In 2002 more than 600 members of the Israel Defense Forces signed a petition stating that from there on out they would refuse to take part in military actions in the Israel-controlled Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank. In particular, they objected, "We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people." Though it was not the first time Israeli soldiers had declined to participate out of conscientious objection, the petition, which came to be known as the "combatant's letter," caused a huge uproar in Israel.

The "refuseniks" (a term originally used to describe Jews who were barred from leaving the Soviet Union) had pledged to remain in the IDF and continue to serve "in any mission that serves Israel’s defense," but the IDF not only dismissed them from service but imprisoned at least 200 of them.

Shiri Tsur's brief documentary On the Objection Front interviews several former soldiers, who describe firsthand what it was like to serve in the territories, as well as what the effect of refusing has had on their lives.

The film is at its best when it lets the soldiers talk about the horrific events they willingly participated in: in painful detail they recount destroying Palestinians' homes for no good reason, dragging people out of their homes at all times of night, beating and torturing suspects, and in one case shooting a man who had threatened them with only a rock. Even more chilling is that, almost to a man -- there are apparently no women who signed the Combatant's Letter, as it seems that Israeli law recognizes the right of women to be conscientious objectors -- they all describe how unremarkable these terrible acts were; it was just a normal day's work in the territories. It was only cumulatively that each realized how much their actions had collided with their morality.

The film is also good at showing the difficult aftermath of signing the letter. Soldiers have suffered rejection from their families, spent time in prison, have been subjected to vitriol from every corner of Israeli society, and in some cases they've felt that they needed to leave the country. (Though one soldier, who now lives in England with his wife, insists that he isn't "running away," in response to the interviewer's query.)

Where the film falls down is placing the conflict in a larger context. It takes for granted that the audience knows a fair amount of Israeli history. And though it does let the opposing side have something of a say, it's not a balanced debate by any means. The director interviews the father of one of the soldiers, and it's a perplexing scene: though the father clearly opposes the settlements, he's ashamed of his son for refusing to fight in the territories. This could have been the most telling scene in the film, since it reveals an almost inexplicable support for a cause he doesn't believe in, but the director never examines the inconsistency in any depth. It's a wasted opportunity to explore a deep-seated ambivalence in Israeli culture; to American eyes the father just ends up looking ridiculous.

Similarly, the film attempts to expose the widening chasm between Israeli military reality in the 21st century with the ideals espoused at the nation's founding by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and Defense Minister. Ben-Gurion's admonition that Israel's army does not exist in order to kill people; it exists to represent Israel as a nation of high moral values (we can't find the exact quote, though in our search to find it we discovered that Ben-Gurion's quotes don't always find him in the best light). In the present day, an IDF training officer tells his young soldiers-to-be during an orientation session that it is good to have doubts and to question things -- "until the order is given."

However, the director doesn't follow those themes any further -- she neither interviews Ben-Gurion scholars to find out what he might have thought of the refusers, nor has she apparently interviewed anyone with the IDF to ask how they reconcile ideal and practice.

In the end, the film mostly just raises awareness that the Combatant's Letter happened at all, which is valuable given that the incident seems to be fading from view, especially with the planned dismantling of the settlements.

And though the film clearly holds the dissenting soldiers up as valiant protectors of Israel's highest moral values, not all the participants see themselves that way. At the Berkeley showing of the film, two of the signers appeared after the film for a question-and-answer session, receiving a standing ovation from the completely filled auditorium. One of them then took the microphone and said that he was uncomfortable receiving applause for his signing the letter; he did it out of his own personal morality, not to be a hero.

In a sense, however, that's exactly what a hero is.