Israel uses Facebook to catch 1,000 draft dodgers(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Israel uses Facebook to catch 1,000 draft dodgers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112203957.html?tid=nn_twitter
6 comments
I really expected this article to be about photos of these draft dodgers drinking booze, making out with a guy, etc. But updating your Facebook profile on the Sabbath? That's hardcore attention to detail, Israel.
They were exempted from serving in the military on the basis that they're "religiously observant". That excludes using a computer on sabbath and eating in non-kosher restaurants.
Lie exposed → Exemption revoked.
Checking when an update was posted strikes me as being easier to automate than checking photo contents.
This may sound harsh, but an army of slaves (i.e. conscripts) is incompatible with a free country. If the citizens can't be mustered to volunteer in its defense, the current state as a social organization becomes obsolete.
Granted, there are many Israelis who would indeed volunteer and militarily, they are not in danger.
Granted, there are many Israelis who would indeed volunteer and militarily, they are not in danger.
I'm not trying to be harsh on your concept, but if one takes it a little further: "If the citizens can't be mustered to volunteer their taxes. . ."
One of the ideas behind government is that certain situations are prisoner's dilemmas and that a central authority can make sure that the situation comes out equally for all. Rather than having people volunteer taxes, we write laws forcing people to pay them so that some person doesn't get to skip taxes yet get the benefit of the taxes being volunteered by others. Likewise, Israel is compelling their citizens to do military service. Heck, if you're an American male, you were compelled to register for the draft from 18-26 years of age and notify them if you moved residences - under the premise that such registration would make a future draft more equitable.
I'm somewhat just playing devil's advocate here since I tend to think that putting one's life in jeopardy is different from being compelled toward other ends. Would you object as strongly if you were compelled to serve the military, but could choose a non-life-endangering position? Say, IT support? What if the United States compelled people to do Americorps for a year or two after graduation? Does that qualify as slavery?
I guess I'm curious whether your objection is a more libertarian "any time the government compels its citizens, it's a form of slavery" or a life-ethic "when the government forces its citizens against their will to put their life in jeopardy, it's wrong."
One of the ideas behind government is that certain situations are prisoner's dilemmas and that a central authority can make sure that the situation comes out equally for all. Rather than having people volunteer taxes, we write laws forcing people to pay them so that some person doesn't get to skip taxes yet get the benefit of the taxes being volunteered by others. Likewise, Israel is compelling their citizens to do military service. Heck, if you're an American male, you were compelled to register for the draft from 18-26 years of age and notify them if you moved residences - under the premise that such registration would make a future draft more equitable.
I'm somewhat just playing devil's advocate here since I tend to think that putting one's life in jeopardy is different from being compelled toward other ends. Would you object as strongly if you were compelled to serve the military, but could choose a non-life-endangering position? Say, IT support? What if the United States compelled people to do Americorps for a year or two after graduation? Does that qualify as slavery?
I guess I'm curious whether your objection is a more libertarian "any time the government compels its citizens, it's a form of slavery" or a life-ethic "when the government forces its citizens against their will to put their life in jeopardy, it's wrong."
If the citizens can't be mustered to pay taxes, then that too is a condemnation of the state. Note that countries with high levels of corruption also tend to have high tax evasion among the tax base.
There are worse things than putting your own life in jeopardy -- like putting others' lives in jeopardy.
This is not a rebuttal to the bulk of your post.
This is not a rebuttal to the bulk of your post.
The idea behind conscription is not to have an "army of slaves" but to make sure that if you are ever required to muster citizens for your defense, then those citizens will have had at least basic military training and be useful for roles other than bullet magnets.
The greater idea would be that free people should not be forced to go and wage aggressive war. If a political entity decides in favor of war and there is conscription, individuals can't legally refuse if they disagree. Sure, aggressive wars can be waged with professional armies, but then at least there is the possibility of opting out.
In the case of defensive war, there are two options: take refuge or take up arms. Sometimes, the refugee option is better. If you're a married man, your first responsibility should be toward the safety of your family. If that means running away, that is indeed the better option.
Learning to defend oneself and one's family should be a primary responsibility. But I'm not sure the army is the only means to achieve that.
---
As an aside, in a country with conscription there would be no civilians. If all able-bodied men/women are expected to serve in the military, they are fair game according to the rules of war. Conscription is one of the things that makes total war possible. Without conscripts, the war machine will eventually run out of money. With conscripts, the state can wage war up to the point of self-destruction.
In the case of defensive war, there are two options: take refuge or take up arms. Sometimes, the refugee option is better. If you're a married man, your first responsibility should be toward the safety of your family. If that means running away, that is indeed the better option.
Learning to defend oneself and one's family should be a primary responsibility. But I'm not sure the army is the only means to achieve that.
---
As an aside, in a country with conscription there would be no civilians. If all able-bodied men/women are expected to serve in the military, they are fair game according to the rules of war. Conscription is one of the things that makes total war possible. Without conscripts, the war machine will eventually run out of money. With conscripts, the state can wage war up to the point of self-destruction.
Let me first say that I wholeheartedly oppose conscription. I know former conscripts from a couple of different countries and they really disliked their time in the military.
But ...
You are confusing cause and effect. Israel and South Korea, have conscription because of war. Both would rather live in peace but both are technically at war and have been for decades. Not to be confused with conscription during Vietnam which was a foreign war.
> As an aside, in a country with conscription there would be no civilians
It depends on the country, but my understanding is that you can choose to relinquish your citizenship you no longer have to serve. Of course you would need to seek refugee status in a sympathetic country.
You cannot always have the benefits of citizenship without paying a cost.
But ...
You are confusing cause and effect. Israel and South Korea, have conscription because of war. Both would rather live in peace but both are technically at war and have been for decades. Not to be confused with conscription during Vietnam which was a foreign war.
> As an aside, in a country with conscription there would be no civilians
It depends on the country, but my understanding is that you can choose to relinquish your citizenship you no longer have to serve. Of course you would need to seek refugee status in a sympathetic country.
You cannot always have the benefits of citizenship without paying a cost.
germany yesterday announced suspension of conscription by July 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/germany-abolish-...
"The military was founded in 1955, and conscription – introduced two years later – has been seen as a necessary means to ensure the defence forces maintain a close relationship to civil society in order to prevent a repeat of the way in which the Nazi party was able to manipulate professional soldiers in the 1930s. But experts say it has prevented the military's modernisation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/germany-abolish-...
"The military was founded in 1955, and conscription – introduced two years later – has been seen as a necessary means to ensure the defence forces maintain a close relationship to civil society in order to prevent a repeat of the way in which the Nazi party was able to manipulate professional soldiers in the 1930s. But experts say it has prevented the military's modernisation."
This may be orthogonal to your point, but understand that only the willing actually serve in combat roles.
Granted all go through basic training and then reserve training periodically after they finish their service, but that's because in a time of real existential danger, everyone fights.
Granted all go through basic training and then reserve training periodically after they finish their service, but that's because in a time of real existential danger, everyone fights.
Um, no.
If you are certified as combat-capable, and you are placed with a combat unit, you must go. If you refuse, you go to army jail. Army jail time does not count as service time, so when you get out of army jail, you still have a term of service to complete.
If you are certified as combat-capable, and you are placed with a combat unit, you must go. If you refuse, you go to army jail. Army jail time does not count as service time, so when you get out of army jail, you still have a term of service to complete.
That may be true, but not for women. The article only mentions catching women, who (I believe) have multiple non-military options for their national service.
Not so.
In Israel, military service is compulsory for women as well, and there is no option for non-military compulsory national service.
Non-military national service is voluntarily open to those exempt from military service for various reasons. But it isn't a must, and you can be exempt from military service, and not do any national service.
In Israel, military service is compulsory for women as well, and there is no option for non-military compulsory national service.
Non-military national service is voluntarily open to those exempt from military service for various reasons. But it isn't a must, and you can be exempt from military service, and not do any national service.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. What I should have said, and what I was thinking, was that there are non-combat options for women. I don't know if women are allowed to be lochemim but I am pretty sure they aren't forced to - right?
Ah ok. Is it not true, however, that it is very easy to 'fail' the combat readiness tests if one was so inclined? I've heard (from friends/cousins in Israel) that most Israeli youth are aware of various tactics to get out of combat service.
Luckily, after about six months to a year of jail time (used to be less. A friend spent more than a year,) the army deems you unfit to serve, and you are exempt from service.
Next thing you know they'll post their position to Facebook by accident and opponents will shoot rockets at them.
Couldn't she have hired some gentile to do the typing? Other than the "light a fire" thingy, I can't imagine Facebook being against any "work on the Sabbath" law. I'd actually propose that any minute spent on Facebook counts as some kind of indulgence for the purpose of work (Yes, I know, I'm mixing religions all willy-nilly now).
Actually that "light a fire thingy" applies to electronics. And for multiple reasons I highly doubt she hired a gentile to update her Facebook status (who would be reading it?).
I know that it applies, so I just wondered (tongue in cheek) whether hiring a shabbos goy for Facebook updates would be, well, kosher.
That's a good question. I have 'orthodox' friends that have timers on their TVs to come on during Shabbat. I don't keep shabbat but that would seem to defeat the purpose IMO.