An army of objectors

A month after 12 soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces Duchifat battalion refused to provide peripheral support for the evacuation of Jewish families from the Hebron market, the last of the conscientious objectors are being released from jail. But the debate is still raging among the National Religious public: People of Kiryat Arba, along with their rabbi, Dov Lior, raised a toast in honor of conscientious objector David Sayad, as he returned from jail. In Beit Horon, angry protesters prompted the cancellation of a ceremony that Rabbi Micha Peled, a community resident, had planned to hold for soldiers released from jail. And in the military, the religious soldiers are repeating: In a similar situation, such as an evacuation of outposts, we will refuse again.

A few weeks ago, David, a soldier in the Duchifat battalion, was among the dozens of anonymous conscientious objectors who found ways to avoid the Hebron evacuation. Two years ago, he snuck into Gush Katif and wandered from community to community. He crossed the Kisufim checkpoint in the cargo compartment of a vegetable truck. During the evacuation itself, he was in Neve Dekalim. At the draft office last year, when asked where he was during the evacuation, he evaded the question.

The real enemy

"My stomach turned when I heard that they wanted to take us to the Hebron area," says David. "As far as I was concerned, there was no difference between the 'first circle' [the actual evicters] and the 'second circle' [peripheral support].

"You have to understand where we were coming from. In our circle, some homes expected that their sons, after the IDF took part in the expulsion, would not enlist at all, or at least would serve the minimum in places that contribute the least; to get through the service just to have it on their record.

"What set things straight for me and many of my friends were the rabbis at the pre-army seminaries, and afterward the war in Lebanon. The bottom line is that now I know how to differentiate between the state, which is a great kindness from the Holy One Blessed Be He, a miracle for which we owe great thanks to the Creator of the world, and the leadership of the state, which is an embarrassment to the Jewish people. I serve the state, not the leadership, and therefore I serve in the IDF, in a combat unit. I will fight the enemy to the best of my ability, but there is a red line that I'm not willing to cross: to help evict Jews from their homes, for example, the outposts."

S., currently serving in the paratroopers brigades, finishes David's thought: "It's not my job or that of the IDF. We are here in order to fight the real enemy, the Arabs. Not our brothers, people whom this government has decided to make its political enemy. When my father heard a few months ago that they were sending my brother to man checkpoints on the road to Homesh, he called him and told him what he had to do. It wasn't simple. There, after all, it wasn't an evacuation, but roadblocks intended to prevent Jews from returning [to the evacuated settlement]. But the principle is the same. Why do we have to be dragged into despicable business?

"My commanders also are very unhappy - and that's putting mildly - with these missions, but they already have been through the process and it's hard for them to risk what they have achieved by refusing orders, openly or vaguely.

"For us, the soldiers, it's simpler. After all, you can't demote a private. At most, it means a few weeks in jail. That's not a terrible price to pay in order not to be part of something like this."

David, S. and their friends read the material advocating conscientious objection distributed among right-wing youths two years ago. They are experts on halakhic rulings on refusing to serve, and can quote the formula that leftist leaders including Amos Oz, Yair Tsaban and Yossi Sarid, drafted for the case of an Arab population transfer. For them, this is a comparable situation.

"If they are allowed to refuse, so are we," says S. "Transfer equals transfer, and the rules on transfer of Jews are the same as those on transfer of Arabs. It's forbidden, and it's an abomination. For me, it's a black flag, a real crime, morally and halakhically."

The IDF, at least until now, preferred to overlook conscientious objection among national religious youth. It largely carried on in the face of refusals to take part in the Gush Katif evacuation. Only a few soldiers stood trial.

IDF figures state that almost no religious Zionist youths dodge the draft over Gush Katif. Among former residents of Gush Katif, more than 90 percent enlist - a very high figure - even though fewer go to elite units nowadays. Moreover, Gush Katif youth, with the help of the Israel Policy Center, a right-wing research institute, have for months been campaigning against asking draftees political questions and sending them to mental health officers, steps that the IDF used to take to identify potential conscientious objectors ahead of time.

