The refusal by a group of army officers to serve in the territories has raised a storm of controversy. Larry Derfner examines how widespread the phenomenon actually is, and whether it's likely to spread further

F., a reserve IDF soldier who served near Bethlehem in October, says the next time his unit is called to duty in the West Bank or Gaza, "I think I'm not going to go."

He didn't engage in or witness acts of cruelty or brutality against Palestinians; in fact he says many soldiers gave food to them. "But the occupation is inherently brutal," he says.

A Palestinian farmer became subject to the changing daily demands of the platoon, F. says, because his orchard abutted some 10 mobile homes housing the settlers whom the platoon was there to guard.

"You're risking your life for something that you not only don't believe in, but you're risking your life for something you flatly oppose on moral grounds," he says.

F.'s intention to avoid future duty in the territories, and his identification with the "officers' letter" - the two-week-old "refusenik" movement of reserve IDF officers refusing to serve in the territories - places him in the minority among reservists. J., an officer who served in Ramallah two weeks ago, represents the majority.

"Everybody I've talked to is as opposed to the refuseniks as can be. These guys are officers - if they see somebody using excessive force, or humiliating someone, it's their job to stop it, and if they don't, then they're to blame," he says.

In Ramallah, some of J.'s soldiers kept Palestinian families waiting unnecessarily at barricades, or spoke to them disrespectfully; J. says that when he saw this, he waved the families through and chastised or even punished the offending soldiers.

"The refuseniks are abusing the army for the sake of a political act," he maintains.

When the letter, signed by 50 officers, and a story about them appeared two weeks ago in Yediot Aharonot, the IDF derided the movement as "marginal." Within 10 days, though, the number of officers signing on more than tripled.

Besides these officers, another nearly 400 reservists have told Yesh Gvul (There is a border), the refusenik movement begun during the Lebanon War, that they will not serve in the West Bank or Gaza, says Peretz Kidron, a spokesman for Yesh Gvul.

Since the current intifada began 16 months ago, 46 soldiers have gone to prison for refusing to serve - about half refusing to go to the territories, another half for refusing to serve in the IDF at all - says Sergey Sandler, a pacifist in the New Profile anti-military group, who served two prison terms for refusal before being discharged from the IDF as "unsuitable."

In random interviews at Tel Aviv University with 20 IDF reservists who've served in the territories, 13 said they disagreed with the refuseniks, and would continue to serve in the West Bank or Gaza when called, regardless of their political opinions.

Seven, however, said they identified with the refuseniks. These seven said they'd either already deliberately avoided joining their units in the territories, or intended to do so on the next call-up, or were strongly considering such a step.

Some were thinking of signing the protest letter, all were considering the more popular way of avoiding service in the territories - by what's known as "gray refusal": claiming illness and getting a deferment from a doctor, or claiming psychological distress and getting a deferment from an IDF mental health officer, or simply buying a plane ticket abroad and making up an excuse for being overseas at the time of the unit's call-up.

E. says he got out of going to Gaza with his unit last June by telling his doctor he was having heart palpitations and extreme anxiety.

"The truth is I was scared, and I don't want to shoot people, beat people or oppress people," he says. E now plans to seek a permanent discharge from the army on medical grounds.

"The rule of thumb is that for every outright refusenik, says TAU philosophy Prof. Assa Kasher, who wrote the IDF's code of ethics in 1994, "there are 10 other soldiers who engage in 'gray refusal,'"

THE OFFICERS' letter, initiated by lieutenants Yaniv Itskovich and David Zonshain, charges that the occupation is costing the IDF its humanity and corrupting Israeli society.

"We will no longer fight beyond the Green Line with the aim of ruling, expelling, starving and humiliating and entire people," it reads. Refuseniks said in the Yediot article that soldiers in the territories regularly shoot at civilians, including children, who pose no threat to their lives; refuse to let ambulances through barricades; and destroy homes and agricultural fields on the slightest pretext of "security."

In response, the IDF maintains it acts only on the genuine demands of security, and all aberrant behavior that comes to the attention of officers is investigated.

Since the officers' letter came out, the IDF brass, along with individual officers who oppose the refuseniks, launched a counter-offensive, treating the movement not as a marginal phenomenon, but as a threat. Within a couple of days 500 reservists calling themselves Privileged to Serve denounced the refusal movement as "extreme and destructive, irresponsible and un-Zionist," and maintained that Privileged to Serve represented the "silent majority" of soldiers.

