Explore the vast range of titles available.

InConscientious Objectors in Israel, Erica Weiss examines the lives of Israelis who have refused to perform military service for reasons of conscience. Based on long-term fieldwork, this ethnography chronicles the personal experiences of two generations of Jewish conscientious objectors as they grapple with the pressure of justifying their actions to the Israeli state and society-often suffering severe social and legal consequences, including imprisonment.While most scholarly work has considered the causes of animosity and violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,Conscientious Objectors in Israelexamines how and under what circumstances one is able to refuse to commit acts of violence in the midst of that conflict. By exploring the social life of conscientious dissent, Weiss exposes the tension within liberal citizenship between the protection of individual rights and obligations of self-sacrifice. While conscience is a strong cultural claim, military refusal directly challenges Israeli state sovereignty. Weiss explores conscience as a political entity that sits precariously outside the jurisdictional bounds of state power. Through the lens of Israeli conscientious objection, Weiss looks at the nature of contemporary citizenship, examining how the expectations of sacrifice shape the politics of both consent and dissent. In doing so, she exposes the sacrificial logic of the modern nation-state and demonstrates how personal crises of conscience can play out on the geopolitical stage.

An exploration of the moral and intellectual conflict of Israeli citizens who have resisted military service, and of how they justify their choices of action. Israel’s security is maintained largely by civilians in uniform. The chronic state of war in Israel requires that every Israeli civilian serve in the Israel Defense Forces as a reservist until the age of 55. The focus of this book is the intellectual and moral challenges selective conscientious objection poses for resisters in Israel. It is the first psychological study of the Intifada refusniks. The 1982–1985 Lebanon War was a dramatic turning point in the intensity, depth, forms, and magnitude of criticism against the army, and this war serves as the starting point for Ruth Linn’s inquiry into moral criticism of Israeli soldiers in morally no-win situations during the Intifada. In each of these conflicts, about 170 reserve soldiers became selective conscientious objectors. In each conflict, however, numerous objecting soldiers also “refused to refuse,” proclaiming that their right to voice their moral concern springs from their dedication to, and fulfillment of, the hardship of military obligation. Linn uses the theories of Rawls, Walzer, Kohlberg, and Gilligan as a framework for understanding and interpreting interviews with objecting soldiers. By this means, she seeks to answer such questions as: How would various groups of objecting soldiers justify their specific choice of action? What are the psychological, moral, and non-moral characteristics of those individuals who decided to be, or refused to be, patriotic? And how did the Intifada, as a limited yet morally problematic military conflict, affect the moral thinking, emotions, and moral language of long term soldiers?

Like all Israeli youth, Atalya is obligated to become a soldier. Unlike most, she questions the practices of her country's military and becomes determined to challenge this rite of passage. Despite her family's political disagreements and personal concerns, she refuses military duty and is imprisoned for her dissent. Her courage moves those around her to reconsider their own moral positions and personal power. Objector follows Atalya to prison and beyond, offering a unique window into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the perspective of a young woman who seeks truth and takes a stand for justice.

Graduations are supposed to mark the culmination of academic exploration and the celebration of intellectual growth. They are milestones of achievement, reflection and hope. But in the US this year, several brave students have found themselves not being applauded for their courage but rather punished for it--simply for showing compassion for Palestinians in Gaza. From New York University (NYU) to George Washington University (GWU) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), students who used their commencement platforms to speak about the ongoing atrocities in Palestine are facing investigations, withheld diplomas and bans from campus. These punitive actions not only betray the values of academic freedom but raise profound legal, ethical and political questions. At GWU, valedictorian Cecilia Culver delivered a short but powerful speech at graduation in which she acknowledged the suffering of Palestinian students: \"I cannot celebrate my own graduation without a heavy heart, knowing how many students in Palestine have been forced to stop their studies, expelled from their homes, and killed for simply remaining in the country of their ancestors. I am ashamed to know my tuition is being used to fund this genocide.\"

In recent decades (the __post-heroic' condition) - threats of widespread selective conscientious objection have become a political tool to advance opposing political agendas in Israel. This article examines attitudes amongst the Israeli public concerning the legitimacy of demands that different groups of soldiers be exempted from military operations to which they are ideologically opposed (such as serving in the occupied territories or, conversely, participating in evacuation of settlements). The results point to a multi-cultural model embracing diversity management not as a neo-liberal ideal but rather as a strategy for co-option, containment and inclusion, with a view to preserving the \"people's army\" model.

