Pacifist faces court martial
-12/03/2003
The pacifist nephew of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli finance minister, has appeared before a court martial for refusing to serve in the Israeli army.
Jonathan Ben-Artzi, 20, who is a nephew by marriage of the former prime minister, faces three years in jail.
The physics student has already spent 200 days in military prisons having had a 35-day sentence extended seven times after it was imposed by a senior army officer in August 2001.
Israeli law provides for universal conscription of three years for men and two years for women, with exemptions limited to ultra-Orthodox Jews, Israeli Arabs, and people with medical conditions.
Conscientious objectors like Ben-Artzi are not recognised.
At the hearing at an army base in Jaffa, Ben-Artzi’s lawyer argued that the decision to convene a court martial was illegal as it required “special authorisation”.
He also challenged the court’s jurisdiction as his client was never formally drafted and therefore remained a civilian.
The army prosecutor said that being summoned for military interviews and medical tests automatically placed a person under military law.
The hearing was adjourned after the judge said he would give his decision on jurisdiction at a later date.
The pacifist nephew of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli finance minister, has appeared before a court martial for refusing to serve in the Israeli army.
Jonathan Ben-Artzi, 20, who is a nephew by marriage of the former prime minister, faces three years in jail.
The physics student has already spent 200 days in military prisons having had a 35-day sentence extended seven times after it was imposed by a senior army officer in August 2001.
Israeli law provides for universal conscription of three years for men and two years for women, with exemptions limited to ultra-Orthodox Jews, Israeli Arabs, and people with medical conditions.
Conscientious objectors like Ben-Artzi are not recognised.
At the hearing at an army base in Jaffa, Ben-Artzi’s lawyer argued that the decision to convene a court martial was illegal as it required “special authorisation”.
He also challenged the court’s jurisdiction as his client was never formally drafted and therefore remained a civilian.
The army prosecutor said that being summoned for military interviews and medical tests automatically placed a person under military law.
The hearing was adjourned after the judge said he would give his decision on jurisdiction at a later date.