MILITARY COURT OF APPEAL HEARS JONATHAN BEN-ARTZI'S CASE
Pacifist Jonathan (Yoni) Ben-Artzi's struggle reached a new level
on July 9, 2004, when his case came in front of an extended panel of
five judges in the Military Court of Appeals in Tel Aviv. Among the
judges were four Major Generals, including a former commander of
Israel's Central command, a former head of military personnel, and
the former and current Presidents of the Court of Appeals.
Pacifist Jonathan (Yoni) Ben-Artzi's struggle reached a new level
on July 9, 2004, when his case came in front of an extended panel of
five judges in the Military Court of Appeals in Tel Aviv. Among the
judges were four Major Generals, including a former commander of
Israel's Central command, a former head of military personnel, and
the former and current Presidents of the Court of Appeals.
Yoni has spent nearly two years in military jail and detention, until
the army decided to release him for "incompatibility due to lack of
motivation". However, his Court Martial process hasn't ended. He
has appealed his "technical" conviction by a lower military court
(for ref! using to enlist) and his sentencing (in April 2004) to two
additional months in jail and 2000 NIS (or two more jail months).
At the appeal hearing, the prosecution no longer claimed, as it did
in the lower court, that Yoni is not a pacifist. Indeed, such a claim
would be difficult to defend, given the scandalous testimony of the
head of the army's "conscience committee", and the lower court's
subsequent ruling that effectively recognized Yoni as a pacifist. The
military prosecutor, who laced his arguments with endless contempt
for pacifists, argued that even if the army should have recognized
Yoni as a pacifist, and even if the law exempted him from military
service, he should have still obeyed the order to enlist, and should
thus be convicted. At times, the prosecutor, flustered by relentless
questioning by the judges, seemed to have a personal vendetta against
Yoni, and the entire court seemed amused by his high-pitched ranting!
Among many "pearls of wisdom", he said that Yoni decided to become a
pacifist because it is "sexy" (as compared to dodging the service
on "psychological" grounds).
Defence lawyer Adv. Michael Sfard, a prominent human rights lawyer in
Israel, compared Yoni's situation with that of Antigone, the heroine
of Sophocles' tragedy. He said that, as a pacifist, Yoni could not
obey the order, which was itself illegal and contradictory to basic
justice. He could simply not have acted otherwise.
As for the judges – they seemed genuinely troubled by the petty
nature of the prosecution's arguments, and by the scandalous nature
of the "conscience committee". The Court's President, Maj.-General
Yishai Bar, asked the skullcap wearing prosecutor, whether a
religious Jew, who receives an order to eat pork, and refuses, should
be convicted. The prosecutor did not answer. When the prosecutor
stated that Israel views negatively the idea of pacifism, Maj.-
General Bar asked if this applied also to the Biblical Prophets'
vision. The prosecutor's reply was that this was a scenario for the
latter days. Maj.-General Gideon Sheffer, former head of military
personnel, and current head of a committee exploring the issue of
civil service, commented on the lack of such an alternative to
military service in Israel. In the unlikely event, that Bar, Sheffer
and their fellow judges, in a show of public and judicial courage,
offer Yoni an alternative civilian service, it would be a major milestone in the struggle against militarism in this country.
..................................................................
YONI BEN-ARTZI'S LETTER TO THE HIGH MILITARY COURT OF APPEALS
Dear Colleagues,
We're forwarding below an account of the July 9 session of the Military Court of Appeals, concerning Yoni's appeal. The session lasted seven hours, practically uninterrupted, and was terminated at the approach of the Sabbath. It'll be continued, with the same tribunal, at the same location, this Friday, July 16 at 8:30am at the Kirya in Tel Aviv.
