This article is primarily concerned with the issue of the justification for objection to service in the Occupied Territories and the claims made against such objection by those who share the objectors' opposition to the continuation of the Occupation, especially those who have, or at least purport to have, professional authority on the subject of disobedience. However, I will also discuss the question of the appropriate attitude towards such an objection from the perspective of the State and the courts, mainly because many people confuse the considerations that should inform the State's approach towards objectors with those that should guide the objectors themselves.

The arguments against disobedience are divisible between those purporting to demonstrate that there are absolutely no legitimate reasons for refusal, and those purporting to show that despite the existence of reasons for refusal, such acts should not be committed since the reasons militating against them are even stronger. Two main arguments are invoked in rejecting the legitimacy of disobedience. First, it is claimed that such disobedience cannot be justified by a universal and ideologically-neutral principle. Secondly, it is argued that such disobedience undermines the democratic regime. These arguments will be discussed in the first section of the article.

At issue is the appropriate legal reaction to so-called “selective” conscientious objections in the current Israeli context, accounting for both consequential considerations and deontological ones. It is argued that a relevant distinction in this respect is between objections committed by members of a permanent minority, which are based on views that are practically excluded from the political discourse, and objections which are guided by what Rawls calls “political principles”, that is, “the principles of justice which regulate the constitution”. This distinction can explain and justify the current policy of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of granting exemptions to Ultra-Orthodox Jews and to Arabs (even if not all these cases reflect so-called “full” conscientious objection) while denying an exemption to those who refuse to serve based on their opposition to the IDF's activities in the Occupied Territories. However, it is argued that the important expressive role of such refusals requires a more measured approach, by either legitimizing a limited number of such acts or imposing only minimal sanctions (while formally de-legitimizing such acts). These arguments are preceded by an assessment of an alternative possible justification of legitimizing refusals, to prevent the implementation of unlawful activities by the IDF. It is argued that this purpose does not justify legitimization of refusals except in particular instances that are specified.

This paper critically analyzes the theoretical and pragmatic arguments raised against the refusal of individuals to serve in a specific military campaign that they view as immoral. The Israeli Supreme Court case of Zonshein v Judge-Advocate General will serve as an axis of the discussion, as it combines two related facets: first, the Court's decision touches upon most of the difficult issues in the field of conscientious objection. And second, the development leading up to the decision was accompanied by an exceptional clash of academics, each side summoning expert opinions in support of its claim.

Courts worldwide have accepted that a categorical distinction exists between universal and selective conscientious objection. The combination of the Zonshein decision and the accompanying academic debate presents the opportunity to reexamine the theoretical and pragmatic reasons that are offered as support for distinguishing the two ‘types’ of conscientious objection. Close scrutiny finds them wanting.

The development of an international status for military conscientious objection received a strong backing by pronouncements from bodies like the Human Rights Committee that the capacity for objection can derive from the international human right to freedom of religion or belief of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even with such pronouncements, questions remain in regard to the nature, boundaries and scope of this right. Most importantly, does this pronounced right allow for selective military conscientious objection within the international human rights system? This article will focus on the view that the capacity for military conscientious objection in the international human rights system derives from the right to freedom of religion and conscience. The implication of the international human right of freedom of religion or belief is important for its application to selective conscientious objection. However, even if the Human Rights Committee desires to limit the application of military conscientious objection, a selective objector can arguably still make the case for upholding a claim based on the human right and the manner in which it has been interpreted by the Committee and other international bodies. While on the one hand the focus on the human right to freedom of religion or belief can possibly provide the basis for a selective conscientious objector, it removes the possibility for claims that do not involve a religion or belief. The importance however of freedom of religion or behef should force a reviewing body to properly consider and measure the claim of a selective objector, with a view towards considering whether they are confronted with the manifestation of a belief and whether the state is violating such a seminal human right.