FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Israeli Court Ignored Nuremberg Precedents

On Dec. 30, 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court, in Jerusalem, ruled that Army reservists, who have refused to serve in the Occupied Territories, for “reasons of conscience,” cannot be exempted from military duty. Earlier this year, more than 70 Israeli army reservists, including at least two dozen officers, stated they would no longer serve in the West Bank and Gaza because of the brutality of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. “We will no longer fight beyond the Green Line, [the border between Israel and the West Bank established after the Six-Day War] for the purpose of occupying, deporting, destroying, blockading, killing, starving and humiliating an entire people”.

The three judge panel, however, held that the Army could not recognize “selective” conscientious objectors, since it might “loosen the links that hold us together as a people.” Such objectors, referring to the petitioners, are “shirking risky duty in a time of war,” and also this could have “security implications as the number of resisters grow.” It could also “create a sense of discrimination between blood and blood,” the majority ruling added (Baltimore Sun, 12/31/02). In a concurring opinion, Justice Dorit Beinisch said, “The considerations of state security and the integrity of Israeli society must be considered against the arguments of conscience and belief. The questions raised by the fight against terrorism are at the crux of an intense political debate. If the debate is conducted in the army, it could cause serious and substantial harm” (Washington Post, 12/31/02).

As a result of the legal precedents set at Nuremberg, Germany, (1945-47), the Israeli reservists were right to demand a clarification of their position. Unfortunately, the court ducked the main issue: Whether Israel’s 35 year occupation of the territories is illegal and violates international law and that the reservists have the right to refuse duty there. After WWII, key Nazi defendants were brought to trial before an International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. They were charged with, among other offenses, “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” (Article 6 of its Charter). Some of the defendants insisted they were immune to prosecution, since they were only following the orders of their superior, Adolph Hitler, the Fuehrer, the absolute leader of the German state. In a totalitarian society, they insisted, it was impossible for any individual not to follow the orders of the Fuehrer. Not doing so, they claimed, meant death or imprisonment.

The Nuremberg court rejected their defense. Instead, it adopted the firm principle, embodied in Article 8 of its Charter, that a soldier has a duty to refuse any order from a superior to commit a crime against humanity or a criminal act. It stated, “The fact that a defendant acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility…” The reasoning for the high standard was to restrain war crimes by soldiers, whether carried out against combatants or civilians.

In today’s Israel, it seems like the court is saying, that Israeli Army reservists, called up for duty in the Occupied Territories, must leave their conscience at home. Yet, why can’t an Israeli soldier “debate” an order to commit an offense he or she deems to be unlawful, illegal and/or immoral? What about the precedents set at Nuremberg?

The reservist Petition, now known as the “Officers Letter”, was published in one of Israel’s leading newspapers, Yedioth Ahronoth. In it, the men said they would continue to defend Israel, but they would no longer fight in the war for the welfare of the “Jewish settlements.” The soldiers said that while serving in the occupied territories, “We have received instructions that have nothing to do with the security of the state, and whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of domination of the Palestinian people. The price of occupation,” they argued, “is the loss of humanity in the IDF and the corruption of the whole Israeli society.” As a result of not wanting to have any part in such a tour of duty, many have received jail terms and have been removed from their army positions.

Meanwhile, the last two years have been a living hell for the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. During all of that time, the “Iron Fist” colonial policy of Sharon has been evident from death squads running amuck, to legalizing torture of detainees, to demolition of homes of people, and the building of even more illegal settlements. On May 3, 2002, Sharon boasted to the press that “We have to hit the Palestinians very hard, and make them loose and sacrifice, so that they feel the enormity of the price.” Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 33, collective punishment is strictly prohibited.

The Israeli Army reservists, named in the Petition, know what has been going on in the Occupied Territories. They have seen the brutal wrongdoing of the IDF first hand and they wanted “no part of it.” These brave souls, now numbering more than 500, understand more than the occupant in the White House, George W. Bush Jr., that the oppression of the Palestinian people has nothing to do with “security of Israel,” and everything to do with “domination of the Palestinian people” by Tel Aviv.

