right to refuse to serve, especially if they are willing to instead perform a comparable term of national service. And that is really the important thing: that everyone in the nation sacrifices for the good of the nation.

Asaf were you at Pace University a last year or two years ago sitting together with some arabs and self-hating Jews showing how Israel is harming the “poor palestinians?” There was a sorry Asaf up with the panal – someone ashamed of his own heritage.
Shame.
For all others here, listen and learn how right Meir kahane is. He used to say that people don’t understand there are only two choices in the end: Kahane or Arafat.
There is no in between, when you reject Kahane you automatically endorse Arafat.
Either you stand up proud and say This is my land – Jewish land and we are not ashamed if you don’t like it -get out! …..but if you don’t sy that you turn into Asaf and company…

Mati Golan in the financial newspaper Globes writes about this twice a year in the printed edition quite passionately. Sorry, the archives are subscription only.
1/4 of all conscripts requests to see the kaban
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles…
Also,
the army released a report stating that 40% of men do not get drafted, only 9% because of ‘torah’.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles…
from 2002: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasit…
or http://www.ynet.co.il/articles…
we know that not all Israelis are ‘crazy’, most just don’t want to waste time in the army for ‘no reason’.
Read here about Israeli role models: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles…

few drinks not needed (though are welcome), but a few distinctions are necessary. The israeli refuseniks are indeed the tip of an iceburg of a much greater phenomenon known as grey refusal, of people who dodge the draft in various ways. The refuseniks do it for political reasons or matters of conscience while the rest do it for non-political reasons, that some might dub “selfish”. i would like to argue, though, that not serving in the army, even for supposedly selfish reasons, also implies that these people dont believe that serving in the army equals to defending the country.
the refuseniks discussed in the article are willing to sit in jail for long periods of time, so i think that its hard to argue that they are acting becuase they want to avoid the discomfort of the army. if that was the case, they could have easily gotten out of the army by simply lying.

Well J, its pretty simple, just flip around the order of your paragraphs. Since I claim that “Israel is undemocratic in its policies toward the Palestinians.” (or as I would phrase it, the military regime isnt democratic, making millions of palestinians who live in israel’s de facto borders residents without any democratic rights) Thus, I have no problem whatsoever refusing to serve in the army that is actually enforcing that undemocratic military regime over the Palestinians.
It would only be hypocracy from my part if claimed that Israel is not democratic while joining the army.
I understand if you dont accept my assumptions (though I still didnt find a convincing argument showing that the military regime over the palestinians is democratic), but I’m afraid you won’t find (at least in this case) any inner-contradiction.
fyi conscientious objection is a democratic instrument, accepted in many countries around the world.
and to avoid the repeated question – I fully support refusal of soldiers who arent willing to take part in evacuating settlers homes, etc.

Asaf:
It must feel very liberating to be emancipated from the rule of law. While there are certainly times and places where the most moral position is to break the government’s laws (no complaints from anyone here about Germans in the 1940’s who refused to serve, I expect), you have a very large burden of proof to overcome when you deligitimize the government of Israel to the point that you encourage refusal to serve. Are we supposed to imagine that several million West Bank Arabs can be granted a vote without severe consequences to Israel? And even if you support a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank, do you think the argument that having the Green Line as a border with what will inevitably be a hostile entity allied with other, well-armed hostile entities (such as Iran) poses a real threat to Israel to be so bankrupt that Israel has to be declared undemocratic? I think you could delegitimize every government that ever existed with your standards.
Further, don’t expect that your ideas will lead to the results you expect. The far right can just as easily find reasons to delegitimize the government – the banning of Kach; lack of vigorous self-defense; naive entry into foolish ‘peace’ deals; and on and on. Is your objection to the actions of Yigal Amir simply that he miscalculated in his analysis of Rabin’s motives and/or the ‘peace’ process?
“fyi conscientious objection is a democratic instrument, accepted in many countries around the world. ”
It’s never really been all that accepted, although we can argue over what “accepted” means. However, I can tell you that it’s far less accepted when a country is at war and its existence is threatened.
“and to avoid the repeated question – I fully support refusal of soldiers who arent willing to take part in evacuating settlers homes, etc.”
I’ll complete the irony here – I’m against the evacuation (on practical grounds of avoiding the appearance of appeasement) but I don’t support the refusal of the soldiers to take part (despite these soldiers being some of my favorite people in the world). (I wouldn’t be against some practical accomodation – like avoiding giving the orders to objecting soldiers – if feasible, but only because the evacuation is likely to be a one-shot deal.)
By the way, could you give me some examples of governments, past or present, that you WOULD consider to be democratic?

