Five Israelis Denied Conscientious Objector Status

From Haaretz.com comes this story of five Israeli high school students being convicted in court for failing to follow an order to report for duty in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Their refusal to serve was justified by claiming conscientious objector status since they were against being in "an army of occupation." In their ruling, the Jaffa Military Tribunal stated their objection to military service had to do with opposition to political policies and not personal conscience. Therefore, they broke Israeli law and can be sentenced to as much as three years in prison.

The five rejected the court's opinion and made some political statements. Why, I don't know nor understand. The case seems pretty clear to me. The laws of Israel dictate that the five are to serve for a certain time in the defense of their country. They broke the law, were convicted, and will probably go to prison.

I came upon this story via Amy Phillips of the Fifty Minute Hour and she discusses that somehow the free speech rights of the five were in jeopardy. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see the issue of free speech as a factor in their convictions at all. In fact, they said what they wanted without consequences. They were convicted because they refused to serve and justified their refusal on political grounds as opposed to "classic conscientious objection."

I had some experience with this issue during my time in the military and saw several people allowed CO status, but it was through very convincing personal moral and religious convictions and had nothing to do with the circumstances of what the military was asking them to do. To digress momentarily, when Cassius Clay, about the time he was changing his name to Muhammad Ali, was drafted, he refused to go, citing conscientious objector status. He claimed that he had become a devoutly religious Muslim and believed in peace and pacifism. In denying his case, the court stated that they didn't believe someone to be a pacifist who would routinely go into a boxing ring and beat the hell out of an opponent. Their logic was that if he could prizefight, he could serve and fight for his country.

In the case of the 5 Israelis, their objection was to the military and political policies of the government and, therefore, doesn't meet the definition of "classic CO."

Theoretically, given the Israelis' justification, no opposition party adherents should ever be asked to support their country if they disagree with the President. I don't think that would be workable.