All Jewish military refusers in Israel defy state law and incur public acrimony for their transgression. Yet different social groups use distinct ethical regimes to justify this controversial act. While liberal Ashkenazi refusers cite personal conscience, ultra-Orthodox refusers rely on scriptural authority, and Mizrahi refusers often appeal to familial responsibilities. In addition, refusers of different groups condemn one another as ethically misguided, despite their shared act. The stakes of these ethical rifts concern not only questions of military service and legitimate refusal but also larger issues of cultural hegemony, the social contract, and collective legitimation within the Israeli state. The framework of \"competing ethical regimes\" captures the intersection of the ethical and the political, revealing the deep entanglement of cultural values and civic virtues. לכ 0 ינבר תורישה יאבצה םידוהיה לארשיב םירפמ תא קוח הנידמה םיגפוסו לשב רכ םעז .ירוביצ םע .תאז תוצובק תויתרבח תונוש לש םינברס תושמתשמ םילדומב םירסומ םינחבומ ידכ קידצהל תא השעמה יונשה .תקולחמב דועב םינברסש םייזנכשא םיילרביל םירבדמ םיחנומב לש ןופצמ .ישיא םינברס םידרח םינעשנ לע תוכמס .תיארקמ םינברסו םייחרזמ םינופ םיתעל תובורק תויוביוחמל .תויתחפשמ ,ףסונב םינברס תוצובקהמ תונושה םינגמ ולא תא .ולא תורמל טקא תונברסה ,ףתושמה םינברסה םיאור םינברסב תוצובקהמ תורחאה םיעוטכ .