We found it a very interesting event. Indeed, the unusual panel of Justices indicates that, as Yoni had insisted all along, it wasn't a trial of a young man who refuses to enlist (and demands civil service), but a case of "the State of Israel against Pacifism". Yoni's defence (presented forcefully by Adv. Sfard) was based mostly on "principle", rather than "legal technicalities" (which also came up, such as the fact that he was tried eight times for the same "crime"). Issues such as moral values, conscience and disobedience, militarism and pacifism, were discussed, including the reading of literary paragraphs from such varied sources as Antigone, the Bible and Catch-22...
With best wishes,
Ofra and Matania Ben-Artzi.
..................................................................
1. The Parole Board session for the five Shministim
2. Yoni Ben-Artzi's appeal to the High Military Court of Appeals
************
The Parole Board session for the five Shministim
The military parole committee convened on July 6th, 2004 at the military
court in Jaffa to discuss the possibility of a parole to the five
conscientious objectors refusing to enlist in an army of occupation.
The committee will give its decision in a couple of days.
Background: after spending more than a year in military prisons and
incarceration, the refuseniks - Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri
Zameret, Adam Maor and Noam Bahat - were sentenced in January to one
year in prison (not including the previous terms). According to the
IDF's demand, they were transferred to a civilian prison in February.
During the hearing, Captain Erez Guryon, who represented the IDF's
judge advocate general, objected to any deduction at the moment and
asked that the committee would reconvene in September to decide upon
the possibility of a minimal reduction. He emphasized that the five
did not express any remorse about their deeds. He then added that
then, in September, he'd express the opinion that the five should
get "some reduction, between a third of the period to nothing, but
closer to nothing". Guryon also said that the issue of the future of
the five, after their release, was still open, and that they might be
summoned again to the induction center.
As a response, Doron Matar, father of Haggai, said: The army acts
against our sons in the same spirit as it used to do during the
trial - the spirit of the inquisition. The request for remorse is
meant to break their conscience. Is this what we want in a democratic
state? What Guryon said during the hearing amounts to a denial of the
usual benefit that every prisoner gets. We presented to the committee
wonderful reports written by the prison's social workers, proving
that the behaviour of the five is excellent, that they contribute to
their inmates by teaching and helping them, that they are appreciated
by wardens and inmates alike."
"We call upon every conscientious person in Israel and throughout the
world to help bringing this ordeal to an end, by writing letters to
Israeli authorities, by organizing activities of support and rallies
calling to the release of the conscientious objectors. Conscience is
not a crime; it is not a murder, a rape, a robbery. It is too bad
that the army authorities still refuse to realize this."
the army decided to release him for "incompatibility due to lack of
motivation". However, his Court Martial process hasn't ended. He
has appealed his "technical" conviction by a lower military court
(for ref! using to enlist) and his sentencing (in April 2004) to two
additional months in jail and 2000 NIS (or two more jail months).
At the appeal hearing, the prosecution no longer claimed, as it did
in the lower court, that Yoni is not a pacifist. Indeed, such a claim
would be difficult to defend, given the scandalous testimony of the
head of the army's "conscience committee", and the lower court's
subsequent ruling that effectively recognized Yoni as a pacifist. The
military prosecutor, who laced his arguments with endless contempt
for pacifists, argued that even if the army should have recognized
Yoni as a pacifist, and even if the law exempted him from military
service, he should have still obeyed the order to enlist, and should
thus be convicted. At times, the prosecutor, flustered by relentless
questioning by the judges, seemed to have a personal vendetta against
Yoni, and the entire court seemed amused by his high-pitched ranting!
Among many "pearls of wisdom", he said that Yoni decided to become a
pacifist because it is "sexy" (as compared to dodging the service
on "psychological" grounds).
Defence lawyer Adv. Michael Sfard, a prominent human rights lawyer in
Israel, compared Yoni's situation with that of Antigone, the heroine
of Sophocles' tragedy. He said that, as a pacifist, Yoni could not
obey the order, which was itself illegal and contradictory to basic
justice. He could simply not have acted otherwise.
