## Facts

- A group of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reservists received orders to report for reserve duty that would involve providing military services in the “Administered Territories,” a politically contested area.
- The reservists refused to serve in that area, stating conscience-based objections to Israel’s military activity there.
- The IDF handled the refusals through disciplinary proceedings, and the reservists were convicted of refusing to comply with military orders.
- Each reservist received a confinement sentence ranging from approximately 28 to 35 days.
- Seven of the convicted reservists applied to the Military Advocate General (MAG) to annul (vacate) the disciplinary judgments.
- The reservists argued that the relevant orders were invalid on two grounds: (1) the orders were illegal because Israel’s military activity in the area was illegal, and (2) the orders violated the reservists’ freedom of conscience by compelling participation in that activity.
- The MAG refused to annul the judgments, concluding that the military activity was lawful and that “selective” conscientious objection—opposition to particular missions or locations rather than to military service as such—does not create a right to refuse lawful orders.
- The seven reservists petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), seeking judicial relief from their disciplinary convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether the orders directing reservists to serve in the Administered Territories were unlawful (including whether they were “manifestly unlawful”), so that the petitioners’ refusal could not be punished and their disciplinary convictions should be annulled.
2. Whether freedom of conscience gives reservists a legal right to refuse lawful orders based on selective conscientious objection, requiring the MAG (and the Court) to set aside the disciplinary judgments.
3. Whether the Court should intervene in the MAG’s refusal to annul the disciplinary judgments arising from the petitioners’ refusal to report for duty.

## Decision

- The petition was dismissed.
- The Court held that the relevant service orders were lawful and were not “manifestly unlawful,” so the petitioners were obligated to comply.
- The Court held that selective conscientious objection does not create a legal entitlement to disobey lawful military orders or a basis to void disciplinary convictions entered for refusal.
- The Court declined to set aside the disciplinary judgments or to disturb the MAG’s decision refusing to annul them, finding no basis for judicial intervention in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Soldiers must obey lawful orders; refusal to carry out a lawful order may be punished under military law.
- Only an order that is “manifestly unlawful” falls outside the duty of obedience; broad disagreement with governmental or military policy does not, by itself, make an order unlawful.
- Selective conscientious objection (opposition to specific assignments, theaters, or policies) is not recognized as a right to refuse lawful military service.
- Freedom of conscience is a protected interest, but in a mandatory service system it may be limited to protect public interests such as national security, military effectiveness, and equal sharing of service burdens.
- Judicial review in matters of military discipline and operational necessity is restrained; courts generally do not replace the competent military authorities’ determinations absent illegality or extreme unreasonableness.

## Conclusion

In *Zonstien v. Military Advocate General*, the High Court rejected reservists’ attempt to overturn disciplinary convictions for refusing to serve in the Administered Territories, holding that the orders were lawful and that selective conscientious objection does not justify disobedience or require annulment of disciplinary judgments.


Zonstien v. Military Advocate General, HCJ 7622/02 (2002)