Why Israel's 'seruvniks' say enough is enough

The laywer representing Israeli conscripts who refuse to serve beyond the 1967 ceasefire lines explains why a growing number of soldiers are disobeying orders, in order to protect the basic values on which Israel was founded.

Observer Worldview

It is said that in the first few years of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, no one seriously thought of holding on to these territories forever. It was at the time widely assumed, that these newly conquered lands were to be handed back to the Arabs as part of a peace agreement. I don't remember those days.

I was raised in a different Israel. In my Israel the small fundamentalist group of Jewish settlers has always enjoyed more political power than their relative share in the Israeli population. In my Israel both left-wing and right-wing governments enabled the colonialisation of these occupied Palestinian lands. My Israel paid, and is still paying, a heavy moral price for ruling another nation by the force of the sword. My Israel, built on the founding values of humanism, pluralism and democracy is being lost.

Three months ago an unprecedented petition by reserve soldiers was published in the Israeli press. The signatories declared their intention to refuse to serve the Israeli occupation and disobey any order to go, as soldiers, beyond the 1967 ceasefire lines. The number of signatories (known as 'seruvniks' for the Hebrew word 'seruv' - refusal) has increased rapidly from 50 in the first petition to 462 as of today. Though refusal in Israel was not uncommon, the scale of this petition is a novelty. Most of the signatories are hardened combat officers and soldiers, and all of them served many years in the occupied territories. Since the launch of the petition, about forty of those who have endorsed the petition have been sent to military prisons as a result of their refusal.

Almost all of the 462 who have signed, among them myself, are between twenty-five and thirty-five years old. None of us can remember a non-occupying Israel. Each and every signatory of the petition has individually reached the decision to spurn the state's demand that they will employ immoral and inhumane means of control over civilian population. And yet, I was amazed to discover how similar our stories are. How identical our personal transitions from being "good" and obedient soldiers to what our Attorney General described as "dangerous outlaws" have been.

As the legal adviser to many seruvniks - and someone who was incarcerated for three weeks for refusing to serve in the Hebron area a few years ago - I have had the privilege of escorting many of my fellow signatories from receipt of their call up papers, through the trial and, finally, visiting them in prison. Given their biographies, the act of refusal was by no means a natural decision. Rather, it was rather the product of a personal crisis, born out of moral agonies and a sense of deep concern for our country's future.

One might expect to hear horrifying stories of atrocities that the objectors witnessed before making their decision to no longer take part in the system. The truth of the matter is that most of the conscientious objectors reached their decision simply from experiencing "everyday" life in the occupied territories.

The occupation corrupted Israeli culture, it eroded our code of ethics, and it even contaminated the Hebrew language. In the name of the fight against the murderous and unforgivable terror that struck Israeli cities and towns, we grew accustomed to manning check-points in which thousands of Palestinians are being detained for hours and humiliated by young soldiers. We grew accustomed to pointing our rifles at children and women. We became tolerant to large-scale demolition of houses ('surface uncovering' in military jargon). Finally, we accepted a state-sponsored policy of assassinations, neatly labelled by Israeli spokesmen as "focused prevention". We learned how to distinguish between roads for settlers (Jews) and roads for 'locals' (Palestinians), and we were asked to implement discriminatory laws for the sake of the illegal settlements that have trapped our country in an endless messianic war. A war which the vast majority of Israelis never wanted.

As soldiers who witnessed, first-hand, the corrosive effect of the occupation on ordinary Israelis and Palestinians we could no longer bear its destructive implications for what we were raised to believe were Israeli values - respect for human life and dignity. The occupation chiselled out unequal relations between Palestinians and Israelis. It planted in many a seed of racism against Arabs.

Under such circumstances, hundreds of officers and soldiers who were always in the forefront of IDF's most prestigious units, who were used to risking their lives for the security of the State of Israel, began questioning both the morality of our presence in the occupied territories and the myth of its necessity. People who have no legal background grew to acknowledge that the command that sends them beyond the borders of democracy to rule another people inherently produces systematic human rights abuses and is therefore neither democratic nor legal.

Entering a village and arresting every male above the age of 14 for up to 18 days, as was done in the recent incursion to the West Bank, is inhuman, even if the mission is to find terrorists. Stopping an ambulance that carries a sick man or a pregnant woman is immoral even if you suspect that it also carries hidden weapons. And that is the tragedy of serving in the occupied territories: one cannot go there without detaining suspected ambulances and treating children in a manner that results in more hatred. The soldiers are placed in an impossible situation, coerced by the occupation's reality to act immorally.

As a lawyer I am allowed to visit these prisoners of conscience. Some arrive in prison filled with pride. Others are shocked by their own deed, and try to explain themselves to their families and friends in long telephone conversations. In prison, most of them discover how angry they are. Angry at the settlers that tangled us in a never-ending war. Indignant at the governments of Israel that enabled them to do so. Vexed at the Israeli Defence Force, which arrogantly took for granted that we would carry out any order.