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz accused the refuseniks of undermining Israel's security in a time of war, and made innuendoes that left-wing political groups were behind the movement, in which case, he charged, the offense is "worse than refusal, it's incitement to rebellion."

The IDF is planning to strip the refusenik officers, most of them in their 20s, of their command, although there are no plans to prosecute them.

Dr. Reuven Gal, former chief IDF psychologist who heads the Carmel Institute for Social Studies, says the refusal movement reflects the sharp deterioration of morale among reservists that's taken hold as the intifada stretches out.

In the first months of the intifada, morale among reservists was very high, Gal says, because soldiers felt they were fighting a defensive war of no choice, since the Palestinians had initiated the violence in the face of a genuine Israeli peace offer.

But this "high" has since dissipated, and disillusionment has set in, says Gal. "One reason is that the fighting is just dragging on, and the feeling is, 'How long can we go on like this?' This also happened during the War of Attrition, the first intifada, and the fighting in Lebanon.

"Another reason is the problem with what is considered by some people to be inhumane, brutal behavior by the army," Gal continues. "They're destroying houses, killing civilians. They're not up against tanks, they're up against mainly a civilian population.

"And finally, nobody sees an attempt to reach a political solution," he adds. "There is no clear objective behind the response to the intifada. In the past, soldiers could say they were fighting to give the political echelon time to find a solution, but now the objective is to keep the violence down until - until what? Nobody knows."

THE PUBLIC debate around the refuseniks has focused on the right or wrong of refusing to serve in the territories, while the stories about brutality against Palestinians have received much less attention. However, while none of the reservists at TAU said they themselves had ever taken part in acts of deliberate cruelty against civilians, many said they'd seen other soldiers do so, either in the current intifada or in years past.

Recalls E., who engages in "gray refusal" from service in the territories: "Once in [Jerusalem's] Old City, when I was doing my regular service, a Jew was stabbed by an Arab, and people said the Arab was wearing a red shirt. So the Border Police rounded up every Arab in the Old City wearing a red shirt, dozens of them, lined them up on their knees against a wall, and went down the line, hitting them with their rifle butts on the head, on the back, in their ribs. Afterward they had to clean up the blood with fire hoses."

M., who opposes the refuseniks, tells of seeing soldiers beating Palestinian prisoners in a tent in Gaza after "waiting for the opportunity" to do so. R., who also opposes the refuseniks, says that during recent duty in Gaza, Nablus and other spots in the territories, he saw "terrible atrocities, abuses, everything you can imagine. There's no such thing as a clean occupation."

The attitudes expressed by the reservists at TAU did not fall into two simple categories - morally outraged leftists and gung-ho rightists.

Many of those who opposed the refuseniks said they agreed with the political goal of getting out of the territories. Many said they, too, were appalled by what they were called on to do to Palestinian civilians, even if the acts were legal and, in their view, necessary in time of war.

"You hate every minute you're there. It's not a good feeling to point a gun at someone, to be an armed soldier facing an unarmed civilian. You feel their hatred of you," says S., who considers the refusenik movement a "cynical abuse of the army for a political goal."

R. says he will continue to serve in the territories "against my will, and with self-disgust, because the Palestinians aren't going to make peace with us because of our good consciences, but because we're going to hold onto the territories until they do."

P. opposes the refusenik movement even though he is active in Amnesty International. He thinks there are a number of killings of civilians and house demolitions that should be investigated more thoroughly by the IDF, but insists it is possible "to man a barricade in a humane way. I believe I'm having a positive influence on what goes on."

L. opposes the refuseniks, and justifies harsh actions such as delaying or even refusing to let ambulances go through barricades because they might be carrying terrorists, as was the case in the most recent bombing in Jerusalem. Yet he thinks that the refusal movement during the Lebanon War was justified.

"My father was a soldier in Lebanon, and he agreed with the refuseniks even though he didn't join them. It was different - Lebanon wasn't our country. What's going on the territories affects our security at home," he argues.

A number of reservists say they're angry at the refuseniks for leaving them with that much more dirty work to do, and that much less furlough time. Some accuse the refuseniks of weakening the army and the nation in the face of a Palestinian onslaught.

"We have enough problems from without, we don't need problems from within," says U.

All the reservists who opposed the refusenik movement consider it a violation of democratic principle.