תירסומ . לע ףכ םינזאמה תובצינ אל קר תולאש עגונב תורישל יאבצה תוימיטיגללו בוריסה אלא םג תויגוס תובחר עגונב הינומגהל ,תיתוברתהנמאה ,תיתרבחה היצמיטיגלהו תיביטקלוקה תנידמב .לארשי תרגסמה לש םירטשמ״ םיירסומ \"םירחתמ תספות תא תובלטצהה ןיב ירסומה יטילופל ןיבו םיכרע םייתוברת תולעמל ,רסומ[.תויחרזא ,תוחרזא ,אבצ ,תונברס ,הקיטילופ ]לארשי ى ﺪﺼ ﺘ ﻣ ﻦﻴﻴﻣﺮﺳلإا لﻮﻤﻣ ﺾﻓﺮﻳ ﺔﻤﻠﺨﺛ ﺔﻳﺮﻜﺴﻌﻟا ﻛ ﻦﻣ ا د ر و ﺎ ﻧ ﻮ ﻌ ﻤ ﻣ ﺪ ﻠ ﻠ ﻨ ﺑ ﻰﻓﺎﻋذلا ﺰ ﻣ ﻢﺳا . لاإ ﻦﻟ ﻚ ﻋ ﻮ ﻤ ﺠ ﻣ لأﻟﺪﺨﻤﻟا ﺎﺠﻇ ﺖﻃﻮﻠﻐﻨﻤﻟ ﻪﻳ؛لاﻐﻟ ﺔﻨﻳﺎﺒﺘﻣ ﺮ ﻴﺜﻣ و ؛ ﺮﻴﻛ ﺮﻳ ﺳ ر اﺬﻣ ﺮ ﺒﻨﻣ ﻞﺒﺠﻠﻟ . ﺎﻤ ﻨﻴﺑ ﻞﺤﻤﺑ ن ﻮ ﻣ ﺮ ﺒﻣ ﻲ ﻓﻮ ﻤ ﻤ ﻫ ا ﺮﻳﺮﺒﺗ ن ﻮ ﻨﻬﺳ ﺪﺴ ﻳﺎﻤ ﻨﻴﺑو ﻴ ﻤ ﺳ ﻲﺋﺎﻤﻧلإا ٠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻣر ا ذ ﺮ ﻋ اﺪﻴﻣ ﺔﻳﺮﺣ ﻛﻮﻟوذرلأا ﻦﻣ دﻮﻤﻤﻫ ﻰﻟﺀ ﺔﻄﻠﺳ ﻮ ﻤ ﻨ ﺗ ص ﺔ ﻴﻨﻴﻛ ، ﺪ ﺘﻤ ﻳ لﻮﻤﻣ ﺤﻣﺮﺜﻟا ﻲﻓ ﻞ ﻠﻤ ﺗ ﻢ ﺳ ر ﻰﻃ ﻢﻤﺒﻟو<ﺲﻠﻟ ﺔﻳﺮﺳلأا . ﺎﺤﻣ ﻦﻟ ﻞﻛ ﺔﻨﻓ ﻦﻣ تﺎﻨﻐﻟا ﺔﻀﻫﺮﻫ ﺮ ﻜ ﺘﺷ ﺎﻬﺗﺮﻴﻈﻧ ﻰﻠﻋ ﺎﻬ ﻨﻟ ﺔ ﻟﺎﻨ ﻣ ﺎﻴﻘﻠﺧ ﻢﻏ ر ﺎﻣدﻮﺟو ﻰﻓﺎﻌﻴﻤﺟ ﺔﻧﺎﺧ ﺔﻛرﺪﺜﻣ لا ا ﻲ ﻣ و ﺾﻣر ﺔ ﺳ ، ﺔ ﻳ ﺮ ﻜ ﻤ ﻟ . ﻚ ﻌ ﻳ مﺬﻣ ك ﻮ ﺠ ﺷ ﺔﻴﻗلاﺧلأا ﻰ ﻄ ﻐﺗ ﺔ ﻤ ﺒ ﺨ ﻫ ﺎ ﻴ ﻛ ﺔ ﻳﺮ ﻜ ﻤ ﻟا ﺾﻓﺮﻣو ﻰ ﻋ ﺮ ﺌﻠﻟ ﺎﻤﻟ ، ﻞﺑ ﻞ ﻤ ﺗ مﺬﻣ ﻚ ﻌ ﺒﺘﻠﻟ لﺪﻌﻤﻟ لﺂﻣ ﺔﺒﻄﻋ ﺔﻴﻓﺎﻘﻠﻟ ، ﺚ ﻫ صﺎﻤﺘﺟلإا ، ﻊ ﺑﺮ ﻘﻟاو ﻲﻌﻤﺠﻟا ﻞﻏاد ﺔ ﻟﻮ ﻛ ﺔﺒﻠﻣﺮ ﻣ لإ ا . ﻚﻠﺘﻟو ﻦﻴﻓ مﻮﺻ ت ﺎﻣ ﻮ ﻠﺳ ا'' ﺔﺠﺗلاﺧلأا ﺔ ﻟ ﺎ ﺤ ﻟ ا \" ﻪ ﻧﺮ ﻔﺑ ﻦﻟ ﻒﺜﻜﻳ ﻦﻋ ﻊ ﻠﻬ ﻘﻟا ﻲﺴﻠﻴﻤﻟا < ﻲﻗلاﺧلأا ، ﺎﻐ ﻤ ﻣ ﻚﻠﻨﺑ ﺎﻃرﻮﺗ اﺮﻴﺴﻋ ضﺎﻣ ﻢ ﻴﻣ ﺔﻴﻓﺎﻘﻟا و ﻞﻧﺎﻀﻤﻤﻟ ١ ^ ^ ٨ قلاﺨﻟا ر ﺔﻨﻟدﻮﻤﻟا ر ﺔ ﻳﺮ ﻜﺼ ﻟا ر ﺾ ﻓﺮ ﻳ ر ﺔﺳ ﺎﻴﺳ ر إﺪ ﻴ ﻧ اﺮ ﻤ ﻟ

