Is history repeating itself all the time?

In their time these causes seemed to interest a rather narrow public!

It has been quite otherwise with question of the occupied territories, which has divided Israeli opinion ever since 1967: for many it is now an important issue loaded with all kinds of very chaotic confusing emotions that make clear & unbiased thinking very difficult all over the world?

YL's foresight in predicting the consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank & the Gaza Strip is all the more remarkable: in an article which, in slightly different versions, was published in several periodicals as early as 1968, he attempted to point out the likely effects of this new occupation on Israeli society & government, as well as on it's security & international status.

To almost all readers he seemed at the time to exaggerate matters beyond all proportion, & even today some of hid contentions seem too far-fetched. YET from year to year more of hid predictions appear to be confirmed. To ignore them requires one to be oblivious to the facts. Un-fortunately, too many Israelis prefer not to have unpleasant realities brought to their attention. ONE consequence of the politics of occupation - which Yeshayahu Leibowitz failed to foresee - is an unwillingness to be confronted with information which runs counter to widespread prejudices.

The more reliable the coverage of the communications media, the more convinced are many people of their intention to distort.

During the Lebanese campaign. Of 1982-83, YL was not only active in demanding the withdrawal of troops from Levanon, but lent his moral backing to members of the reserves who refused to serve in Levanon & officers who resigned their posts. At the time, this refusal gathered moment & gained considerable popular support owing to widespread public opinion favoring withdrawal from Lebanon. He still continued his support, now in the face of public opinion, for the conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the occupied territories, especially after the Palestinian uprising of 1987. In this, his posit. Has not met with sympathy. Even among those who share his criticism of Israel's policy in the territories, many felt that conscientious objection was unjustified. The public at large supports the official policy & favors a strong arm in dealing with the uprising. Nevertheless he continued, in private conversation & public lecture, to justify refusal to serve in the territories.

His statements rarely discussed the casuistic of conscientious objection, which seems to occupy the attention of those who deal with this issue.

The concept he constantly reiterated was that no matter how important political obedience might be, the state & it's politics have only instrumental functions: their value is not absolute & their demands not always overriding. The religious per so , for religious reasons, & the humanistic, for moral reasons, may have decisive grounds for disobedience.

This struggle is going on & on now all over the world.