Introduction
Our rule over three million Palestinian Arabs in the Occupied Territories has perforce put usin a position of committing a number of moral outrages.
Among the steps the Israeli army has taken is the enclosing of millions of Palestinians behindbarbed wire and 30-foot concrete walls in their cities, towns, and villages. The occupationentails denial of basic rights to millions of human beings under Israeli control, among themthe right to vote, to enact laws, to education, to fair and impartial trial, to emergencymedical care, to employment, to freedom of movement, to freedom of expression and manyothers.
The continued occupation, becoming more brutal and vicious every day, has cost the lives ofthousands of innocent Jews and Palestinians. While we did not set out intentionally to killthousands of civilians (as of January 1, 2004, Israeli soldiers killed 2700 Palestiniansmost of whom were non-armed civilians) these are sine-qua-none results of a such a colonialregime.
The Foundation of the Occupation
This illegal and immoral regime exists only because there is enough manpower to support it.Without the combined participation of Israeli soldiers and policemen willing to serve theoccupation, the occupation cannot continue.
More and more Israeli soldiers have come to understand this and decided to refuse orders toparticipate in this evil. Understanding that the infliction of collective punishments andsuffering upon the Palestinians is both immoral and hazardous to Israel, they refuse toparticipate in the Israeli army’s assassinations, dropping of bombs in residentialneighborhoods or in the closures and blockades. Some of them have refused completely to servein the Israeli army which is administering this cruel regime. In this way, they areundermining the foundation of the occupation.
Conscientious Objection in Judaism
By refusing to serve in the occupation they have followed the path of conscientiousobjection. While many mistakenly attribute the ideas of conscientious objection and civildisobedience solely to thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi or Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, we willanalyze Jewish texts and show these ideas are deeply rooted in the Jewish sources.
One could consider our forefather Abraham as the first “conscientious objector tocollective 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 Hisintention to mete out collective punishment to Sodom and Gomorra. His argument with G-d isdescribed in Genesis:
“If there are fifty righteous within the city, will You indeed sweep away and not forgive thecity 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 mete out collectivepunishment. Abraham’s questioning of the impending collective punishment succeeded inpersuading 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 bepunished for their own wrongdoing.
Abraham contends that even G-d Himself is bound by this precept of natural law. Abraham arguesresolutely with G-d, emphasizing that G-d cannot violate this precept. Abraham serves as arole model for standing up to Higher Authority in the name of moral principles. We learn fromthis a very important lesson: The first Hebrew in history objected to G-d and demanded from Himto refrain from collective punishment. By doing so, he signals a message to all of us: Object tothe infliction of cruel punishments on innocent civilians, even when it comes from thehighest authority.
Clash of Values
We read in the Talmud the principle that “the law of the government is a binding law” (TalmudGitin 10b). This principle guided generations of Diaspora Jews as they dealt with the laws ofthe State they encountered in exile. It applies to statutory laws concerning monies, taxes,land, and so on, but not to religious ritual. It also does not apply to laws that are inherentlyarbitrary and discriminatory (see Maimonides, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Gzelah, Chap. 5,halakhot 12-14). Realizing there is a natural law above and beyond what the governmentdictates, the rabbinical sages ruled that we must honor the government and acknowledge itsauthority; at the same time, we must bound and delimit its authority.
This clash of values – between the value of government and higher values – is embodied in thestory of the midwives, Shifra and Puah, who refused to carry out the hideous order of Pharoah,King of Egypt, to kill all the male babies of the Hebrews (Exodus 1:15). Nehama Leibowitz, inher book New Studies in Sefer Shmot (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1986) describestwo ancient traditions regarding who the midwives were: According to one tradition (found inRashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam and Ramban, and based on Sota 11b), they were Jews. According to theother tradition (found in Philo, Josephus, Midrash Tadshe, Abrabanel, Kli Yakar andLuzzatto) they were Egyptians.
The latter tradition is especially interesting because it transforms the story into animportant philosophical text emphasizing the confrontation between an individual(Egyptian) and her own, rather than a foreign, government. This interpretation is also morereasonable. How could Pharaoh have specifically chosen Jewish women to carry out hismurderous plan, especially if (as the Ramban argued) he wanted to keep it secret?
There is further proof that the midwives were Egyptian, rebelling against their very owngovernment. The Bible recounts that:
“The midwives feared God and did not do as the King of Egypt told them; they let the boys live”.(Exodus 1:17)
This verse would not be appropriate for Jewish midwives: If the midwives were Egyptian, theiractions would justify the statement that they feared God; but if they were Hebrews, there is noneed to bring up fear of God – everyone loves his own people.
Dr. Daniel Rohrlich has shown that the expression “fear of God” usually appears in the Bible inconnection with how a nation treats a minority. He concludes from this that the midwives musthave been Egyptian women, boldly disobeying the Egyptian government’s orders concerningthe Hebrew minority. The treatment of the stranger who lacks power and protection is a truetest for fear of God. Nehama Leibowitz sums up her study of the midwives with these words:
If this interpretation is correct, we must consider that the Torah shows us how, in a sea of eviland tyranny – and just after verse 1:13, which shows Egypt (the kingdom and the people) in theirwickedness – an individual can stand up against evil, oppose an order, disobey it, and notshrug off the responsibility by saying, “Orders from my King”.
This noble idea applies today to the responsibility of Israeli soldiers to stand up againstthe evil and tyranny of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians. The duty to refuse to one’sown government when it enacts iniquitous laws is thus part and parcel of the Exodus heritage.It is for this reason precisely that the religious command to remember the story of Exodus is amajor component of most Jewish rituals, and manifests itself extensively in the traditionaltexts concerning the Sabbath and the Holidays. It comes to remind us continually of the duty ofthe individual to disobey iniquitous laws, even when handed down by his own government.
The Dangers of Blind Obedience to Laws
Blind compliance can lead to bestiality, for animals live without morality. Obedience to thestate law, while certainly is an important value, is not an ultimate Jewish value. TheProphets riled against those regimes in the Jewish past that used their legal powers to thedisadvantage of weak p. They did not hesitate to call for disobedience to such wicked regimes.(E.g. see the episode over Navot’s vineyard involving Ahab and Jezebel in I Kings 21). Lawabiding citizenship is encouraged; but obedience per se as a value is not sacrosanct.
The Israeli government established a regime in the West Bank and Gaza so cruel that the formerAttorney General, Michael Ben Yair, has defined it as an “ apartheid regime ” ( Haaretz March 32002). The Jewish religion demands from the individual to stand up to this apartheid regimeand refuse to obey its orders.
One might ask: Does not this attitude lead to anarchy? History has proven that non-violentrefusal has never led to anarchy. The opposite is true: we have seen the most effective andlife-saving way to bring down a dictatorship and substitute it with a just system ofgovernment is by violating those very laws that have made it into a dictatorship.
Israeli soldiers who decided to refuse to serve in the brutal occupation are a beacon of hopethat eventually this highly immoral regime will collapse. The refuseniks, as they are calledin Israel, may have to suffer the consequences of refusal, which can run the gamut fromridicule and social ostracism to imprisonment. But as Jewish soldiers, they are following inthe great tradition of our forefathers and the Prophets. Therefore, they deserve our utmostadmiration and constant support. It is our duty to assist those brave men that have beenfaithful to our most basic moral and religious norms.