The religious-Zionist camp has traditionally seen the army as a sacred organization in Israel's national revival. Many of its voices, however, are now calling for decreased involvement in the IDF. For example, recent reports of low enlistment were welcomed by former Gush Katif spokesman Eran Sternberg, who wrote, "True, this is not a knock-out victory, but it is the only thing that can cause the oligarchy up there to understand that if it continues to carry out crimes against the Jewish Nation, it simply won't have the slaves to perpetrate them..."
The Tuesday morning session of the Jerusalem Conference dealt with this critical issue. Paraphrased excerpts follow:
Rabbi Avraham Baron, head of the Yeshivot Hesder Association, chaired the conference session and said, "We will now try to analyze how we have reached the situation in which we find ourselves, and to propose solutions. I assume we all agree that we want to serve in the army, and that we don't have a spare army."
Hesder yeshivot provide an army-sanctioned arrangement in which student/soldiers combine yeshiva studies and combat service for five years. The army service is generally approximately 16 months.
Rabbi Yaakov Levanon, head of the Elon Moreh hesder yeshiva, cited many examples of the army trying to force religious soldiers to give up their ideals. He said that before the Disengagement, several religious-Zionist leaders met with government officials, "asking them to remove the army from this dirty political game. It looked as if they were about to do that, and not let the army do the dirty work; but soon it changed again, and in the end, the army did the uprooting...
"I speak with youth today, and I see that the problems are deep. The army has not learned the lesson of the past months, and continues to try to use force, to crush our public.
“When students consult and ask me, I tell them that if they have another alternative - of which there are plenty - there is no reason for them to enlist in the army and risk going to prison for their beliefs. There are of course those who continue to want to enlist, and we guide them with great spiritual strength. But in general, until the army learns the lesson and stops trying to force us to give up our ideals, this is how it will be. When the army does understand, everything will change, and our public will once again be happy to serve in the army."
Prof. Stuart Cohen of Bar Ilan University's Political Science Department: "I am tempted to respond immediately to the honored rabbi, but I will try to overcome... My viewpoint is from within the army, and not necessarily from the religious-Zionist angle. The army has undergone some changes over recent years.
“One is a change in the type of missions it is given. It used to be more concerned with immediate threats from our neighbors, but now it is more focused on what is called the low-intensity war against terrorism and a hostile local population, as well as long-range missile threats and the like. This change requires the army to build a new structure, and maybe also requires a new type of soldier.
“Another change that has overcome the army is its new social standing. Many civil groups, including the Finance Ministry, media, parents, women's groups, courts both in Israel and outside, rabbis, interfere in the army much more than they used to, and this also requires the army to adapt.
“A third change, but one that the army has chosen to some extent, is a type of professionalization and specialization. There is a new emphasis on technological skills... In addition, the army is more concentrated on security, and not other goals on which it focused in its first decades: not new communities, as with the Nachal brigades; not education, like the underprivileged "Raful youth" [named for the late Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan]; and not absorption, and not military music bands.
“This is also a sign of maturity of the army and the society... We are also heading for selective enlistment or recruitment. Other armies have undergone or are undergoing these changes as well.
"Where does all this leave the religious-Zionist public, which gave and gives so much to the IDF? I disagree with the rabbi, if I may. I don't know any other army that comes towards the religious soldiers as much as the IDF. For instance, there are two versions of the oath of allegiance, one that says 'I swear,' and one for religious soldiers that says 'I affirm.' The rabbi will say of course that there is no need for both, and the latter could suffice for all, but there is a military custom... In addition, soldiers are permitted to wear any type of yarmulke they want.
“There are various hesder arrangements for yeshiva students [though the army is considering doing away with or reducing them - ed.]. The IDF is not dependent solely on this public. Look at the list of those who have been killed.
“In addition, the army is no longer looking only for combat-worthy soldiers, but also for technological skills, as we said. And third of all, we are headed towards an army that will be professional, with selective enlistment. Given all this, I think we should look carefully and see what the army will look like if we don't continue to encourage specifically this public, with all its talents, to take part."
MK Effie Eitam (National Union) commented, "The process of getting religious people into leading positions of influence in the army is a long process. Those who graduated the first pre-military one-year yeshiva academies in the framework of the army have now been in the army for 15 years, and are now Lt.-Cols. This is significant, but not yet influential; they need some more time to really become a force in the army.