"I don't agree with the government's policy, it's not leading anywhere, but in a democracy sometimes you have to do things that aren't to your liking. I don't like paying taxes, either, but I pay them," argues M.

Nearly every reservist interviewed who opposed the refuseniks said they knew of no problem with "gray refusal" in their unit; conversely, nearly every reservist interviewed who sided with the refuseniks said there were others in their unit planning to get out of intifada duty.

UNTIL the refusenik officers went public, the IDF has been trying to "sweep the issue under the rug," says Kidron, by simply sending the objecting soldiers home, or giving them duty outside the territories, while prosecuting relatively few.

Yoni Eshbar, 27, a first sergeant who was due to go to the West Bank with his reserve unit in December, consulted with Yesh Gvul first, then showed up on call-up day and told his officer he wouldn't serve in the territories, and wanted to be transferred to a unit that served inside the Green Line. He was referred to the battalion commander.

"We had a very relaxed, brief discussion," says Eshbar. "I explained my position; he didn't try to talk me out of it, he just asked if I was prepared to take the consequences, and I said yes. I'm waiting to hear what the decision is."

Since the start of the intifada, the IDF has maintained that the rate of reserve soldiers answering the call-up for the territories is near 100%.

Gal agrees that reserve soldiers' "esprit de corps" is a powerful pull to duty, but once they arrive in the territories, their willingness to pull hard duty falls off sharply.

"Out of 40 soldiers, you may have 20 trying all ways possible to get out of it - they'll ask to work in the kitchen, in the lookout posts, and most commanders are smart enough to take this into consideration," he says.

It may be that the officers' letter has already forced reforms in the IDF. Mofaz told a Knesset committee this week that spot checks of behavior at barricades turned up 21 cases that will be investigated.

Officers and commanders will be posted at barricades with line soldiers from now on. Eight soldiers at checkpoints have been indicted for improper behavior towards Palestinians, Mofaz said.

Alongside his harsh statements against the refuseniks, Mofaz, of late, has begun taking a more "understanding" view. He's ordered commanders to interview the refuseniks, and to weigh their complaints with "utmost seriousness," while at the same time condemning the refuseniks' actions.

During a meeting with the Israel Democracy Institute, IDF generals were reported to have allowed that a number of the core refuseniks had stellar military records.

After publication of the letter, Kasher, one of Israel's leading sociopolitical thinkers, and a noted ideologue of the peace movement, met for three and a half hours with seven of the original signatories, at their request.

"I would describe them as part of the 'moderate Zionist left.' All said they're against the Palestinian right of return, all said that if there were a war with Syria, they'd go straight to the front lines. All of them said they saw or heard of orders being given that put them in mind of the 'black flag' [a patently immoral order that, under Israeli law, a soldier is bound to disobey]," Kasher continues. "They said they see it all the time, they said brutality and callousness have become a norm. They said there's a black flag in the atmosphere."

Yet for all of Kasher's empathy with and respect for the refuseniks, he argues that they are making a mistake. For one, he says, they are breaking the "warrior's code of ethics."

"Soldiers don't risk their lives because of a flag, or an ideology, but because they are committed to their comrades. And by refusing to serve in the territories, these officers are telling their comrades, 'There are some situations in which I won't be there with you.' This means their comrades really can't depend on them anymore," says Kasher.

He also criticizes the refuseniks for describing the war against the intifada as "the war for the peace of the settlements." This amounts to politicizing IDF service, promoting the idea that soldiers are free to refuse to serve in any cause that contradicts their political views, and this is wrong, Kasher continues.

Finally, he says, the refusenik movement will weaken Israel's democracy, which is weak enough already. "So many Israelis approve of violating the law in the name of a political cause. A prime minister was assassinated because of that view. The refusal movement only further weakens the public's respect for the law," he says.

ISRAEL'S military refusal movement began in the Lebanon War with the Yesh Gvul movement, whose founders split off from Peace Now over the issue. During the Lebanon War, 168 soldiers went to prison rather than fight, says Kidron, who adds that the number of soldiers who refused to go to Lebanon, but who weren't sent to prison, was much larger.

A Lebanon War petition of "mild" refusal - in which soldiers asked not to be posted to Lebanon because of their moral and political objections to the war - drew some 3,000 signatures, Kidron adds.

During the first intifada, nearly 200 soldiers went to prison rather than fight, he continues.