As for the judges – they seemed genuinely troubled by the petty
nature of the prosecution's arguments, and by the scandalous nature
of the "conscience committee". The Court's President, Maj.-General
Yishai Bar, asked the skullcap wearing prosecutor, whether a
religious Jew, who receives an order to eat pork, and refuses, should
be convicted. The prosecutor did not answer. When the prosecutor
stated that Israel views negatively the idea of pacifism, Maj.-
General Bar asked if this applied also to the Biblical Prophets'
vision. The prosecutor's reply was that this was a scenario for the
latter days. Maj.-General Gideon Sheffer, former head of military
personnel, and current head of a committee exploring the issue of
civil service, commented on the lack of such an alternative to
military service in Israel. In the unlikely event, that Bar, Sheffer
and their fellow judges, in a show of public and judicial courage,
offer Yoni an alternative civilian service, it would be a major milestone in the struggle against militarism in this country.
..................................................................
YONI BEN-ARTZI'S LETTER TO THE HIGH MILITARY COURT OF APPEALS
Dear Colleagues,
We're forwarding below an account of the July 9 session of the Military Court of Appeals, concerning Yoni's appeal. The session lasted seven hours, practically uninterrupted, and was terminated at the approach of the Sabbath. It'll be continued, with the same tribunal, at the same location, this Friday, July 16 at 8:30am at the Kirya in Tel Aviv.
We found it a very interesting event. Indeed, the unusual panel of Justices indicates that, as Yoni had insisted all along, it wasn't a trial of a young man who refuses to enlist (and demands civil service), but a case of "the State of Israel against Pacifism". Yoni's defence (presented forcefully by Adv. Sfard) was based mostly on "principle", rather than "legal technicalities" (which also came up, such as the fact that he was tried eight times for the same "crime"). Issues such as moral values, conscience and disobedience, militarism and pacifism, were discussed, including the reading of literary paragraphs from such varied sources as Antigone, the Bible and Catch-22...
With best wishes,
Ofra and Matania Ben-Artzi.
..................................................................
1. The Parole Board session for the five Shministim
2. Yoni Ben-Artzi's appeal to the High Military Court of Appeals
************
The Parole Board session for the five Shministim
The military parole committee convened on July 6th, 2004 at the military
court in Jaffa to discuss the possibility of a parole to the five
conscientious objectors refusing to enlist in an army of occupation.
The committee will give its decision in a couple of days.
Background: after spending more than a year in military prisons and
incarceration, the refuseniks - Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri
Zameret, Adam Maor and Noam Bahat - were sentenced in January to one
year in prison (not including the previous terms). According to the
IDF's demand, they were transferred to a civilian prison in February.
During the hearing, Captain Erez Guryon, who represented the IDF's
judge advocate general, objected to any deduction at the moment and
asked that the committee would reconvene in September to decide upon
the possibility of a minimal reduction. He emphasized that the five
did not express any remorse about their deeds. He then added that
then, in September, he'd express the opinion that the five should
get "some reduction, between a third of the period to nothing, but
closer to nothing". Guryon also said that the issue of the future of
the five, after their release, was still open, and that they might be
summoned again to the induction center.
As a response, Doron Matar, father of Haggai, said: The army acts
against our sons in the same spirit as it used to do during the
trial - the spirit of the inquisition. The request for remorse is
meant to break their conscience. Is this what we want in a democratic
state? What Guryon said during the hearing amounts to a denial of the
usual benefit that every prisoner gets. We presented to the committee
wonderful reports written by the prison's social workers, proving
that the behaviour of the five is excellent, that they contribute to
their inmates by teaching and helping them, that they are appreciated
by wardens and inmates alike."
"We call upon every conscientious person in Israel and throughout the
world to help bringing this ordeal to an end, by writing letters to
Israeli authorities, by organizing activities of support and rallies
calling to the release of the conscientious objectors. Conscience is
not a crime; it is not a murder, a rape, a robbery. It is too bad
that the army authorities still refuse to realize this."
