Israeli conscientious objector in prison

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Firstly,

You realize Firelad's been posting here for years, don't you?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


And why would I do that?

To my understanding the French continue to have compulsory military service as do a number of other European states. If it is such a human rights violation then why is it so common? Unless of course it isn't a human rights violation.

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Oerdin
To my understanding the French continue to have compulsory military service as do a number of other European states.

Austria, Finland, Germany and Greece, I believe. Not France, they got rid of it. And in Germany it's pretty much standard practice to take up civil service as opposed to military service.

Edit: Oh, Norway and Sweden apparently too. You may also want to count the militia system in Switzerland.

Note how most of these countries are rather small. It's pretty much a historical relic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If it is such a human rights violation then why is it so common? Unless of course it isn't a human rights violation.

Bad argument. Just because something is commonly practiced doesn't mean it's "right." Insert standard examples of formerly ubiquitous institutions now known to be wrong (slavery, etc.).

Siro: Nice "guess" about his game playing habits, but since that's completely unsubstantiated, it just makes you look like an ass.

If Israel allows conscientious objectors to not serve, I don't see why this person should be imprisoned while others are not. It's arbitrary.

And your military service is laudable, but to use it as some sort of superiority marker over people who have moral objects to serving is repugnant. If you're there to serve your country, great--but don't cheapen it by using your status to deride others who don't happen to agree with your beliefs.

[Tassadar500]

Lets just bash Jews in this thread. Okay?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And your military service is laudable, but to use it as some sort of superiority marker over people who have moral objects to serving is repugnant. If you're there to serve your country, great--but don't cheapen it by using your status to deride others who don't happen to agree with your beliefs.

When did I even bring it up? You seem to be projecting your own bias upon me.

Also if you reread my post you will find I also caled for the ultra-orthodoxed to be drafted as well. Nothing arbitrary about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If it is such a human rights violation then why is it so common? Unless of course it isn't a human rights violation.

I guess torture isn't a human rights violation then.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
When did I even bring it up? You seem to be projecting your own bias upon me.

Read the post more carefully--that was addressed to Siro, not you.

[Sirotnikov]

Unless, of course, you're Ulta-orthdox. Which, of course, is only fair, after all only certain people should be able to get out of military service because of philosophical objections to it.

I'm obviously against that. But the fact that one groups has bullied itself to pay less to society, doesn't mean I want more people to do it. Mind you I voted for Shinui, whose goal is to end the extra-priveleges orthodox jews recieve from the state.

---

A simplistic view, because the army is simply the instrument of political policy, and unless you are advocating a dictatorial, militaristic government you cannot make that argument, and if you are it somewhat defeats the point no? If he believes that the activities of the army are detrimental to his nation, then to him they are not in the interests of that country and so he can, with full patriotism, be a conscientious objector.

That's a good one. So you follow the rules only if you agree with the policy behind it?

That is some great thinking. So whenever social democrats come to power, I will begin disobeying any laws they make, and I will evade the higher taxes - because after all - I feel it would be unpatriotic of me to follow laws which I think will hurt my country!

Do tell, how exactly is it a moral obligation now? Would you say it is a universalisable and categorical act, or would you suggest that the ends justify the means? If you are to claim that it is virtuous behaviour I would ask you to elaborate.

Categorical act - If everyone were not to serve in the army if they liked, there would be no functional army - and Israel would be left defenseless.

I see no way in which the ends justifies the means with regarding to this issue.

Is the army supposed to defend Israeli citizens, irrespective of whether or not they like them? Should I or others not be defended by the British army, because I do not choose to fight? Obviously I should, so what is the only difference?

I'm not saying he shouldn't.
I'm saying his refusal to share the duty, while other people are defending him is immoral and unkind to his fellow countrymen.

I sometimes get the feeling from some Zionists that being Jewish precludes being a pacifist. Some people need to think about the implications of what they are saying

I have no idea what lead you to this, and I fail to understand the logic of your previous sentances at all.

I don't disaprove his wishes to be pacifist. But he must be aware that if he chooses his own wishes above the law - the law wins. That and I personally think pacifists are stupid, based on my belief that people are born unkind to one another and the "natural existance" is when people attempt to bully and exploit each other.

So now you are defending conscription? There is a fundamental difference between paying taxes and filling in Census forms every decade, and submitting your own liberties to join the armed forces, where you do not have free speech, do not have the right of insubordination, do not have the same political individualism as a civilian, and may be placed in harms way, a kill-or-be-killed situation or worse, against your will. That's not freedom. And don't tell me there's no other way, there's no conscription in the UK or US is there? Where conscription may be called upon in a time of emergency, being a conscientious objector is not a legal offence.

Army conscription is for 2-3 years. Paying taxes is for life. With the high taxes in Israel, you pay around 50% of your income to the state. Both are needed evils - since Israel is a small country, but needs to provide all the "rights" people want, like good health care and security.

The government has decided that conscription is necessary for Israel, and until that decision is democratically changed in the Knesset, it is the law - whether one likes it or not.

Furthermore- it is obviously needed, as being a small vulneralbe country, sorrounded by enemies with much larger armies - Israel would not be able to function properly with only a professional army, in a major scale war.