Pure conscience

Rabbi David Stav, who established the Petah Tikva Hesder Yeshiva along with Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, feels the media completely missed the story behind the Duchifat soldiers' conscientious objection.

Stav, former rabbi of the religious communications and film school Ma'aleh, is now the hesder yeshiva association spokesman and rabbi of the town of Shoham. "The conscientious objection that sparked a storm was not even halakhic refusal, but came from a different culture, from the sense of disgust and loathing that the religious youth, or some of them, feel over what was done in Gush Katif and Amona," he says. "They had an opportunity to react to what many of us perceived as a real crime, and they seized it with both hands. The soldiers who caused the big uproar are actually students whose rabbis instructed them not to refuse."

Stav, a leading figure in the pluralist Tzohar movement, feels "refusing orders is forbidden in almost every situation, except in very rare cases of instructions that run contrary to halakha.

"The government must rule and govern and when it makes decisions - even decisions I don't like - so long as it is a sovereign government and even cites rabbis or others, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who have backed its position, I cannot say the decision is not legitimate or illegal, or that I am forbidden to uphold it."

"The last refusal is not a story of a halakhic injunction versus a state injunction," says Stav. "What erupted last month is the tip of the iceberg, and it reflects a very deep bitterness among our youths, whose hearts are overflowing with anguish over what happened in Gush Katif. It was totally conscientious. Not halakhic. The majority were not even hesder students."

If the state has another mass expulsion, such as the one in Gush Katif, the conscientious objection also will be massive, Stav says. "I'm saying this as someone who is opposed to refusing orders. People have had enough. They feel they have become a tool in the hands of a government that they do not consider legitimate."

Rabbi Stav thinks the army acted unwisely and insensitively in the Hebron case. "I have the feeling that someone was looking for this mess, that someone wanted this confrontation. After all, the crisis could have been resolved very easily. When a commander wants to, he knows how to do it."

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, the head of the Har Etzion Yeshiva, is a prominent opponent of refusing orders. He also feels soldiers may exercise "commander's judgment," but Lichtenstein, unlike Stav, does not see a difference between refusal for halakhic reasons and conscientious objection: "There is no essential difference. Refusing orders is a catastrophe. It cracks and shatters the unity of the people and the army. It's inconceivable for every soldier or his rabbi to take the place of the chief of staff and the prime minister."

Stav and Lichtenstein agree that when a soldier is convinced, even subjectively, that a command is immoral, he may have reason to refuse an order, but the soldier must know he will pay the price and go to jail.

"If my son were to say to me that he could not take part in the evacuation," says Stav, "I would tell him: Go to your commander and tell him. Do everything you can to avoid having to evacuate, but don't refuse.

"These are not games of terminology," he says. "'I can't' is personal. 'I refuse' rejects the government's legitimacy to make decisions of this kind, and I reject such an approach."

The religious Zionist rabbis are split on this point. Rabbi Dov Lior, the head of the Committee of Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) Rabbis, leads the camp in favor of refusing orders. Over the past months, Lior made sweeping halakhic rulings on refusal. Rabbi Lior and the Committee of Yesha Rabbis say that not only is evacuating settlements prohibited, so is evacuating outposts and even blocking roads to keep the displaced from returning to their former homes, such as Homesh. Rabbi Lior, Rabbi Elyakim Levanon and the Committee of Yesha Rabbis feel evacuation is not legitimate. Period.

This disagreement is accompanied by another one dividing religious Zionism: In light of the actions of the State of Israel, is it still "the harbinger of our redemption," the first stage in the redemption process? A small group maintains that the disengagement from territories and values should be answered with a disengagement from the state, but the Committee of Yesha Rabbis does not feel this way. Like the rabbis opposed to refusing orders, it too clings to the belief that the State of Israel has religious value and is "the foundation for God's reign in the world."

Most people on both sides of the issue still call on their followers to recite a prayer of thanks and to hang a flag on Independence Day, and to pray for the welfare of the State of Israel every Shabbat. Both groups distinguish between the government and the symbols of statehood.