New Refuseniks

By Crispin Sartwell

When people make their own decisions, they are capable of doing very bad things. But when people follow orders, they can become monsters.

That's why the refusal of some Israel Defense Force (IDF) reserve officers to participate in actions against the Palestinians is admirable. And that's also why the response of the authorities is predictable.

The statement of the refuseniks, signed by almost 150 soldiers as of the weekend, said that they had been "issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people."

It declares that "We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve, and humiliate an entire people."

"There is no room for reserve soldiers to choose which missions they will execute and which they will not," said a statement from the IDF General Staff. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that "It will be the beginning of the end of democracy if soldiers don't carry out the decisions of the elected government."

Meanwhile, Sharon publicly regrets that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was not assassinated years ago. And the "democratic" government of Israel refuses to grant citizenship rights to many of the people within its borders and pursues policies of assassination, torture, destruction of homes - in short, of terrorism - in response to terrorist attacks.

The policies of the Sharon government have been as purposefully provocative as possible, and the orders that it has been giving its soldiers are directly unconscionable.

That's why the refusal of the reservists to participate is correct and courageous. They are taking a great personal risk, and authorities have hinted that they may be guilty of crimes ranging from desertion to treason. But crimes like that, in circumstances like these, are crimes we should all commit.

And to claim that the action is anti-democratic or that it amounts to a kind of military coup is utterly absurd. Objections of conscience, though they are made against an elected government, are necessary to a government of the people.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s protests against American apartheid were exercises in democracy, though Jim Crow laws were passed by elected governments.

People are responsible for what they do, whether they are following orders or not. Following an order is a decision, though the price for disobedience may be severe. When folks start obeying orders that violate their consciences, they mutate into butchers. My Lai converted average American kids into murderers, and those kids were responsible for what they did under orders.

In my view, "I was just following orders" is never a good defense for anything. It wasn't a good defense at Nuremberg. It wasn't a good defense for the Killing Fields, Rwanda, Bosnia, Nagasaki.

Israeli policy on the West Bank, though of course it comes partly in response to horrific terrorist attacks, is savage and counter-productive. It is also an example of the very ethnic and religious prejudice and the very terrorism to which we Jews have been subjected for thousands of years. It can be guaranteed to provoke more violence.

A principled refusal to participate is morally required.

___