The Israeli refusenik refuses to act as part of a system where a state built upon identification with one ethnic or religious group oppresses the people of an occupied territory with a population composed of another group. This seems a reasonable position to me. However, I think it calls into question the concept of self-determination or ethnic nationalism.

Self-determination or ethnic nationalism maintains that a nation-state should be formed on the basis of the ethnicity or religion of its inhabitants. In a Jewish state a non-Jew is a second class citizen. In a Christian state a non-Christian is a second class citizen. In an Arab state a non-Arab is a second class citizen. The state must not be based on the ethnicity or religion of part of its population. For fairness the state should not identify with part of its population, even the great majority. There should be separation of religion and state. The state should not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

Conscription is pure evil: it is not right to force a child into slavery only because he/she was born in a certain place and reached the age of 18 in good health.

Period.

However, girls in Israel (unlike boys) have a variety of ways to avoid military service if they don't want to, so this is not a personal or moral issue - it is a political one, and so, as Sahar elected herself to go to prison, she should not complain.

There is a fine line going between:
1. "I an not willing to participate in actions of such-and-such nature" ; and
2. "The state should not be doing such-and-such"

Just as I expect the state to respect the rights of individuals, I expect the individual to respect the rights of the state, including the right to determine its policies and act accordingly. If one wants to change those policies, there are valid democratic ways to do so (given that Israel is a democracy).

David:

Israel is a Jewish state.
While this means that the policies of the state as a whole are according to Jewish values (for example, the main day of rest is Saturday - not Sunday as in Christian countries or Friday as in Muslim countries), it should not render non-Jews as second-class citizens.

The rule should be as above with the case of Sahar:
1. Full respect and individual rights to individuals (regardless of religion/ethnicity/gender/etc.).
2. Full self-determination rights for the group (eg. the state), allowing it to navigate towards common/collective goals - so long as individual rights are not compromized.

Dear Yuyutsu

You wrote: "However, girls in Israel (unlike boys) have a variety of ways to avoid military service if they don't want to, so this is not a personal or moral issue - it is a political one, and so, as Sahar elected herself to go to prison, she should not complain."

From what I read it was very much a moral issue. Her refusal seemed on moral grounds to me. A political objection can be based on the idea that going along with an action is immoral.

Yuyutsu wrote: "Israel is a Jewish state.
While this means that the policies of the state as a whole are according to Jewish values (for example, the main day of rest is Saturday - not Sunday as in Christian countries or Friday as in Muslim countries), it should not render non-Jews as second-class citizens."

In Israel a path for advancement in civil life is military service. Non-Jews do not have to serve in the Israeli military although some of them do. Just as Jews are reluctant to fight for Islamic states such as Iran and Syria non-Jews are reluctant to fight for a Jewish state. This puts Jews on a second class basis in Iran and Syria, and non-Jews on that basis in Israel. The law of return is also discriminatory basing admission on religion and ethnicity. Not only are non-Jews discriminated against, but non-orthodox Jews are also discriminated against. Their congregations and associations do not get the support that orthodox get. The government of Australia does not care what kind of a Jew one is, but a Jewish state does and discriminates against non-orthodox Jews. That is most unfair although non-orthodox have recently received some recognition.

I am by nature a pacifist, and I have always wondered how I would answer the question, would I go to war for my country if asked.

I am thoroughly grateful that so far, I haven't been required to find out.

On the one hand therefore, I am in compete sympathy with an individual who has the moral courage to stand by her principles, even if this means seven days in jail. With the prospect of more to follow, if the authorities continue to want to set an example.

On the other, having been to Israel and having been confronted with the reality that the country is on a permanent war footing with its neighbours, I am aware how important that compulsory military service is to their security.

It is confronting, as I'm sure many contributors here already know, when you are sitting in a cafe in Haifa, and a nineteen year-old casually rests his machine gun on the back of your chair.

It is salutary too, to walk up the hill from Achziv, look through the gate into Lebanon, and be told of the many attacks from the north.

So thanks for the opportunity to ponder this a little more.

Change, in conflict situations that are not all-out declared war, most often comes from within. Eventually, ordinary folk get exhausted from the eternal conflict, and their attitude eventually translates into political will. So maybe, just maybe, this will be the catalyst for change, as the opposition to violence makes itself more generally known.

But in the meantime, Israel has much to thank its willing conscripts for, as they put themselves into potentially dangerous situations. I have met a number of them, and their parents, and to them it is simply a normal part of Israeli life. It is my country. I will fight for it.

Just be a little thankful that we don't have to make a similar decisions here in Australia, and that our kids don't either.

Dear David,

You wrote: "From what I read it was very much a moral issue. Her refusal seemed on moral grounds to me."

As I see it, morals are always about what ONESELF does or does't - not about the action or in-action of others. I would fully support Sahar if she simply insisted that SHE would not go along with certain actions herself, but apparently that was not the case because she was attempting by her protest to tell others what not-to-do.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph, but please understand that I was only writing about how things OUGHT to be in Israel, not about current failures to follow this ideal (don't we all have faults?).

Dear Pericles,

I am with you in this dilemma:
I think that a balanced solution is, in a case of war, to go for a non-combatant support-role. If your country decided to fend itself and go to war, it is not one's business to tell it not to (other than at the polls, letters to politicians, etc.), but even then, soldiers need, among many other things, to be fed and clothed, and the wounded need to be dressed and rehabilitated, etc., so there is much to do for your country that does not involve violence.

good for her, and the few other israelis who are beginning to understand their country's moral foundation: brutal force.

the israeli government can not allow ethics to enter the discussion, for the resulting flood would wash away the state of israel.

a new 'palestine' might arise, peaceful and secular. don't hold your breath, though- too much hatred, too much corruption, too much blood, in the current mix for any just resolution.

on the general question of fighting for your country, give careful thought to what 'your' means. english has two meanings, one possession, one relation. ozzies, and sheep, are related to oz, in the same way a sheep is related to a paddock, but doesn't own it.

the military result is this: in a democracy, the citizens say: "i will defend you, you defend me, together we will resist invasion."
in a parliamentary society, the ruling caste says: "go there, kill them, or we will punish you."

i'm not a pacifist, but i don't hand the decision about who i kill or why to anyone, and certainly not to a group of people distinguished only by their common lack of ethics. consequently, i'll wait until foreigners wade ashore gun in hand before fighting. i certainly am not taking the word of a politician that the defense of the nation should be done in iraq.

DEMOS wrote:

"good for her, and the few other israelis who are beginning to understand their country's moral foundation: brutal force."

The UN resolution establishing Israel specified that there should be a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Israel was quite willing to accept the partition, but 5 Arab armies, some officered and trained by the British, attacked. If the Arab states had accepted the UN Resolution there would have been no need for any force. At any time between 1948 and 1967 there could have been a Palestinian state. During that time the west bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Neither country was interested in a Palestinian state. It was only after the 1967 war when they no longer occupied the territory that Egypt and Jordan supported a Palestinian state.

Although one can be critical of aspects of Israeli policy I am glad they were able to muster the force to resist the Arab attacks in 1948 and the Arab armies massing to attack in 1967.

A country under threat does not always behave with circumspection. That is Israel's situation.