CONSCIENCE AT WAR AND THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY - THEORETICAL ANDPRACTICAL QUESTIONS

In time of war, the phenomenon of selective conscientious objection ma y engender suspicion. Is the objector a loyal citizen or a coward hidi ng behind moral principles? How sincere is his moral struggle? Can it be measured? How credible are the soldiers who refuse to fight a war, claiming that they are experiencing a clash between their conscience a nd the demands of the state (which professes to be fighting to protect social values and ideals)? When it is followed by an act of disobedie nce against the law, and the leaving of colleagues to do what the obje ctor believes to be morally wrong, the credibility of the refuser must be scrutinized. This paper examines the way in which Israeli commande rs have judged selective conscientious objectors during two morally co ntroversial wars; Lebanon and the Intifada. This examination followed Waiter's suggestion that credibility should be assessed in terms of th e refuser's lonely manner of decision making, his record of obligation and his motivation for action and an awareness of its consequences. C redible selective refusers within the IDF were assessed by their comma nders as dedicated individualistic and morally motivated soldiers. The ir punishment for their transgression was decided on the basis of thes e criteria.