Point of contention is: to what extent should one obey an order… And we have the history to prove there is such point. When is the IDF’s charter to ‘defend’ has crossed basic humane lines and for what purpose? Can you really say that keeping the West Bank is a democratic choice?

Joe Schmo:
“This discussion and many of the discussions here are all working with one postulate: Democracy is more important than everything else – even more important than having a Jewish country and more important than life.”
Not so, in my case. I argue that built into the definition of democracy is the notion that a democratic state is permitted to make otherwise undemocratic moves in order to survive (consider Abe Lincoln, probably the most egregious violator of the Constitution in history, yet adored – rightly – today). Also, though it’s more arguable, that a democratic state can define its polity, especially when the excluded people are hostile. So, at least for me, there’s no need to concede that Israel – or Honest Abe – are/were undemocratic. I don’t understand why you concede this point so easily.

J, you write “Also, though it’s more arguable, that a democratic state can define its polity, especially when the excluded people are hostile.”
Once you say that in effect you are saying that western democracy is out the window. it reduces to a theocracy- why a theocracy you ask.
Well, a theocracy means that the country is ruled according to ideology not according to what people want. In this case if the majority of people which would include arabs want no Israel and since that contradicts with your idealogy of having a Jewish state based on Jewish ideals (whatever you consider them to be) you are willing to disenfranchise their will.
Your terming them as “hostile” is only because they choose to have no Israel which is “hostile” to you – so that is a circular argument.
I look at this and I realize that in all honesty this is not western democracy unless I want to fool myself with hyperbole- so I come up against a choice jewish state vs democracy and I choose a jewish State.
J where is my mistake?

Joe, What’s called ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story’… eh?
I would argue that you can find any facts to support your point of view on the net.
For example here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/p…
and here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/araf…
And, wait a minute – how odd? This one is from the Israel Foreign Ministry website… see bullet point number six:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peac…
So, indeed, there is a long history of denial for the Israeli right of existence. There was also a complete denial on the Israeli side to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians (remember the last subject we dialogued about?). So? If there was no movement in these issues we would not have peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Changes take time. The Saudi Initiative might be false, but it might be the beginning to start a new phase in our relationship with our neighbours. But we don’t have the balls or the leadership to try.
And, anyway, what has that got to do with Democracy – if the Arab kept wishing for our demise, getting out of the territories will not change it. And if you say that this will strength their resolution, so what? – where is the change to the balance of power? Before, we were surrounded by people who hate us (- according to your equation) AND kept one of the strongest armies on the planet, FINANCED by the biggest bully in the schoolyard, and now, well, we are surrounded by people who hate us etc. etc. Nothing changed. Except that if we took the plunge and tried something different, the world will not hold us as a pariah state; anti-Semitism will loose momentum, You will suddenly have lots of available money to pore into real social needs rather than buffing up minute sections of society, and hey, we might just get a chance to actually make peace. The point is you don’t know, but you have nothing to loose by trying, and everything – including the sanity – not to mention the democracy – of your beloved country, by digging your heels for the sake of 130,000 people, out of which more than 3/4 will walk away without much fuss. Where is the democracy when a quarter of percent is endangering the chances of normal life for the rest of their fellow Israelites? That is the point. Either you admit you have no desire to keep Israel democratic; or you acknowledge that something in the current equation is blatantly wrong. But saying you want a democracy but the facts get in the way… You know the story about the Rabbi and the goat? Take out your fears from the house, and see how much space you suddenly have, and lots of possibilities. Maybe even staying democratic.
Lechayim 🙂