Horror films are often understood as a reflection of current cultural anxieties and national concerns. In Israel, where the military plays an outsized role, several horror films are set in the army. This article focuses on the two zombie films: Poisoned (2011) and Cannon Fodder (2013). Unlike other monsters, zombies don’t come from the outside. They are part and parcel of the society consuming their fellow citizens. In Poisoned, the outbreak stems from an army-distributed vaccine. The infected soldiers turn into zombies and attack their own. In Cannon Fodder, the first zombies are Arabs, the traditional enemy of Israeli film. But later, the Israeli military is revealed as the real source of the deadly virus. As the infection spreads, both IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians turn into zombies. Thus, the army is turning into monsters the very society that it is supposed to protect, ironically, through excessive aggression against the enemy. Within the horror genre, zombie films specifically take issue with the dominant social structures in a given society. If in the United States context, films about zombie outbreaks reflect popular distrust with Big Government and Big Business, Israeli films reflect a distrust with Big Army. The IDF zombies, then, represent a new symbol on Israeli screens. In contrast to the trope of the heroic “living-dead” (ha-met ha-khai) of earlier Israeli culture—the warrior whose death is sanctified by national agenda—the new undead is a symbol of a society that has turned on itself.

In this article, I offer an ethnographic examination of neoliberal techniques of control through absence by the Israeli military, the state institution most associated with discipline, indoctrination, and direct coercion. I highlight the ways that the apparent withdrawal of the state from practices of indoctrination and the punishment of conscientious objectors are accompanied by a shift in recruitment and training that emphasizes self‐advancement and social mobility above national and ideological commitments. While in the past the Israeli state and military focused exclusively on shaping self‐sacrificing citizens, today it invests a great deal of its effort in structuring the calculated choices of self‐interested individuals toward favorable outcomes. I explore the uneven but strategic deployment of incentivized governance and consider some of the effects of these techniques for the meaning of engaged citizenship and the politics of state violence in a militarized society. Further, I demonstrate that the lightening of disciplinary sanctions in favor of individual freedom is an effective form of weakening dissent and that it confounds efforts to constitute organized resistance to militarism, leaving activists floundering to find effective ways to express their political concerns. RESUMEN En este artículo ofrezco un análisis etnográfico de las técnicas neoliberales de control a través de ausencia de los militares israelíes, la institución estatal más asociada con disciplina, adoctrinamiento, y directa coerción. Pongo de relieve las formas en que el aparente retiro del estado de las prácticas de adoctrinamiento y el castigo de los objetores de conciencia son acompañado por un cambio en el reclutamiento y el entrenamiento que enfatiza el auto‐avance, y la movilidad social por encima de compromisos nacionales e ideológicos. Mientras en el pasado el estado Israelí y los militares se concentraron exclusivamente en moldear ciudadanos abnegados, hoy invierten gran parte de sus esfuerzos en estructurar las opciones calculadas de individuos que actúan en interés propio hacia resultados favorables. Exploro la utilización desigual pero estratégica de gobernanza incentivada y considero algunos de los efectos de estas técnicas para el significado de ciudadanía comprometida y la política de violencia del estado en una sociedad militarizada. Además, demuestro que el aligerar las sanciones disciplinarias en favor de la libertad individual es una forma efectiva de debilitar la disidencia y que confunde los esfuerzos para constituir una resistencia organizada al militarismo, dejando a los activistas luchando para encontrar maneras efectivas de expresar sus preocupaciones políticas.

This article reevaluates the usefulness of the theoretical continuum between hegemony and resistance in light of recent Israeli experiences. Specifically through the comparison of \"conscientious objection\" and \"draft evasion,\" I find that the breakdown of hegemonic consciousness is not sufficient to understand why some disillusioned Israeli soldiers choose public resistance against the state, while others choose evasive tactics. I argue that the space between ideological discontent and resistance is fraught with social and ethical considerations. The source of political discontent for disillusioned soldiers is problematization of their military service as an ethical dilemma, though the ethical concerns of these soldiers extend well beyond the overtly political sphere. I contend that this presents a challenge to the opposition of hegemony and resistance, but also to many accounts in political anthropology that implicitly privilege the political sphere as a natural site of self-fulfillment. Many accounts of hegemony and resistance isolate political consciousness from the broader ethical life in which people engage, and thus do not recognize that rejecting public action can be based on prioritizing other values, not only mystification. I find that one's readiness to resist the state is dependent on the degree of \"metonymization\" of the individual with the state project, and that cynicism is one way that people articulate the differentiation of their interests from those of the state.

In this article, I explain why some of the most elite and dedicated soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces ultimately became conscientious objectors. I argue that because the sacrificial moral economy, and not the state as supersubject, was hegemonically inculcated in these young people, resistance was possible. This case prompts a reconsideration of anthropological understandings of the relationship between hegemonic inculcation and resistance. Specifically, we cannot only ask to what degree subjects subscribe to hegemony but we must also ask what specifically is inculcated and how this alters agency and its object.