(Fwd) Refuseniks' court martials continue this week

[Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)]

GUSH SHALOM  pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org

This forwarded message of the CO's Parents Forum has the concrete 
details about this week's resumption of the long-drawn court martial of 6 
draft refusers. In the end is included some background information written 
by Adam Keller - who combines membership in Gush Shalom and in the 
CO's Parents Forum. 

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	"Anat Matar" <matar at post.tau.ac.il>

Conscientious objectors' trials - Monday and Tuesday

The court martial trials of pacifist Yoni Ben-Artzi and occupation
resisters Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri Tzameret, Adam Maor and 
Noam Bahat will resume on Monday and Tuesday. All six refuse to enlist 
since they regard the service in the IDF as opposed to their conscience.  

Ben-Artzi's trial will be held on Monday, 23.6, starting at 9:00 (and not
13:00!); The occupation resisters' trial will be held on Tuesday, 24.6,
starting at 09:00, both at the military court in Jaffa, 91-3 Yefet St.
("The Green House"), near the junction known as Haj Khil.  A vigil in support 
of all refuseniks will be held on Tuesday morning.

In Yoni's trial, this session will be dedicated to two invited witnesses:
General Avi Zamir, Deputy Head of Human Resources, Colonel Shlomi 
Simchi, who was the head of Yoni's "conscience committee", and Yoni's 
sister. The five's session will consist solely of the testimonies of the 
defendants themselves: each one of them will explain the grounds for his 
refusal to enlist to the occupation forces. Testimonies will be given in the 
order of the five's arrests, before being brought to court martial: Haggai 
Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri Tzameret, Adam Maor and Noam Bahat. 

Yoni is represented by adv. Michael Sfard; "the five" are represented by
adv. Dov Khenin.

Conscientious Objectors' Parents Forum. 

--
Background: The Legal Scene up to now

The decision to start court-martial proceedings against the new wave of 
high school graduates refuseniks, was taken at the beginning of 2003, in 
a reversal of a decades-long IDF policy. Apparently, the military 
authorities intended to start with two  refuseniks, whom they considered 
ringleaders: pacifist Yoni Ben Artzi, and Haggai Matar, who objects to 
serving in an occupation army. In an unexpected act of solidarity and 
defiance, four other refuseniks - Matan Kaminer, Shimri Tzameret, 
Adam Maor and Noam Bahat -  exercised, on  their own initiative, the 
right to be court-martialed, joining Haggai Matar.  Yoni Ben Artzi is 
defended by Adv. Michael Safard, and "the Five" by Adv. Dov Khenin, 
both of whom have considerable experience in cases involving civil rights 
and human rights aspects. 

The proceedings are only now (June 2003) approaching a decisive 
stage, after dragging on for almost six months. Meanwhile, the accused 
are held under detention at 
various military bases. In the earlier stages, preliminary legal arguments 
by the defense raised important issues - such as the appeal to the 
Supreme Court in the Ben-Artzi case, asking for the entire proceedings 
to be moved to a civil court.
  
Justifying its rejection of the appeal, the Supreme Court did underline the 
fact that a final appeal could bring the entire proceedings under scrutiny 
by the Supreme Court. This may partly account for time and care which 
the military court devotes to studying the preliminary and procedural 
issues raised. 

The divergence of the two court-martial proceedings stems from the 
army's declared policy under which "true" pacifists could, in principle, be 
exempted, as opposed to "political refusers." Since Ben Artzi's personal 
history verifies his deep-felt pacifism, the prosecution was reduced to the 
unsuccessful, formal argument that Ben Artzi "is no pacifist" since the 
army's Conscience Committee ruled that he is not, and that after  the 
Supreme Court refused Ben Artzi's appeal to intervene against that 
committee, the matter is closed. 

However, in coming sessions the prosecution may try to 
disqualify defense witnesses or severely restrict the scope of their 
testimony. The spotlight on the working of the Conscience Committee 
may well explain a very recent exemption to refusenik Yoni Yehezkel, 
after he had spent some five months behind bars. It appears, at this 
point, that the army continues to pursue the Ben Artzi case mainly for 
reasons of prestige, since the case, which has received so much media 
attention cannot be dropped inconspicuously.  On the other hand, the 
army does not appear eager to start new court-martial proceedings 
against other pacifists presently in military prisons. 

In the court-martial of "the Five" - who insist as a matter of conscience - 
on their right to refuse to be part of an army of occupation, - the army 
argues that this kind of refusal has nothing to do with Conscientious 
Objection, but constitutes "the illegitimate introduction of political motives 
into the ranks of the army." Such refuseniks, the prosecution states, 
deserve no recognition, and are ineligible to have their cases considered 
by the Conscience Committee. Hence, they must be considered 
disruptive soldiers, defying military discipline, and be punished 
accordingly." To bolster its argument, the prosecution cites last year's 
Supreme Court verdict in the Zonshein case, which rejected "selective 
refusal" which “might create chaos in the army ranks". 
 
The defense has countered with the argument that conscience is a highly 
personal issue, and cannot be confined in one tight mould. What is 
acceptable to one person might be totally unacceptable to another. A 
democratic society should recognize that diversity and avoid forcing 
upon a citizen acts which are totally in contravention to the dictates of his 
or her conscience, especially when there is reason to believe that the 
occupation is illegal by any moral or legal international standard. With 
regard to the Zonshein precedent, the defense argues that the Supreme 
Court's unacceptable "selective refusal" refers only to those who join the 
army but refuse specific orders; those who  refuse any military service for 
reasons of conscience are total refusers, whatever their exact 
considerations. The defense already embarrassed the prosecution with 
proof that a military conscience committee dealing with women 
refuseniks recently did exempt as a Conscientious Objector, a woman 
who explicitly wrote that it is against her conscience to serve in an 
occupation army. 

While some international precedents exist, the Israeli judicial system has 
little experience in this field. In many of the legal issues involved, the Jaffa 
Military Court is treading ground, never covered  by any Israeli court, 
civil or military. The coming sessions (scheduled for June 24, 2003 and 
July 14, 2003) will be devoted to personal testimony by each of the five 
demonstrating  that each of the five has traveled his own individual path 
leading up to the act of refusal.