With Israeli nationalism and the threat of attack spurring the people to band together in a glorious struggle for the future of Zion, and the quantity of cash flowing into Israel, I shouldn't imagine that self-defence would be a particular problem if they have a professional army.

Other than a huge lump of stereotypes, this paragraph is good for nothing.

Bare in mind the huge economic drain of conscription... the armed forces are an economic black hole, consuming resources and people, who could be out contributing and paying taxes.

Yes, I agree, 18-21 year olds have huge taxing potencial... if you tax playboy magazine and playstation.

Not acceptable. If he's a citizen by default the burden of proof is on the state to show why if he does not join the army he must either revoke his citizenship or be incarcerated, not merely claim that "those are the rules".

Since when does the state come to you and prove you that you have to follow the law? Either you do, or you sit in prison.

What kind of argument is that? The same was said of Mandela and the like.

Great idea - lets compare everyone in prison to Mandella.

Next time the police arrests some vandalists who do not believe in private property or a killer who sincerely doesn't respect human life, I'll go marching to the court room and say "Mr Judge, we can't judge those people by their beliefs! It'll be like judging Mandella!".

Here's a good one... stop pissing off the Arabs

Yes, that's a viable strategy. Obviously the single thought every Israeli should have in mind is how not to piss off the arabs...

This is generally a great recipe for national security - don't piss off your enemies. Having it worked so well in the 1930s, Israel is built on another concept: Be stronger than all your enemies together, and have them know that.

I'd rather piss off the arabs (or any other nationality) and keep having Israel as a strong viable and democratic country. Ok?

I myself would never want to be in a combat role, nor would I want to be in a role that directly supports that.

Why? Because you don't believe in armed conflict at all?
Or because you're unwilling to risk your life for a goal you care about? Or is there nothing you care about that much?

You deny that the Stern gang and others were terrorists?

Yes I do.

Their attacks on the brittish army were guerilla attacks and were acceptable as they were targetted against an army or a government - not against random british civilians.

The fighting between Jewish and Arab militant groups indeed qualify as "terrorism" however, due to the circumstances of both sides engaging in it - it is better to define it as an ethnical conflict fueled by both sides, which took alot of atrocities from both sides. If you wish to classify it as "Terrorism" - you may.

This does not, however, hold for the arab attacks on 1920, 1921 and 1929, before Jewish reprisals began.

Terrorism is best studied in terms of sociology, not "point and click" militarism. The military is more a political instrument, pawns of the government in the game of democracy.

Terrorism is not best studied in terms of sociology.
It is a successful military tactic developed by several revolutionary resistance groups in the 20th century, which bases itself on use of the media, concealment among civilians, low intensity warfare and so on.

If you wish - war is well studied in terms of sociology. Terrorism is not a random phenomena. It is always well organized and funded.

If they genuinely wanted to protect Israeli lives, there would have been peace a generation ago.

This possibly, is the silliest thing you've said during the entire length of the thread.

Or, possibly your definition of peace is a single palestinian state, and no Israel - in which case I wouldn't call it stupid but rather anti-semitic - as you'd be denying the right for an existance of a Jewish state in Israel. Mind you, I don't deny the right for existance of a Palestinian state - and neither has any Israeli prime minister in a generation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I guess torture isn't a human rights violation then.

Torture is because everyone has gotten together and agreed what is and is not a human right. Freedom from torture is in but compulsary military service is not.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Read the post more carefully--that was addressed to Siro, not you.

OK, sorry. I saw you quote me then read that other stuff.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Unless, of course, you're Ulta-orthdox. Which, of course, is only fair, after all only certain people should be able to get out of military service because of philosophical objections to it.

Yep... if you are truely the 'Chosen' you get more rights than everyone else... only fair, right?

Uh, you do realize that Israeli Muslims are not forced to serve, either, right?

Not that Orthodox are any more "chosen", nor is "chosen" meant to be indicate as a sign of being better or given more rights.

[Bosh]

I'm obviously against that. But the fact that one groups has bullied itself to pay less to society, doesn't mean I want more people to do it. Mind you I voted for Shinui, whose goal is to end the extra-priveleges orthodox jews recieve from the state.

Shinui
Still its strikes me as a bit strange to complain so vociferously against conscientious objectors when they're a drop in the bucket compared to the ultra-orthodox.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


What about getting a job? It's not like it's an "army or death" choice for the arbitrary three years of service?

"Getting a job" does not equate with the commitment of those who are not concientious objectors and who comply with the law and serve their country in the military. If there is no comparable alternative and he refuses to wear a uniform then he should serve his time (plus small penalty) in jail.

[Sirotnikov]

And your military service is laudable, but to use it as some sort of superiority marker over people who have moral objects to serving is repugnant. If you're there to serve your country, great--but don't cheapen it by using your status to deride others who don't happen to agree with your beliefs.

I'm not angry about people who don't want to service in their own countries.

Heck - I'm not that angry at him for not sharing my ideals.

But what bites me is that he wants to ignore the law and to contribute less to my society. I don't want such people in my society. I don't have a major beef with people who avoid army and sit in prison. They serve what is there's and go home.

But he's a cry baby that is trying to portray himself as a prisoner of Zion (pun), when infact he is 1) breaking the law 2) is attempting to find a way to do less for his society and 3) attempts to get sympathy for it.