http://indymedia.org.il
Democracy requires human rights protectionWednesday 03 Apr 2002
author: human
> what if somehow tommrow we will sign some documents with the
> palestinians that will promice us peace if we will evacuate the
> setelments. Now suppose the setelments population will deny the
> goverment decision and they will send the IDF to move them. Dont you
> think that there will be soliders that will refuse to that order? will
> you think THAN that its ok to refuse? I mean if you think whats the
Democracy can only makes sense if you also have human rights protection.
This is why under international human rights laws which most rich and
poor countries have signed and ratified (with exceptions like Iraq,
North Korea, USA, etc.) make it *obligatory* for soldiers and police
to *refuse* to obey orders which violate human rights. For example,
police and soldiers are legally obliged to refuse to carry out torture.
If their superiors order this, they are obliged to disobey.
> idf is doing the the teritory is wrong ( and thats totaly ok thing to
> think) the Idf is not the address to send your objection. The Idf is a
> tool not a policy maker. Its not ok that soliders refuse to serev
> because this is move us very very close , much closer then you think
> to anrchy. If some one wish to object the goverment policy he can join
> / found a party, or vote for one. Im not saing we all should support
Voting once every few years is not enough for an egalitarian democracy.
And Israeli democracy is only a very limited democracy, because the
elected leaders can only act within narrow margins allowed by the USA
and big corporations.
There is a small margin of freedom, but it's not big.
> the same ideals and ideas because that will be not a decmoc' but that
> there are things that are destroying the decmocratiy itsef, and as a
> selfdef' democratiy it has the right to protect itself.
Not if the way of protecting itself violates basic human rights.
Arresting alleged suicide bombers (the ones who fail, or the ones
who train them) and putting them on trial where evidence is presented
and debated is consistent with democracy and human rights.
Assassination of alleged suicide bombers (and co.) is barbaric
and is not a form of protection. Unless you carry out complete
(100.00%) genocide, it cannot be a form of protection.
> I guess that most of you will agree that most of the time the majority
> is the policy maker ( of course there are some exceptions ) and the
> democratic ways ( not - we wont do anything that the majority, which i
> dont feel belong to , will decide ) to object the current policy.
The majority of people from around the world have decided in favour
of human rights. The majority *opposed* the US bombing civilians
in Afghanistan, the majority *oppose* suicide attacks, the majority
*oppose* Israeli assassination policies.
> The way of refusment is a DANGERUS one
True, refusal to commit a crime can be dangerous, whether it is
the mafia or the government that asks you to commit a crime.
It's dangerous, but it's the most moral action to take.