The seruvniks come from the backbone of Israeli society. They were always seen by themselves and by others, as Israelis from the mainstream of our civic life. "I took seriously the values I was brought up on in this country", they tell me. We must now ask ourselves whether this was always simply rhetoric, or whether Israel has fundamentally changed. As seruvniks, we have chosen to speak out. To silence our voice would be to marginalise further the basic values upon which our country was founded.

· Michael Sfard is a lawyer practising human rights and criminal law in Tel-Aviv. You can read the seruvniks' petition - Courage to refuse - here, and you can write to the author of this piece at legal@seruv.org.il.

Email Observer site editor Sunder Katwala at observer@guardianunlimited.co.uk with comments on articles or ideas for future pieces.

Very one-sided account from you. You omit the part where 800,000 Jews were cleansed and driven from Arab nations. Their homes, businesses, bank accounts were left behind for the most part. IOW these Jews were driven from their homes by the Arabs. This happened after 1948.

Most of these Jews settled in Israel. Just another reshuffling of populations for the Middle East. No one cares about these refugees because they moved on with their lives. Israel and the Jewish world helped them resettle and get back on their feet. Just contrast this with the way the Arabs have done little good for the Palestinians. Now we learn that through the UN, the US taxpayers pay the lion's share for the refugee camps where these Palestinians are kept. The UN administers and supports these camps. I don't know how big the UN handouts/welfare are for the denizens of these refugee camps. Would be interesting to know.

Where does UNRWA's money come from? How is UNRWA financed?

Most funding comes from voluntary contributions of donor states. UNRWA's largest donors are the United States, European Commission, the U.K and Sweden. Other major donors include the Gulf Arab States, Scandinavian countries, Japan and Canada. A small portion comes from non-governmental organizations and concerned individuals. The United Nations Secretariat finances 98 international staff posts from its regular budget and UNESCO and WHO provide assistance in the staffing of the education and health programmes.

Who are UNRWA's biggest donors?

Traditionally, the USA has been the largest donor, followed by the European Commission. However, in terms of donations relative to population size and GDP per capita, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and the Netherlands top the list.

Sorry, liberals don't support human rights, you've bought the spin. Here's the the truth. Case in point--Amnesty international--all kinds of condemnation of their fantasies of what was going on at Guantanamo, yet when the Taliban captured a US soldier they immediately executed him not a peep was heard from Amnesty.

Heck look at who liberals "civil rights" leaders are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. Are they libertarians on rights, bwahahaha oh palllease!

And BTW it was already covered, if your goal is more human rights, you certainly will not reach it by carving out a piece of a democratic state to turn it into another Islamofascist one in the Middleast.

And let's look at who else you are siding with shall we?

Why are you so worried about whose I am "siding" with. Isn't it enough to review the facts and formulate an opinion? Now, I must worry about whose "side" I am on?

And you are on the side of those who rejoiced when Americans were murdered.

I am going to assume that you are against "affirmative action," right? So, you do realize that makes you on the same "side" as the people who drag blacks by ropes behind their pickup trucks. You knew that right? You are on the side of the KKK. They sure do appreciate your support!!!

Give it up. By insisting on these "sides," you are feeding and nurturing Political Correctness. Just because your version of what is correct is not Leftist in nature does not mean that your attempts to enforce the "correct" viewpoint about Israel are any less race-baiting.

I could care less what loyalties are "expected" of me in order that I conform to the wishes of some Alpha Dog pack mentality. You see, I use my MIND, not my NOSE, to find out what is "correct." I don't need to sniff yours or anyone's to know whose "side" I am on.

But anyways, more important things have come up, like the discovery of Chandra's bones. Let's hope that justice is served.

The people you are talking about would not be against racial preferences, just racial preferences that are not for their race. So it really doesn't put me on their side at all. On the other hand IT DOES put me on the side of every civil rights group, workers, et al prior to 1964, who just wanted an equal shot regardless of color. It also makes me on the side of practically every mainstream conservative.

SO, sorry, your analagy has failed miserably.

Bullshit. you can't find a post where I've said that one must share my viewpoint in order not to be a racist. I believe that to be on the side of Israel is the morally and logically correct choice based on the facts. It's called persuasive argument, if you can't deal with it, why would you even bother coming here at all.

You see, I use my MIND, not my NOSE, to find out what is "correct."

while one's nose shouldn't make ones decision it should be used as a guide for when one's mind possibly hasn't thought it through.

I know if I disagreed with MOST conservatives on a subject and instead agreed with terrorists, arab nutballs, commie marxist leftists, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton among others, I would damn well re-examine my viewpoint.

But as far as the nose OR the mind goes. So far you haven't used either. Or you would have come up with the logical and morally correct conclusion. It matters not what your motive is, whether you hate Jews, or are just a misguided fool. Either way still have it all wrong.

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.