JERUSALEM — The Israeli military on Sunday threatened disciplinary action against a group of veterans and active reservists of a secretive military intelligence unit who declared that they would no longer participate in surveillance activities against the Palestinians.
Dozens of other veterans and reservists from the unit came to its defense and expressed outrage at their colleagues’ public act of refusal.
The protest and counterprotest exposed some of the complexities of life in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are conscripted for up to three years of service, and the episode set off an impassioned debate that had far more to do with the nature of military service and the selective refusal of duties than with the concerns raised by the would-be whistle-blowers about the treatment of the Palestinians under occupation.
Officials and politicians from the right and the left harshly criticized the 43 veterans of the elite Unit 8200, who lodged their protest in a letter sent Thursday night to their commanders as well as to Israel’s prime minister and army chief. The letter was made public on Friday. They wrote that they refused to continue to be “tools” of Israel’s military rule in the occupied territories, that the surveillance work they had been required to perform made “no distinction between Palestinians who are and are not involved in violence” and that information collected “harms innocent people” and “is used for political persecution.”
Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz, the chief military spokesman, said in a statement that the Israeli Army constituted “one common camp — perhaps the widest in all of Israeli society — and we think sevenfold before we express political positions in forums not meant for such expression.”
Accusing the protesters of exploiting their army service for political ends, General Almoz said that the army’s top brass viewed the act with the “utmost severity” and that disciplinary measures would be “sharp and clear,” without elaborating about whether the protesters would face criminal prosecution. He added that only 10 of the 43 who signed the protest letter were actively involved in intelligence gathering.
While this was not the first collective public protest by army reservists, it was the first by intelligence officers and the largest among soldiers in years.
Yediot Aharonot, the newspaper that revealed the protest letter on Friday, in tandem with The Guardian of Britain, printed excerpts on Sunday of a letter that it said had been signed by at least 200 members of the unit who distanced themselves from the 43 protesters and said that the dissenters “chose the path of political insubordination.” Those 200 members rejected their colleagues’ assertions about the absence of ethical and moral standards guiding the unit’s intelligence gathering.
The names of those who signed the letters were not published because the military prohibits Unit 8200 members from being publicly identified.
Some commentators said that despite the contentiousness of the idea of soldiers’ refusing orders, the substantive points raised by the protesters should be examined. But many of them noted the danger of selective refusal, pointing to the soldiers who support Israeli settlements in the occupied territories yet might one day be required to dismantle West Bank settlements in the West Bank, as the army did in 2005 in Gaza.
And many critics castigated the 43 objectors for taking their protest to the news media rather than registering their complaints within military channels, particularly, they said, since Unit 8200 has the reputation of being like “a family.”Amos Yadlin, a former chief of military intelligence, said he believed that the claims in the protest letter were false, but even if they were true, he said, “military intelligence has the means to discuss every moral dilemma.”
“Many hundreds of soldiers and civilians,” Mr. Yadlin told Israel Radio, “are walking around today and don’t know they were saved by the soldiers of 8200 who warned of a terror attack.”
Isaac Herzog, the chairman of the center-left Labor Party and a former major in Unit 8200, said he opposed the concept of refusing orders and excoriated the 43 protesters for their “harmful global declaration,” alluding to the battle that Israel faces in regard to world opinion, especially after this summer’s 50-day war in Gaza.
Shelly Yacimovich, the former leader of the Labor Party, writing on her Facebook page, asked why the 43 did not protest in real time and refuse orders they considered immoral. Alluding to the lucrative employment opportunities in Israel’s high-tech industry that await many graduates of Unit 8200, Ms. Yacimovich said they should “be grateful” to the military.
Responding to the criticism, the group of 43 protesters issued a statement saying that the letter from the other soldiers affiliated with the unit “does not contradict any of the concrete issues raised by our refusal letter and the testimonials that were published in Yediot Aharonot.”
“Some of us,” the statement added, “have tried to raise our concerns in front of our commanders, as mentioned in the testimonies, but these concerns were ignored.” While the army does grant a small number of exemptions each year to conscientious objectors, it makes a distinction between pacifists who oppose any use of force and what it calls cases of “selective objection.”
