I am a resister and you are a rationalist. You are a
daydreaming escapist and I am an idealist. I am a man of
conscience and you are a deserter. My conscience should be
listened to and yours must be disregarded.
In the debate dividing Right and Left each side claims the
resisters on the other side of the fence are destructive,
hypocritical, detrimental. Of course we cannot skip the most
offensive slur of all, which is reserved for traitors who are
enemies of the state: "underminers of democracy." Each side
has its spectrum of resisters and its own terminology.
"Settlers" versus "the builders of the Yishuv," settlement
outpost versus town.
At this stage, there are resisters of the Right, who now
oppose the Army's efforts to dismantle illegal settlements
and plan for Disengagement, and resisters of the Left who
have refused to serve in the Territories where they have to
act against Arabs.
"When my son refuses to serve in the Territories," explains
the father of a soldier from the Left, "he is refusing a
totally illegal order. He looks up and sees a black flag
waving above it. I am proud of my son for refusing to be a
part of an occupying army, for being unwilling to cooperate
with the oppression of another people and for not lending a
hand to war crimes. Everyone can see this is not an act of
refusing orders for its own sake, but of engaging in basic,
moral thought.
"What do I have to say about those who threaten not to
evacuate settlers? I call the kippah on their heads a
kippah of refusal. I claim they are hitching onto a
far- right ideological struggle. And don't forget that once a
prime minister was murdered here by a kippah-
wearer."
"When my son refuses to clear Jews from parts of Eretz
Yisroel," says the father of a soldier from the Right,
"he is refusing a totally illegal order. He looks up and sees
a black flag waving above it. I am proud of my son for
refusing to carry out the transfer of Jews, for engaging his
Jewish conscience and being unwilling to forcibly evacuate
parts of Eretz Yisroel, for understanding that history
will judge Jews who force Jews to leave.
"What do I have to say about those who are unwilling to
defend Jews in Judea and Samaria? They are enemy
collaborators, toadies and pseudo-pacifists."
The refuseniks who opted to sit in jail rather than serve in
the Territories have become the darlings of the Left.
Intellectuals, professors and high-ranking figures, past and
present, have backed these conscientious objectors and their
right to refuse. With reservations, of course.
The right to refuse in accordance with one's conscience
depends on where one stands politically. The gallery of
intellectuals, who think they have a monopoly on morality,
denounce Right-wing resistance in the sharpest language.
"They are daydreamers and followers. They should be tried and
imprisoned. Their resistance has to be finished off while
it's still small scale."
Each side paints its own resistance white and the other
side's resistance black. Where is the distinction between
Left-wing resistance and Right-wing resistance? That depends
who you ask, of course.
Says the Right: "A distinction has to be drawn between
military refusal and civilian refusal, between refusal that
endangers Jews and refusal intended to protect them."
The Right points to the failure to enter Beirut (e.g. the
case of Maj. Gen. Eli Geva, commander of a tank brigade in
June 1982 during the Lebanese War) or the air force pilot
unwilling to fire missiles at mass murderers due to concerns
for the safety of bystanders (e.g. Yonatan Shapira, who
refused to fire at a terrorist in Gaza)—both grave
incidents of refusing orders that endangered Jews. A soldier
who refuses orders in uniform is a resister of an unwanted
type.
The Left sees the distinction as between a fundamental moral
position, while the Right is nationalist and favors land over
people.
The Right says that the Left started the refusing, but the
Left blames the Oppression.
Wanted: Professional Pests
GSS Head Avi Dichter, appearing before the Knesset Foreign
Affairs and Security Committee, painted a dark picture of
what lies in store when the settlements are forcibly
evacuated in the framework of the disengagement plan. The
extreme right plans to spread rumors about GSS snipers. A
minority of a few dozen extremists backed by hundreds of
supports plans to spread rumors state security forces intend
to start shooting. Their goal is to find a pretext to return
fire at the security forces and heat up the scene.
Certain figures are busy obtaining military rifles to imitate
the sound of shooting by security forces. The scenario is
chilling: during the evacuation, in the middle of the melee
dozens of people will be roaming about with red dye the color
of blood gushing from their clothes. "Figures from the
extreme Right will find excuses to fire at the evacuating
forces. They have no qualms about harming the IDF."
This scenario sounds a bit fantastic, but resistance to the
evacuation of settlements has found expression out in the
field in very interesting ways. A working document labeled
"Top Secret" and disseminated in the settlements instructs
activists in the field. The document contains details about
high-ranking religious officers in the IDF, from the
commander of the Central Headquarters to the head of the
Personnel Department, the commander of the Charuv Battalion
and others. The activists are instructed to give these
officers in particular a very hard time, and to press them
and their families about their actions.
The idea is to keep up the pressure on high-ranking officers
everywhere, at all times. At their children's schools and
kindergartens, slogans will be shouted out against the
"disloyal" father and at the bank and grocery store
denunciatory flyers will be handed out. These officers will
be treated to a full-time honor guard of activists chanting
derogatory slogans and organizing demonstrations outside
their homes.
The harassment campaign is just the beginning. Another widely-
accepted plan is to flood the jails with thousands of
resisters to passively bring the system to the point of
collapse.
