This is an Israeli story.
Most Jewish Israelis do compulsory military service for at least two years. However, every year a small number take an ideological stance to oppose their conscription and end up in military prison. Shahar Perets is one of them.
It is relevant to me because we get idiots from time to time trying on the the same idea here. Okay, I do recognise why Israel has a strong defence policy, however, conscription is immoral and there are no grey areas. Any state that cannot summon enough volunteers to fight for its survival does not deserve to survive. I suspect that Israel is not one of those as most young people seem to want to serve and good luck to them. That said, no one should be forced to serve. Regardless of this woman’s reasons for refusing and regardless of whether we might agree with them or not, she should not be forced into service as this is no better than slavery.
It was put to me once that we owe it to our country and all that. No, we don’t. We owe the state nothing at all. The state is a voracious parasite that feeds on us for its own self serving ends. We pay taxes and that pays for those who do want to do it. I did, briefly, wear the state’s uniform back in the eighties. I would not do that now (I’m too old anyway), out of conviction. I despise the state and wouldn’t lift a finger to help it. The only time I would take up arms would be to defend my home, my family and my loved ones. If this coincided with the interests of the state, that would be mere happenstance. Faced with conscription, I would do precisely what this woman has done. Refuse and mean it.
I agree with you on principle, and there is also a practical aspect.
I had to do military service back in the 80s in France (Managed to circumvent the grunt part through “cooperation” as I was a university graduate). I did however had to do an officer’s course for a few weekends and weeks.
What I got out of it was probably the best physical shape I have ever been, but mostly that it takes a long time to become a real soldier and it requires a certain mentality, which most people did not have. So it was mostly a waste of a year for 99% of conscripts.
It is better to put resources into training a few professionals, than manage scarcity for the majority of people who do not want to be there and would not be much more than cannon fodder.
Yup. I could have added those points too. Why should a professional military babysit a bunch of reluctant conscripts? That’s why, in part, national service in this country came to an end. Wasn’t worth it.
Yes, it was abolished because it was a bad idea. I don’t suppose that your point that it is morally wrong entered the equation at the time. My dad was one of the last people to do National Service, he seems to have come out of it quite well, but that doesn’t make it right.
My father likewise. It interrupted his post apprenticeship work. They delayed until he had completed that then took him before he could start properly.
As for morality, the evidence suggests that the state and its apparatus is devoid of understanding of the concept. See vaccine passports and mass vaccination along with the systematic demonisation of anyone who dares to object.
I have a slightly different view on this. Is it better that the state’s ability to wage war depends on what is in effect a private army of professional soldiers, or a citizen army?
My view is that the latter is in principle preferable. If the country really is being attacked then raising troops shouldn’t be a problem. A professional army by contrast will do whatever it is told, possibly even turning its guns on citizens. See Australia, currently the world’s best advert for the second amendment.
A associated observation is that those who would become professional soldiers, are not necessarily always those that we would like to be soldiers. As with politicians, wanting a job where you can levy power over others, should possibly be disqualifying.
I feel much the same about the police.
Good point – especially about Australia. However, the flaw lies in the period when there is no war and the country remains effectively defenceless. It takes time to mobilise and train.
America discovered with Vietnam that conscription was no longer sustainable without an active nation-threatening war. Problem is, as Jon Eds observes, that a volunteer military will only feature certain character types, often the types least suited to effective operation. One may excuse Israel, as it is in a permanent state of war, declared or otherwise – of whose making, you may decide.
The other issue with conscription or national service outside of an active war is that it becomes mostly a time-filling exercise, with long periods of monotonous boredom punctuated by short periods of ineffective activity. Apart from some minor disciplines gained, most folk would gain more overall by continuing their normal lives uninterrupted.
And who thinks the next ‘real war’ would require hundreds of thousands of low-level grunt troops as cannon-fodder? More likely to need a brigade of computer programmers.
There is a difference between a conscripted army and a volunteer army. The former has typically been abandoned because it is generally recognised as being a bit shit. However, that is not necessarily true of a volunteer army, which is likely to be highly motivated.
Granted, for the navy and air force a volunteer approach isn’t really possible.