Original Article
Source: nytimes.com/
Author: By ISABEL KERSHNER
Dozens of other veterans and reservists from the unit came to its defense and expressed outrage at their colleagues’ public act of refusal.
The protest and counterprotest exposed some of the complexities of life in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are conscripted for up to three years of service, and the episode set off an impassioned debate that had far more to do with the nature of military service and the selective refusal of duties than with the concerns raised by the would-be whistle-blowers about the treatment of the Palestinians under occupation.
Officials and politicians from the right and the left harshly criticized the 43 veterans of the elite Unit 8200, who lodged their protest in a letter sent Thursday night to their commanders as well as to Israel’s prime minister and army chief. The letter was made public on Friday. They wrote that they refused to continue to be “tools” of Israel’s military rule in the occupied territories, that the surveillance work they had been required to perform made “no distinction between Palestinians who are and are not involved in violence” and that information collected “harms innocent people” and “is used for political persecution.”
Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz, the chief military spokesman, said in a statement that the Israeli Army constituted “one common camp — perhaps the widest in all of Israeli society — and we think sevenfold before we express political positions in forums not meant for such expression.”
Accusing the protesters of exploiting their army service for political ends, General Almoz said that the army’s top brass viewed the act with the “utmost severity” and that disciplinary measures would be “sharp and clear,” without elaborating about whether the protesters would face criminal prosecution. He added that only 10 of the 43 who signed the protest letter were actively involved in intelligence gathering.
While this was not the first collective public protest by army reservists, it was the first by intelligence officers and the largest among soldiers in years.
Yediot Aharonot, the newspaper that revealed the protest letter on Friday, in tandem with The Guardian of Britain, printed excerpts on Sunday of a letter that it said had been signed by at least 200 members of the unit who distanced themselves from the 43 protesters and said that the dissenters “chose the path of political insubordination.” Those 200 members rejected their colleagues’ assertions about the absence of ethical and moral standards guiding the unit’s intelligence gathering.
The names of those who signed the letters were not published because the military prohibits Unit 8200 members from being publicly identified.
Some commentators said that despite the contentiousness of the idea of soldiers’ refusing orders, the substantive points raised by the protesters should be examined. But many of them noted the danger of selective refusal, pointing to the soldiers who support Israeli settlements in the occupied territories yet might one day be required to dismantle West Bank settlements in the West Bank, as the army did in 2005 in Gaza.
And many critics castigated the 43 objectors for taking their protest to the news media rather than registering their complaints within military channels, particularly, they said, since Unit 8200 has the reputation of being like “a family.”Amos Yadlin, a former chief of military intelligence, said he believed that the claims in the protest letter were false, but even if they were true, he said, “military intelligence has the means to discuss every moral dilemma.”
“Many hundreds of soldiers and civilians,” Mr. Yadlin told Israel Radio, “are walking around today and don’t know they were saved by the soldiers of 8200 who warned of a terror attack.”
Isaac Herzog, the chairman of the center-left Labor Party and a former major in Unit 8200, said he opposed the concept of refusing orders and excoriated the 43 protesters for their “harmful global declaration,” alluding to the battle that Israel faces in regard to world opinion, especially after this summer’s 50-day war in Gaza.
Shelly Yacimovich, the former leader of the Labor Party, writing on her Facebook page, asked why the 43 did not protest in real time and refuse orders they considered immoral. Alluding to the lucrative employment opportunities in Israel’s high-tech industry that await many graduates of Unit 8200, Ms. Yacimovich said they should “be grateful” to the military.
Responding to the criticism, the group of 43 protesters issued a statement saying that the letter from the other soldiers affiliated with the unit “does not contradict any of the concrete issues raised by our refusal letter and the testimonials that were published in Yediot Aharonot.”
“Some of us,” the statement added, “have tried to raise our concerns in front of our commanders, as mentioned in the testimonies, but these concerns were ignored.” While the army does grant a small number of exemptions each year to conscientious objectors, it makes a distinction between pacifists who oppose any use of force and what it calls cases of “selective objection.”
Original Article
Source: nytimes.com/
Author: By ISABEL KERSHNER
No comments:
Post a Comment