Clash of individual responsibility with state authority; The case of Israeli soldiers

Author: Mohammad Hasan Osama

Submitted on: 24th May 2011

Individual responsibility is a term extracted from the mainline concept of individualism, which acknowledges that every person is able to determine how to best conduct ones affairs and therefore, can be said to have sovereignty in terms of ones action. State authority is a term which depicts a characteristic essential for a state to operate, which is to have an established writ or control over its citizens. With this ongoing war in Gaza, multiple cases of clashes between the state authority and the responsibility of an individual soldier have come on record. These soldiers vary from permanent services to those in reserves, from the ranks of a Major to a Private, from the units of Army Intelligence to an Engineer but all have one thing in common, the courage to stand up against the state authority to fulfill what they deem as their individual authority. My stance in this paper stands as supportive of the clash between these courageous soldiers who defy the state authority in order to uphold the moral values. There are various factors which support the argument that such a clash is justified. These involves the various cases of individual soldiers such as Tal Belo, Rami Kaplan, and many more, who have refused to serve beyond the lines of the 1967 ceasefire. The reasons as to why these courageous men preferred facing a prison sentence than to serve and simply obey orders are very significant as they are the basis upon which this clash is established between them and the state orders. A basic factor is the teaching of Zionism regarding peaceful coexistence between the Jews and the Arabs. Continual curfews, repeated "targeted killings", endless checkpoints, the expansion of settlements are also some of the factors which stop these men from giving in to the state orders, as they realize how their actions today shall impact upon the future of not just Palestine, but the region on the whole, and not just the region, but also the impact it creates on the minds of these soldiers themselves. Tal Belo, staff sergeant of Armored Corps gives the account of his dear friend Daniel who had come all the way from France to serve in the Israeli army. Following the orders, Daniel had shot at a crowd demonstrating in front of the green mosque. One of the bullets accidentally hit a woman, a five month pregnant woman who bled to her death as the bullet pierced her abdomen resulting in heavy bleeding. The brutality of the death of the life which hadnt even come into the world left a grave mark on those soldiers who witnessed. An investigation declared Daniels act as accidental and they were given further training of ambushes and how to fire a rifle. More demonstrations were held and more lives were taken. Finally one day back at camp when Daniel went out for a while. After a minute, we heard a shot. (Tal Belo) This incident resulted in Staff sergeant Tal Belo, signing the Courage to Refuse Combatants Letter as he realized upon the consequences of their acts upon not just the lives of the victims, but also the impact upon their own mind set. This incident makes one realize the corrosive effect of this occupation on the oppressors themselves. A question remains of what shall happen if the oppressed become the oppressors, the consequences shall be dire.

Page 2

Courage to Refuse is a letter from the soldiers and officers of the Israel Defense Forces, which addresses the commands issued to these soldiers. It states that despite their loyalty to the State of Israel, the soldiers would not serve beyond the 1967 borders, as beyond those borders, it would be a War of the Settlements. The foundation of this letter stands on the principles of Zionism, and that beyond the 1967 borders the commands issued are such that they destroy the values these soldiers absorbed while in Israel. As a cause of the letter states, the price of Occupation is the loss of IDFs human character. This letter The principle upon which Zionism is based is that of mutual coexistence of both the Arabs and the Jews. It sought to not gain land by conquering it, but instead buy the land from the Arabs. This is in direct conflict with the occupation of the territories by the State of Israel, which is a motivator for the soldiers to not go beyond the 1967 borders as they deem it a direct violation of the principle of Zionism. Thus, this war that continues in these occupied territories is one that is said to be a war chosen by the State of Israel, not one that was forced upon it. Hence, a clash is established here between what the state wants and what the individuals believe. Only those individuals, who ponder over what their responsibility is, stand up against the authority of the state, daring to risk years in prison rather than compromising on their beliefs. Democracy is like statehood, a system which aims to maximize freedom and welfare. It also stands as one of the dominant factors which support the argument that this clash of the soldiers with their state is just. Transgressing on the territories of the Palestinians is not democracy. The real democracy comes in play with the refusal of a soldier to militarily participate in this occupation. It is democracy which gives these soldiers their right to protest, to uphold what they deem as the values of peace and justice. As a citizen of the State of Israel, it is the responsibility of an individual to get involved and do what may be needed to be done to save the country. Therefore, I believe a simple protest to not militarily fight beyond the 1967 borders is probably the best possible way to create a realization of what is being done and what needs to be done in order to get the State of Israel on the right path. Hence, it stands clear that even in a democratic country as that of the State of Israel; obedience is not required for immoral actions. Finally, the unjust acts of the Israeli Defense Forces inside these occupied territories is also what makes one differentiate the right from the wrong. While there are no restrictions upon the Jewish settlements in these territories, the Arab settlements often have to face barriers which are erected in front of them by these soldiers. Despite endless checkpoints all over the territory, there are often prolonged curfews which causes hindrances to not just the natives on their daily routine, but also ambulances carrying the wounded. Incidents such as firing tear gas into schools and rubber bullets at stone throwers have also been talked about by Sergeant Mike Raphaeli, who learned to disregard human life. But what he also learned, was to fulfill his responsibility as a individual against the states authority.

Page 3

Courage to Refuse, stands as one of the options for the soldiers to voice their opinions by becoming signatories to it. This letter involves military personnel who have fought and now feel remorse to those who had a realization of this even before they were asked to go beyond the 1967 lines. With over 550 signatories, this letter remains an evidence which is substantial in terms of providing these soldiers with a platform to voice their opinions. These soldiers stand as a backbone for the future Israeli society, and if it mould to what they want, I see no reason for there not to be a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. With the cases of Israeli soldiers, the fundamentals of Zionism, the voice of democracy and the violation of rights of the natives, I close my argument that the clash between the responsibility of individuals with that of the state authority is just and infact, essential for a society to be not led astray by a handful of short sighted leaders.

Page 4

Referennces: Tal Belo. Go Figure Why You Are Alive. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.seruv.org.il/signers/TalBeloeng.asp Carlos. (2007, July). What is Zionism. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.peacewithrealism.org/zionism.htm Rami Kaplan. (2002, April 30th). Why we refuse to fight for the continuous occupation. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.seruv.org.il/MoreArticles/English/RamiKaplanEng_1.htm Rami Kaplan. Conscientious Objection, a Tool of a Democracy. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.seruv.org.il/signers/45_1_Eng.htm Mike Raphaeli. The courage to refuse. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.seruv.org.il/Signers/257_1_Eng.htm Micheal Sfrad. (2002, May 19th). Why Israel's 'seruvniks' say enough is enough. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/19/1 Courage to Refuse Combatants Letter. Retrieved May 23rd, 2011, from http://www.seruv.org.il/defaultEng.asp

Page 5