Michael:
Point by point:
“Isreaeli democracy is not threatened specifically by the removal of lands which are contentious, illegally occupied (ideology aside – in international legal terms), and require unfair distribution of resources.”
Really? I’d say Israeli existence would be threatened by a giveback of the West Bank. Take a look at the map – the West Bank is no peninsula relative to Israel proper. Try to imagine defending all the civilian areas that would become exposed to enemy missiles (the entire central area, including Tel Aviv, as well as the Jerusalem area), or defending the narrow central area in case of invasion. You can try to make an argument based on those of some military experts (some disagree with the above, but most don’t), but your assertions are worthless.
Illegally occupied? Again, make your argument. The occupation is not illegal; the territories are in the “disputed” category. You may recall that they were not under any Palestinian jurisdiction prior to 1967.
“On the contrary – holding on to these lands for the sake of some grand biblical dream or on the pretext that it affords us a better protection is what destroying democracy in Israel now. ”
Aside from the “grand biblical dream” is the prosaic fact of Jewish history in these places (at least re the West Bank). And you can call it a “pretext”, but you’ll need to make some showing that Israel would not be endangered by a giveback.
“It demolishes our hounourable standing amongst nations striving for a fair and enlightened governance;”
Don’t make me laugh. Given the history, the idea that Israel or Jews have to beg for moral acceptance or prove themselves to others is revolting. If anything, many of the nations should be proving themselves to the Jews. And which are these “honorable nations” (spelling changed to accomodate the free and the brave)? The USA, maybe the UK and Australia? It’s a small club.
“it threatens our sense of nationhood by dichotomising our identity into the messianic and the depressed; ”
Very poetic. What does that mean exactly?
“it siphons our economic strength by investing in and protecting a miniscule number of people while large sections of our poppulation is living literally under the poverty line.”
Finally, a good argument. So good, I consider the decision as to whether to withdraw to be a close call. But as I stated above, I think this argument is outweighed by the dangers of giving the appearance of weakness.
“Be that as it may, one could (and I have no doubt you would) argue that it is worthwhile for the sake of our identity as a nation – Israeli, Zionist, Hebrite, Jewish – whatever.”
No, I clearly stated earlier in this thread that my opposition to withdrawal was based on the practical grounds of the dangers of appearance of weakness. Perhaps a moral paragon such as yourself might deign to actually read the words of those you criticize.
“I have no illusions you could be convinced otherwise. ”
For those of you in the back row, our pal Michael is saying that I’m so blockheaded and impervious to rational argument that I could not possibly be persuaded. Maybe Michael should use more arguments instead of assertions and insults when he tries to persuade.
“But save strutting your “oh I care for democracy but not when it endangers us” for the mirror. You seem to care naught for any principle slightly more evolved than ‘an eye for en eye’ and live in a world where your own false sense of security is more important than the suffering of countless people (Jewish, Arab and Palestinians).”
And here we come to the heart of it. It’s often the crude pseudo-thinkers who ascribe the most crude and simplistic motives to their opponents. This usually happens at that stage when they learn to repeat phrases like “you seem to care naught” but haven’t learned how to make an argument yet. Thank you so much for the two-cent psychoanalysis. Now try one yourself: instead of congratulating yourself about your “highly evolved” sense of morality which can only be applied to some fantasy world and which can never be observed in any world resembling the real one (like Christianity at its worst), try instead to understand how the world actually works and pattern your notion of morality accordingly. Frankly, you haven’t even reached the level of understanding that an “eye for an eye” person has. And you can accuse me all you want of not caring about democracy and being indifferent to suffering; when you demonstrate a knowledge of the difference between cheap polemics and real understanding of the issues involved, maybe we’ll take you seriously.
“Care naught.” You gotta love it…..

Michael,
Jordan and Egypt attcked Israel and would do so today if not for fear of being wiped out. There is no real peace with them. This is well known.
Note that syria and Iran haven’t either attcked Israel. They could reach with missiles but don’t out of fear no different than Egypt and Jordan.
I feel that it is a waste of my time arguing with you since i provide solid facts and instead of discussing those facts you choose to ignore and simply insult.
I’m not expecting you to respond with facts. I remember this happening before. You don’t want facts to come in between you and your belief system.
If you don’t respond with facts this time I don’t expect to respond to you again.