“We are thus in the middle of a process that if we despair of it or give contradicting messages, then this multi-year and important process which can effect the character of the entire army will be cut off in the middle. It is important to judge what has been done and what we can look forward to, and compare it to what our detachment from the army is liable to bring.
"Secondly, to judge the army as something separate from the society is not correct; it's like judging the horse which trampled me [at Amona]. The army is like the horse, and it has a rider who directs it: the government. That's how it must be... And so when the same Chief of Staff who banished me from the army for irrelevant reasons [widely believed to be Eitam's religious observant lifestyle - ed.] came and appeared before the government in which I was a minister, it was clear that though he came to argue and present his case - in the end, he would accept whatever decision the government handed down to him.
"We in the religious-Zionist camp deal much more intensively with the horse, instead of with its rider, namely, the political echelons. I think we should use the Gush Katif crisis for a deep self-reckoning to realize [this]. As long as we diffuse our influence and deal too much with the horse and not with the politicians, other riders will ride the horse and we will not succeed... The army cannot refuse government orders, and those who feel the opposite are talking about a different state, if it can at all be called a state."
"Perhaps the heart of the matter is the following: ... We must find an alternative to the police violence at Amona, refusal to carry out orders, and the uprooting of Jewish communities. That alternative is the building of a common desire that unites all of us with one national desire.
“This is the challenge we face: to form national solidarity, a common ideological horizon, where everyone will want to endanger his life for the common will. At present we have weakness and lack of clarity. We have to find the way to replace the mechanical organs of authority, which use violence and bulldozers, with a true national solidarity."
Recently-retired senior IDF officer Yiftah Ron-Tal, a former resident of the Yesha community of Ofrah, said that when he was faced with the choice of either resigning from the army or carrying out Disengagement orders, he deliberated, but chose the latter. Eitam, who reached the rank of Brigadier-General, later said that he would definitely have chosen the former.
Ron-Tal said, "Israel continues to face existential security dangers, and as such, we cannot choose the level of security we wish to maintain... The army is the army of the people, and must remain above all disputes and social controversy. This doesn't mean that every security-related action it takes is in the consensus, such as the Lebanon War, but rather that once it is taken, it must be this way...
“No fewer than 45 percent of the recent officers' course were wearing kippot (yarmulkes). This public brings a tremendous dimension of faith and mission to the army, and we cannot afford to give it up. If this means that non-security matters [such as uprooting residents from their homes in Gush Katif] should be taken out of the army's hands, then that's how it must be." Many speakers agreed with this last point.
Emanuel Shilo, editor of B'Sheva, the newspaper that sponsored the Conference, said, "Seven or eight months ago, the army carried out a mission that was perhaps unprecedented in scope, when a very large joint army-police force, after having undergone months of preparation, conquered a residential area, broke down the gates, took over the villages, forced the residents out of their homes, sent them to the unknown, and then was left with nothing but to destroy their homes and lock the village gates behind them.
"I believe that the people that were there - mostly religious-Zionists, by chance or not by chance - saw and felt what happened to them exactly as I just described it. This can help us understand the depth of the crisis and break in spirit that this public feels.
"In addition, it also appears that this will continue to be part of what the army can look forward to doing in the future; some of its basic missions will be to once again fall upon Jewish communities, throw the people out, and the like. This will then influence other aspects of the army, such as who to promote, based on whether they are fit for this type of job, etc.
"Regarding the horse and its rider [that Eitam spoke about]. First of all, regarding the army's willingness to carry out these orders, I respect the achievements of all those who made whatever decisions they made - but it's clear that there are some orders that are simply immoral and cannot be carried out. The very fact that an order or law was passed democratically does not make it moral. Therefore the army as an organization bears responsibility for having taken part.
"I don't agree with Effie Eitam that the army must merely carry out the orders. There is a precedent in the Bible for what I am saying, and that is when the army as an army refused to carry out King Saul's orders to kill the Kohanim of Nov. This therefore causes some of our disappointment.
"We could have expected some senior officers to resign rather than carry out these orders; if this would lead to a form of disintegration in the army, as some of the speakers feared, then the government would be smart enough to realize what is going on and would adapt its policies accordingly.
