Why Every Jewish Soldier Should Refuse
By Shamai Leibowitz, Attorney, Tank Gunner in Reserve Duty, Tel Aviv
Ruling Over a Hostile Population
Our rule over three million Palestinian Arabs in the territories has perforce put us in a position of committing a number of moral outrages. Continued rule will necessitate not only continued denial of many basic rights to Palestinians, but will require our taking additional steps which are reprehensible, if not morally questionable. While we certainly did not set out intentionally to kill hundreds of innocent civilians, these are willy-nilly consequences of such a position. To maintain our rule we will have to continue to mete out collective punishment that often cruelly affects those who are not guilty.
Among the steps we have taken is the enclosing of millions of humans in their cities, towns, and villages. We often deny basic rights such as the right to earn a living, , to study, to move freely, to purchase basic necessities, to vote, to travel for medical care, to move sick or injured to medical facilities, etc. But most severe is that innocent civilians die. What is happening now is more than unintentional collateral deaths of civilians. Israel has resorted to forays of terror which are severe violations of the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention.
The IDF is certainly not bloodthirsty and has no daily quota of corpses. Nevertheless, it seems that a large number of the hundreds of Palestinian civilians who die are not killed because Israeli armed forces are acting in self-defense. In this respect, the IDF is not to blame because to put down a popular uprising, drastic measures (i.e., maiming and killing civilians) are often needed, in addition to the enforcing of curfews, establishment of blockades, abrogation of civil rights, and condoning of inhumane treatment. The governmental decision to remain in the occupied territories and to oppress a whole nation is the source of the problem. Unless this changes immediately, Israel will continue its shocking behavior as a dictatorship, which has so far departed from the morality of order that it ceases to be a legal system.
Take the ex-judicial killings of Palestinian political leaders, for example. Certainly, these ex-judicial killings are tantamount to premeditated murder. To me, there is nothing shocking in saying that a country which has "legalized" ex-judicial killings has implemented terror tactics. These killings have no justification in any sane polity. This leads to a conclusion that since Israel has implemented terror tactics, it has become itself a terror organization. This means that until the occupation ends completely and Israel stops resorting to abhorrent terror tactics, Israel should be added to the U.S list of terrorist organizations.
A Warped Understanding of Judaism
Ex-judicial slayings and cruel collective punishment are discussed in Jewish sources. The majority of these sources hold that these actions are totally forbidden. Since Jewish law is based upon the theory of natural law, a higher law, it must strive towards justice and decency. In light of the Israeli actions in the past months, calling Israel a "just democracy" is absurd and perverse.
Abraham's Refusal
One could consider our forefather Abraham as the first "conscientious objector to collective punishment" for his refusal to participate in or condone collective punishment. He was even willing to risk punishment himself in order to try to dissuade G-d from His intention to mete out collective punishment to Sodom and Gomorra. His argument with G-d is described in Genesis:
"If there are fifty righteous within the city, will You indeed sweep away and not forgive the city for the fifty?
It is far from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?" (Genesis 18:24-25).
Here Abraham courageously questions G-d and appeals His decision to destroy entire cities. Abraham's questioning of the impending collective punishment succeeded in persuading G-d, so to speak, to reconsider. The implication is that collective punishment, where it includes innocents, is not acceptable, and only those who have sinned should be punished for their own wrongdoing.
Abraham held himself to a very high standard. He feared that he might have killed innocent people during the wars he waged (described in Genesis 14). According to midrash Tanhuma:
"Abraham excoriated himself mercilessly saying, 'Perhaps among those whom I have killed there were some righteous men
' (Tanhuma 3:14 on Gen. 15:1 )
Massacre in Nablus
This principle of not harming innocents appears elsewhere in the Torah. Our forefather Yaakov severely rebuked two of his sons, Shimon and Levi, when they massacred the city of Shechem (Shechem/Nablus today) as a form of revenge. This act of reprisal, shading over to vicious vindictiveness, was executed by the two brothers as retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah. Despite this seeming justification tendered by the brothers, Yaakov censured his sons in one of the most caustic statements in the Bible, when he reproved them:
"Simon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are the means of their livelihood. Let my soul not be coupled with theirs; into their assembly let my glory not be united. For in anger they slew men, and in their willfulness they continued in their destruction of cattle. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel." (Genesis 49:5):
Yaakov was shaken by what his sons did, and does not mince words in his reproach. Similar words might be said in reaction to our attempts to justify aerial bombing of Palestinian cities as retribution for attacks by terrorists. If we do not want to be cursed, we have to decline to participate in these actions, even if we have to refuse to serve in the territories altogether.
The argument is made that we have no choice and that the IDF must take such steps to preserve the security of the State. I cannot be convinced that the existence of the State of Israel hangs on the killing of children in refugee camps. The rule over another nation, a hostile population, does not strengthen our defense posture; rather it weakens us. It prolongs the necessity for curfews and blockades of millions of humans, for abrogation of their elementary rights, and for physically injuring them.
In the case of Shimon and Levi, they defended their action as being of deterrent value. Yaakov rejects this argument because even in military conflicts there are acts that are prohibited. This can be derived from the comments of Ramban (Nachmanides) on the episode. He discusses the claim (heard today as well) that Shimon and Levi were justified in attacking and murdering the men of Nablus and sacking the city because the citizens did not bring the rapist to justice. After discussing this line of defense of Shimon and Levi, Ramban rejects it unequivocally. There is no justification for harming innocents. This is a basic tenet of justice.
Contrast Shimon and Levi's headstrong cruelty with the earlier introspection of their father. Yaakov feared killing innocents. When his brother Esau approached Yaakov with four hundred armed men for a face-off, we are told that :
"Yaakov was greatly afraid and was distressed." (Genesis 32:8)
Rashi explains the seeming redundancy (afraid and distressed) by saying that Yaakov was afraid he might be killed, and distressed that he might kill Esau, in the event that Esau had innocent intentions.