"As time went on, army commanders learned to live with the phenomenon, and tended to give the [refusenik] soldiers assignments away from the territories instead of trying them," says Kidron.

He says the timing of the current refusal movement is "not coincidental.

"It's coming when a lot of these soldiers have already done their first reserve duty in the intifada, and are now looking at their second one.

"They'll go the first time, but once they see what's involved, their minds change."

Military refusal has always been beyond the pale of the mainstream peace movement, led by Meretz in the Knesset and Peace Now in the streets. Meretz leader Yossi Sarid, who has argued that military refusal plays into the hands of the Right, has criticized the officers' letter, as has Peace Now activist Tsali Reshef, who initiated the 1978 "officers' letter" calling for peace with Egypt, the letter that was the genesis of Peace Now.

Kidron, however, maintains that the mainstream Left's opposition to refusal comes to "shooting and crying," and that refusal has "always been at the cutting edge of the peace movement. When people see one person ready to stand up and go to prison, that means much more to public opinion because it convinces people that there's a real moral issue at hand. For every soldier who goes to prison, another 100 take off their slippers, get off the couch and go to a Peace Now march."

YET MILITARY refusal was adamantly kept out of what is considered to have been the most successful peace movement in Israel's history - the "Four Mothers" movement which, in three years, galvanized public and political support for a unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon.

"Refusal was our red line," says Ronit Nahmias, one of the original Four Mothers. "We sympathized with soldiers who didn't want to go to combat units so they wouldn't have to go to Lebanon, but our attitude was that once you're in the IDF, you have to follow orders."

While Nahmias agrees with the officers' goal of getting out of the territories, she thinks they should keep their activities in the political arena, and out of the army. However, she credits the refusal movement during the 1982-85 Lebanon War with helping to force the army to rely almost solely on regular army units for the fighting in the security zone from 1985-2000.

"They knew the reservists wouldn't cooperate," she says.

Janet Aviad, a veteran Peace Now activist, says during the Lebanon War and the first intifada, refuseniks had only a marginal effect. But, she says, the officers' letter of two weeks ago has hit a "raw nerve" in Israeli society, and helped energize a previously dormant peace movement.

"I think it's already had an enormous impact, evidenced by the media attention it's attracted, and by the way it's drawn fire from the army and the political establishment. This letter, this dramatic act of refusal, has refocused attention on the evils of the occupation," Aviad says.

The reason for the letter's impact, she speculates, is because it gathered signatures so quickly, and because it comes at a time of growing disenchantment with the war effort. The letter "hit" just as the critical, one-year evaluations on Ariel Sharon's prime ministership are coming in, in the wake of the house demolitions in Rafiah, and the IDF assassinations after a period of relative calm, she says.

Another explanation for the letter's impact is that it comes as the peace movement is approaching despair - with Meretz having no voice in the Knesset, and Peace Now unable to get more than a few hundred protesters in the street.

This week the "Peace Coalition" - Peace Now, Meretz and Labor Party doves - announced a campaign titled, "Out of the territories, back to ourselves," calling for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the isolated West Bank settlements, and a resumption of peace negotiations based on a withdrawal roughly to the 1967 borders.

Peace Coalition, however, did not time the campaign to "piggyback" on the officers' letter, Aviad maintains; it was planned before the letter came out.

Kidron describes the officers' letter as "both a symptom and a catalyst." Since its publication, a number of past Yesh Gvul supporters have "come out of the woodwork, and are getting involved again." Last weekend Yesh Gvul leafleted at 16 sites around the country.

The refusenik officers' Website has received many hundreds of messages of support - along with a lesser volume of hate mail.

The crucial, unknowable question about the refusenik movement is whether it will grow in numbers and influence, both in the army and in the political arena, or whether it will fade in importance after its initial splash.

Kasher thinks the movement's potential is no greater than that of the refusal movement during the Lebanon War - a few hundred refuseniks - and it will not have a substantial impact on public opinion, the IDF or the government.

"Terror is what's affecting Israelis these days. About 80% of the public thinks the Palestinians are to blame for the war, not Israel," he says.

Gal, however, predicts the refusenik movement will snowball.

"I have no doubt that this is going to force the government to seek a solution, a way out. And if it doesn't, my prediction is that the pressure will grow, and it will lead to more officers' letters, more signatures, more refuseniks, until you see 250,000 people protesting the war in Kikar Rabin," he says. "This is a story with a foregone conclusion."

www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/10/Features/Features.43147.html