“Just like the Finance Minister adapts his policies according to various considerations, such as diverting the painful blows more to the poorer classes and not the wealthier classes, in order that the wealthy not take their money out of the country; we definitely could have expected to have officers from our camp who would have refused to take part in what happened in Gush Katif."
The Tuesday morning session of the Jerusalem Conference dealt with this critical issue. Paraphrased excerpts follow:
Rabbi Avraham Baron, head of the Yeshivot Hesder Association, chaired the conference session and said, "We will now try to analyze how we have reached the situation in which we find ourselves, and to propose solutions. I assume we all agree that we want to serve in the army, and that we don't have a spare army."
Hesder yeshivot provide an army-sanctioned arrangement in which student/soldiers combine yeshiva studies and combat service for five years. The army service is generally approximately 16 months.
Rabbi Yaakov Levanon, head of the Elon Moreh hesder yeshiva, cited many examples of the army trying to force religious soldiers to give up their ideals. He said that before the Disengagement, several religious-Zionist leaders met with government officials, "asking them to remove the army from this dirty political game. It looked as if they were about to do that, and not let the army do the dirty work; but soon it changed again, and in the end, the army did the uprooting...
"I speak with youth today, and I see that the problems are deep. The army has not learned the lesson of the past months, and continues to try to use force, to crush our public.
“When students consult and ask me, I tell them that if they have another alternative - of which there are plenty - there is no reason for them to enlist in the army and risk going to prison for their beliefs. There are of course those who continue to want to enlist, and we guide them with great spiritual strength. But in general, until the army learns the lesson and stops trying to force us to give up our ideals, this is how it will be. When the army does understand, everything will change, and our public will once again be happy to serve in the army."
Prof. Stuart Cohen of Bar Ilan University's Political Science Department: "I am tempted to respond immediately to the honored rabbi, but I will try to overcome... My viewpoint is from within the army, and not necessarily from the religious-Zionist angle. The army has undergone some changes over recent years.
“One is a change in the type of missions it is given. It used to be more concerned with immediate threats from our neighbors, but now it is more focused on what is called the low-intensity war against terrorism and a hostile local population, as well as long-range missile threats and the like. This change requires the army to build a new structure, and maybe also requires a new type of soldier.
“Another change that has overcome the army is its new social standing. Many civil groups, including the Finance Ministry, media, parents, women's groups, courts both in Israel and outside, rabbis, interfere in the army much more than they used to, and this also requires the army to adapt.
“A third change, but one that the army has chosen to some extent, is a type of professionalization and specialization. There is a new emphasis on technological skills... In addition, the army is more concentrated on security, and not other goals on which it focused in its first decades: not new communities, as with the Nachal brigades; not education, like the underprivileged "Raful youth" [named for the late Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan]; and not absorption, and not military music bands.
“This is also a sign of maturity of the army and the society... We are also heading for selective enlistment or recruitment. Other armies have undergone or are undergoing these changes as well.
"Where does all this leave the religious-Zionist public, which gave and gives so much to the IDF? I disagree with the rabbi, if I may. I don't know any other army that comes towards the religious soldiers as much as the IDF. For instance, there are two versions of the oath of allegiance, one that says 'I swear,' and one for religious soldiers that says 'I affirm.' The rabbi will say of course that there is no need for both, and the latter could suffice for all, but there is a military custom... In addition, soldiers are permitted to wear any type of yarmulke they want.
“There are various hesder arrangements for yeshiva students [though the army is considering doing away with or reducing them - ed.]. The IDF is not dependent solely on this public. Look at the list of those who have been killed.
“In addition, the army is no longer looking only for combat-worthy soldiers, but also for technological skills, as we said. And third of all, we are headed towards an army that will be professional, with selective enlistment. Given all this, I think we should look carefully and see what the army will look like if we don't continue to encourage specifically this public, with all its talents, to take part."
MK Effie Eitam (National Union) commented, "The process of getting religious people into leading positions of influence in the army is a long process. Those who graduated the first pre-military one-year yeshiva academies in the framework of the army have now been in the army for 15 years, and are now Lt.-Cols. This is significant, but not yet influential; they need some more time to really become a force in the army.
“We are thus in the middle of a process that if we despair of it or give contradicting messages, then this multi-year and important process which can effect the character of the entire army will be cut off in the middle. It is important to judge what has been done and what we can look forward to, and compare it to what our detachment from the army is liable to bring.
