While most of the people around here are deeply concerned with predicted grades, SATs and university applications, I have quite a different issue on my mind.
I have written about the whole army issue before. It’s a big part of all us Israeli’s life as you have probably noticed, so excuse me for writing so much about it. Anyway, I have already shared the fact that I decided not to serve in the army.
I have discussed in one of the previous posts weather this decision is completely mine or not, so for know I’m just going to refer to it as my own decision.
Anyways, it is quite hard to explain a decision like that, which is so into a specific context. Being in Israel you live the politics. It’s all around you, so you don’t have much choice really. You have to be very ignorant in order not to have any opinion about at least the main things that are going on. However, sometimes those opinions happen to be very strong and one might say distinct. So strong, that if you really believe in those opinions, they prevent you from obeying a law of the very same country who created them.
I can’t join the army because I can’t just suddenly cooperate with all the things I’ve stood against for the last few years of my life. Even if it won’t be a direct cooperation, even if I only have to make coffee to some people in the office, even if I only need to wear those uniforms – I would still be part of the whole machine. And seeing the end product of this machine, which creates a disaster after another, I cannot take any part.
It’s funny. If I send a letter to the army explaining why I won’t serve in the army, I will be called for an interview with a panel of people we will have to decide whether my conscience is ‘real’. How can someone decide what my conscience let me or doesn’t let me do? Is it something you can uncover that easily? I frankly don’t think so. I think it is such a complex thing, that I myself cannot completely understand, then how will a random group of people (which aren’t even psychologists or anything of that kind) can understand it from a one hour interview understand?
I am aware of the fact that if each person who doesn’t like a law would decide not to obey it, won’t, there will be a huge mess. If I won’t go to the army, I won’t really escape the law. I will do it in a legal way (some people may say it is immoral, but it is still legal). After reading Mill’s article regarding the whole idea of activeness, I think that if we all just obey rules blindly it won’t be a democracy anymore. People have to express their opinions, in active ways (no – a talkback on the internet is NOT being active), and in extreme cases like this, take an action – which might have to be against the law. I think the point of being active is having the chance to change thisng you disagree with.
The arguments for and against this idea can fill a whole book. I would love to have a conversation about it in class or with anyone who is interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment