Court rejects woman's second IDF exemption plea

Dan Izenberg The Jerusalem Post
Court rejects woman's second IDF exemption plea


Laura Milo, the 20-year-old woman who refuses to serve in the army because of her opposition to Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza, returned to serve a 14-day jail sentence two weeks after the High Court of Justice rejected her petition to be exempted from military service for reasons of conscience. Milo, who is not a pacifist, has already served one 14-day spell in jail. The army decided to wait before enforcing a second sentence until after the High Court ruled on her petition.



"An injustice has been done here," Milo wrote in a letter published on the eve of her return to jail. "An injustice to citizens who genuinely declare their conscience. An injustice to people who do not run from responsibility and are not willing to be another cog in the system that is destroying us as a society and the human beings who belong to it. This is not civil insurrection but a conscience which cannot be silenced."

Milo's father, Daniel Milo, told The Jerusalem Post that he will file a request for a second hearing before an expanded court in the coming days. According to Milo, the original panel of three justices including Deputy Supreme Court President Eliahu Mazza, Edmond Levy and Ayala Procaccia, erred in their reading of the law with regard to women who seek exemption from military service for reasons of conscience.

He referred to articles written in the press by legal experts Amnon Rubinstein and Ruth Gavison, who criticized the ruling. He also accused the justices of carrying out the dictates of the army. "Gavison and Rubinstein don't like refuseniks, but they love the Law. The judges in the Supreme Court love the Law, but they love the army more," said Milo.

The Military Service Law distinguishes between men and women who seek exemption for military service for reasons of conscience. Article 39, which applies to women, states that a woman may be exempted from military service "for reasons of conscience or reasons having to do with family religious life."

Procaccia, who wrote the disputed decision, concluded that the article grants exemption to women for religious reasons only and that women who seek military exemption for other reasons are subject to Article 36, even though the article it is written in the masculine form only. The court has already ruled that men who are not pacifists and do not oppose serving in the army in certain circumstances cannot refuse in any circumstances. The court applied the same principle to Milo.


To the article published in The Jerusalem Post



Add your comment
  Anonymous comment
Nickname:
Password:
  Remember me on this computer

Title:
Send me by email any answer to my comment
Send me by email every new comment to this article