"Secondly, to judge the army as something separate from the society is not correct; it's like judging the horse which trampled me [at Amona]. The army is like the horse, and it has a rider who directs it: the government. That's how it must be... And so when the same Chief of Staff who banished me from the army for irrelevant reasons [widely believed to be Eitam's religious observant lifestyle - ed.] came and appeared before the government in which I was a minister, it was clear that though he came to argue and present his case - in the end, he would accept whatever decision the government handed down to him.
"We in the religious-Zionist camp deal much more intensively with the horse, instead of with its rider, namely, the political echelons. I think we should use the Gush Katif crisis for a deep self-reckoning to realize [this]. As long as we diffuse our influence and deal too much with the horse and not with the politicians, other riders will ride the horse and we will not succeed... The army cannot refuse government orders, and those who feel the opposite are talking about a different state, if it can at all be called a state."
"Perhaps the heart of the matter is the following: ... We must find an alternative to the police violence at Amona, refusal to carry out orders, and the uprooting of Jewish communities. That alternative is the building of a common desire that unites all of us with one national desire.
“This is the challenge we face: to form national solidarity, a common ideological horizon, where everyone will want to endanger his life for the common will. At present we have weakness and lack of clarity. We have to find the way to replace the mechanical organs of authority, which use violence and bulldozers, with a true national solidarity."
Recently-retired senior IDF officer Yiftah Ron-Tal, a former resident of the Yesha community of Ofrah, said that when he was faced with the choice of either resigning from the army or carrying out Disengagement orders, he deliberated, but chose the latter. Eitam, who reached the rank of Brigadier-General, later said that he would definitely have chosen the former.
Ron-Tal said, "Israel continues to face existential security dangers, and as such, we cannot choose the level of security we wish to maintain... The army is the army of the people, and must remain above all disputes and social controversy. This doesn't mean that every security-related action it takes is in the consensus, such as the Lebanon War, but rather that once it is taken, it must be this way...
“No fewer than 45 percent of the recent officers' course were wearing kippot (yarmulkes). This public brings a tremendous dimension of faith and mission to the army, and we cannot afford to give it up. If this means that non-security matters [such as uprooting residents from their homes in Gush Katif] should be taken out of the army's hands, then that's how it must be." Many speakers agreed with this last point.
Emanuel Shilo, editor of B'Sheva, the newspaper that sponsored the Conference, said, "Seven or eight months ago, the army carried out a mission that was perhaps unprecedented in scope, when a very large joint army-police force, after having undergone months of preparation, conquered a residential area, broke down the gates, took over the villages, forced the residents out of their homes, sent them to the unknown, and then was left with nothing but to destroy their homes and lock the village gates behind them.
"I believe that the people that were there - mostly religious-Zionists, by chance or not by chance - saw and felt what happened to them exactly as I just described it. This can help us understand the depth of the crisis and break in spirit that this public feels.
"In addition, it also appears that this will continue to be part of what the army can look forward to doing in the future; some of its basic missions will be to once again fall upon Jewish communities, throw the people out, and the like. This will then influence other aspects of the army, such as who to promote, based on whether they are fit for this type of job, etc.
"Regarding the horse and its rider [that Eitam spoke about]. First of all, regarding the army's willingness to carry out these orders, I respect the achievements of all those who made whatever decisions they made - but it's clear that there are some orders that are simply immoral and cannot be carried out. The very fact that an order or law was passed democratically does not make it moral. Therefore the army as an organization bears responsibility for having taken part.
"I don't agree with Effie Eitam that the army must merely carry out the orders. There is a precedent in the Bible for what I am saying, and that is when the army as an army refused to carry out King Saul's orders to kill the Kohanim of Nov. This therefore causes some of our disappointment.
"We could have expected some senior officers to resign rather than carry out these orders; if this would lead to a form of disintegration in the army, as some of the speakers feared, then the government would be smart enough to realize what is going on and would adapt its policies accordingly.
“Just like the Finance Minister adapts his policies according to various considerations, such as diverting the painful blows more to the poorer classes and not the wealthier classes, in order that the wealthy not take their money out of the country; we definitely could have expected to have officers from our camp who would have refused to take part in what happened in Gush Katif."