The Officers' Letter
By Moshe Feiglin

About once a year a great media balloon bursts around 
the refusal of various Leftists to serve in the army of 
"occupation".
As far back as Golda Meir's time the country held its 
breath because of a famous letter from High School 
students, that was followed by many others of the same 
kind. Some were from High School kids, some from 
officers, some from reservists before army service, and 
some from those who had just completed their service. I 
only know of one case of an officer from the Right who 
used the weapon of refusal, for the opposite reason. 
This was Captain Moti Karpel who refused to serve 
because of the Leftist policy of the army. It need 
hardly be said that although the ideological basis for 
his refusal was far more deep and logical, Karpel's case 
did not receive a tenth of the exposure enjoyed by 
Leftist refusals. The Yediot Aharonot newspaper didn't 
devote a weekend supplement to him and the international 
media networks didn't beat a track to his home.
Israel was established and lives on the defense ethos. 
Defense, the very preservation of existence, is the sole 
glue still (and with great difficulty) uniting Israeli 
society. Consequently a political act that uses the very 
readiness to serve as a weapon against the State carries 
considerable weight. It is clear that Israel cannot 
continue to retain control of Judea and Samaria if the 
refusal to serve there were to become real civil 
disobedience issue. However, there is no need to worry: 
an in-depth examination of Leftist refusal indicates 
that this is not likely to occur.
There are several similar features that repeat 
themselves every time the subject hits the headlines. 
It is always a case of refusal to serve on the part of 
Leftists, this refusal always produces a media echo out 
of all proportion to its real influence, the 
signatories always emerge unscathed or receive nominal 
sentences only, and the signatories always receive 
media support for their pose as people ready to pay a 
heavy price for standing up for their high principles. 
For some of these Leftist objectors the media support 
becomes really worthwhile. The classic example (one of 
many) is that of Moshe Negbi, a member of the extremist 
Leftist movement, "There's a limit", who announced that 
government policy that he didn't like would justify for 
him a civil war (no less!). Not only was Negbi not 
charged with incitement to revolt and paid no price of 
any kind, but even received a job as the legal 
commentator for Kol Israel.
After this short historical review of the ideological 
refusal of the Left, it is difficult to take the 
current officers' letter seriously. (By the way, most 
of them are not officers, and some of the signatories 
do not currently serve in the IDF.) But the basic issue 
still stands. Let us assume for a moment that all those 
bodies that turn these conscientious objectors from the 
Left into a force were neutralized, that the media gave 
them no support, that the State would demand long 
prison sentences for them (as it did in the case of Zo 
Artzeinu), that the signatories would lose their jobs, 
that their academic advancement would be delayed and 
their public standing drop to nothing - in short, let 
us assume that the Leftist objectors were required to 
pay the high price for their views that Rightists paid 
when they found themselves involved in a struggle 
against the Oslo regime - what would be the attitude of 
the Right towards them?
Last week I took part in a live debate with an MK from 
the extreme Left Meretz party, Mosi Raz, about the 
issue of conscientious objection. The Almighty gave me 
the great privilege of leading Zo Artzeinu, a movement 
that stood in the forefront of the struggle against the 
Oslo agreements, and led the sole civil disobedience 
campaign in Israel's history. Because of these 
activities I was charged, together with my friend 
Shmuel Sackett, with incitement to revolt, and the 
State of Israel demanded a sentence of ten years 
imprisonment. (My civil refusal consisted of a call to 
block roads and cannot be compared with the seriousness 
of refusal to perform military duties during a general 
state of hostilities.) Since this was the case, the 
interviewer thought it would be interesting to confront 
me with a well-known Leftist on the background of the 
officers' letter.
What happened in that debate proved to be a great 
surprise for many. Mosi Raz strongly attacked the 
signatories of the letter, while I saw no fundamental 
flaw in the act of conscientious objection. Raz argued 
that one has first of all to obey orders and only if 
the order is clearly illegal should one refuse to obey 
it. Raz failed to define such an order, since such a 
definition does not exist. With the arrogance 
characteristic of the Left, Raz assumes that the values 
he holds dear are the sole correct ones, and his 
subjective point of view is adequate to specify what is 
and what isn't legal. I argued that in principle a 
person has to act according to his conscience. Not only 
is he permitted to refuse to obey an order that is in 
conflict with his conscience, he is morally obligated 
to do so. I explained that the problem with the 
officers' letter does not lie with the issue of refusal 
but that the objectors are not called upon to pay the 
price for their apparent stand for their principles. 
This acts in the end as a boomerang against the 
signatories themselves. Society does not take them 
seriously and despite the massive support given them by 
haters of Israel in the local and international media, 
their activities fail to snowball. Few people join them 
and the vast majority of reservists denounce them.
If the signatories had been required to pay the price 
demanded from those of the Right who had waged a 
campaign of non-violent civil disobedience, it is very 
doubtful if the letter would ever have been written. If 
in fact someone had signed under such circumstances, I 
would take my hat off to him.
I don't think Israeli society needs to worry about the 
issue. Real conscientious objectors, those who paid a 
heavy price for their principles, not only did not 
undermine society but in fact contributed to the 
culture in which they acted and strengthened its moral 
foundations. Refusal is the sole democratic tool 
against cynicism and evil, acting under the protection 
of the law and the bureaucracy. When one examines our 
fresh case specifically, it is doubtful whether it is 
possible to regard the signatories as conscientious 
objectors. Even if some do so, their conscience is 
distorted (*) so that in the final analysis society 
will reject their message. On the other hand, their 
letter is of value in that it arouses a healthy society 
to thoroughly examine such fundamental issues.
-------------
(*) It is sufficient to point out that the Left always found it 
possible to support murderous regimes. The founding fathers of the 
Israeli Left unreservedly identified with the regime of Stalin, 
who murdered 18 million of his countrymen, with the Khmer Rouge 
regime of Paul Pot who perpetrated genocide on half of his own 
people, with the "freedom fighter", Fidel Castro, and with the man 
of conscience, Yasser Arafat. There are some who prefer to forget 
that Arafat is the greatest murderer of Jews in our generation. It 
is therefore difficult to take seriously the fine words of people 
of the Left.