The Israeli court opinion refusing to exempt the Army reservists from duty in the Occupied Territories makes a mockery of justice. It ignores the precedents set at Nuremberg, and other settled principles of international law. It is yet another black mark against a state that continues to violate the human rights of the Palestinian people. And worse, the decision can now be taken as a green light to the IDF to carry out Sharon’s pledge to “hit the Palestinians very hard… so that they feel the enormity of the price.”

WILLIAM HUGHES is the author of “Baltimore Iconoclast” (Writer’s Showcase), which is available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.

(C) WILLIAM HUGHES 2002

 

More articles by:

February 21, 2019
Nick Pemberton
Israel, Venezuela and Nationalism In The Neoliberal Era
Chris Orlet
The Bill and Melinda Gates’ Fair Taxation Scaremongering Tour
Bruce E. Levine
“Heavy Drinking” and the NYT’s Offensive Obit on Herbert Fingarette
Lisi Krall
This Historical Moment Demands Transformation of Our Institutions. The Green New Deal Won’t Do That
Stephanie Savell
Mapping the American War on Terror: Now in 80 Countries
Daniel Warner
New York, New York: a Resounding Victory for New York Over Amazon
Russell Mokhiber
With Monsanto and Glyphosate on the Run AAAS Revokes Award to Scientists Whose Studies Led to Ban on Weedkiller in Sri Lanka and Other Countries
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Fake National Emergency Moves America Closer to an Autocracy
Alex Campbell
Tracing the Threads in Venezuela: Humanitarian Aid
Jonah Raskin
Mitchel Cohen Takes on Global and Local Goliaths: Profile of a Lifelong Multi-Movement Organizer
Binoy Kampmark
Size Matters: the Demise of the Airbus A380
Elliot Sperber
For Your Children (or: Dead Ahead)
February 20, 2019
Anthony DiMaggio
Withdrawal Pains and Syrian Civil War: An Analysis of U.S. Media Discourse
Charles Pierson
When Saudi Arabia Gets the Bomb
Doug Johnson Hatlem
“Electability” is Real (Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis)
Kenneth Surin
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Another Boondoggle in Virginia
John Feffer
The Psychology of the Wall
Dean Baker
Modern Monetary Theory and Taxing the Rich
Russell Mokhiber
Citizens Arrested Calling Out Manchin on Rockwool
George Ochenski
Unconstitutional Power Grabs
Michael T. Klare
War With China? It’s Already Under Way
Thomas Knapp
The Real Emergency Isn’t About the Wall, It’s About the Separation of Powers
Manuel García, Jr.
Two Worlds
Daniel Warner
The Martin Ennals and Victorian Prize Winners Contrast with Australia’s Policies against Human Dignity
Norman Solomon
What the Bernie Sanders 2020 Campaign Means for Progressives
Dan Corjescu
2020 Vision: A Strategy of Courage
Matthew Johnson
Why Protest Trump When We Can Impeach Him?
William A. Cohn
Something New and Something Old: a Story Still Being Told
Bill Martin
The Fourth Hypothesis: the Present Juncture of the Trump Clarification and the Watershed Moment on the Washington Mall
February 19, 2019
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Troublesome Possibilities: The Left and Tulsi Gabbard
Patrick Cockburn
She Didn’t Start the Fire: Why Attack the ISIS Bride?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Literature and Theater During War: Why Euripides Still Matters
Maximilian Werner
The Night of Terror: Wyoming Game and Fish’s Latest Attempt to Close the Book on the Mark Uptain Tragedy
Conn Hallinan
Erdogan is Destined for Another Rebuke in Turkey
Nyla Ali Khan
Politics of Jammu and Kashmir: The Only Viable Way is Forward
Mark Ashwill
On the Outside Looking In: an American in Vietnam
Joyce Nelson
Sir Richard Branson’s Venezuelan-Border PR Stunt
Ron Jacobs
Day of Remembrance and the Music of Anthony Brown        
Cesar Chelala
Women’s Critical Role in Saving the Environment
February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail