Rabbi Yoel Manowitz, Rosh Yeshiva of the Golan Yeshiva, addressed in a special podcast the confrontation that arose following the incident in the Rotem Battalion of the Givati Brigade, seeking to place the issue within a broader discussion of the relationship between the Religious Zionist public, the IDF, and the State of Israel.
While backing the soldiers who stood firm on their religious principles, he warned against turning confrontation and zealotry into an educational approach and called for a distinction between standing firm and a culture of “blowups."
“We don’t like blowups," Rabbi Manowitz said. “We don’t want to defeat our friends, we don’t want to defeat our commanders, we don’t want to defeat the IDF, and we don’t want to defeat the State of Israel." According to him, even when a serious dispute arises, the starting point should not be the question of who won, but rather how one can stand firm on principles while at the same time preserving the partnership.
He connects this approach to Religious Zionism’s broader conception of the state. The establishment of the State of Israel, he said, represents not only a return to independence and to the Land of Israel, but the return of “Klal Yisrael" - the Jewish people as a collective - to the historical stage.
“We are the people of Israel. The people of Israel are returning to function as a nation," he said. Based on this outlook, the Religious Zionist Torah world chose to be a partner in the state and its institutions, even when a large proportion of its partners do not observe Torah and the commandments.
That partnership does not eliminate the need to confront the spiritual costs involved in encounters with broader society. Precisely for this reason, he emphasized the need to educate young people toward spiritual independence and the ability to withstand social pressure. For years, he said, he has told students at pre-enlistment gatherings to take with them three short sayings attributed to the Kotzker Rebbe: “To be alone in the marketplace," “to scream in silence," and “to stand upright while remaining bowed."
“Social influence is the thing that has the greatest influence on a person," he said. A person naturally wants to be loved, wanted, and accepted, and therefore the ability to maintain an independent position in the face of society cannot be taken for granted.
“A person must always be alone in the marketplace. Always think carefully and be himself," he said.
In his view, the military is a particularly significant arena for confronting this challenge. On the one hand, it involves an intensive encounter with different worlds; on the other, military service is not merely another social or professional framework.
“Our partnership in the army is on another level," he said. “It is at the highest level of collectivity, expressed through the togetherness of the people of Israel. And it is life or death."
Rabbi Manowitz criticized ideological trends that he said have entered the IDF in recent years, particularly regarding mixed-gender service and the integration of women. He believes that the challenge today differs from that faced during the army’s early years: In the past, disputes primarily concerned the practical conditions necessary to enable religious soldiers to observe Shabbat and kashrut, while today some of the disagreements are ideological.
At the same time, he objected to turning the struggle itself into the basis of religious identity.
“Not everything in the world is progressive," he said, emphasizing that a young child must first and foremost study Torah and build a positive world of faith, rather than being educated to view everything around him as an enemy that must be fought.
“You cannot say that fear of Heaven is built only if you are capable of confronting and fighting," he said. According to him, there is sometimes a tendency to turn every lesson and every discussion into a question of “who we are against."
“I feel that there is such a phenomenon, as though this has become the foundation of our spirituality. It is the foundation of education and growth. I don’t think that was our way."
Rabbi Manowitz is not calling for struggles to be abandoned. On the contrary, he emphasized that there are principles that must not be compromised. However, he said, even battles must be waged with careful judgment.
“Wars are waged wisely," he said. “Not everything needs to be taken to the media in a way that works against us." Media, politics, and influencing public opinion are professions, he said, and sometimes it is appropriate to act through channels that are not public.
He also sought to distinguish between an unequivocal halachic prohibition and a public or educational position that requires stricter rules. In the military, he explained, frameworks broader than the narrow letter of Jewish law are sometimes necessary in order to allow religious soldiers to integrate into the system. However, he said, this does not mean that every disagreement should be presented as a severe halachic prohibition.
“To say about everything that one must be killed rather than transgress it, to say about everything that it is a halachic prohibition even when it is not a halachic prohibition - that is not right."
Rabbi Manowitz also presented a nuanced position regarding the Military Rabbinate. He acknowledged that it is an institution subordinate to the military and may be subject to pressure, even saying that there are those who seek to “neuter the Rabbinate." At the same time, he opposed breaking the framework and stressed its importance. According to him, the military needs rabbis with independence and courage who are capable of standing up to the system when necessary.
“We, as a yeshiva, must not break this framework. It is extraordinarily important," he said.
In the event of a conflict, he expects a rabbi who receives a question from a soldier to contact both the chain of command and the relevant military rabbi before reaching a decision. Working through these channels, he said, can prevent a large proportion of such crises.
Regarding the incident in the Rotem Battalion itself, Rabbi Manowitz refrained from ruling on its specific details, but praised the soldiers’ willingness to stand up for their spiritual values. According to him, the Association of Hesder Yeshivas backed them from the beginning of the affair.
“When students have this ability to stand up for holiness and purity, I prefer that to students being swept along with the current and giving up their spiritual world."
Alongside that support, he emphasized that taking such a stand can also come at a price. When a soldier says that he cannot carry out something required of him, the military implications of that decision cannot be ignored.
Rabbi Manowitz believes that in struggles over matters of principle, responsibility cannot be placed solely on young soldiers. If it is a public struggle being led by rabbis and yeshiva heads, the spiritual leadership must also bear the cost rather than sending the students alone to the front line of the struggle.
Above all, Rabbi Manowitz seeks to prevent a swing from one extreme to the other in attitudes toward the IDF. He recalled periods when, he said, parts of the religious public had an atmosphere of “worship of the army," and made clear that he did not identify with that approach even then. But in his view, the opposite reaction is also wrong.
“I also don’t subscribe now to the opposite of that - to paranoia," he said. “That everyone is a liar, and everyone is only progressive... I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think you can work that way."
According to him, a relationship based from the outset on mistrust cannot endure: “You can’t manage a marriage that way. You can’t manage a partnership that way. You can’t do it with fundamental mistrust."
He said that one of the educational temptations lies precisely in how easy it is to sweep young people along with messages of zealotry and struggle.
“There is something very easy about zealotry," he said.
Among young people, he said, there is sometimes a demand for the leadership to respond in a manner that is “more extreme, more forceful, more radical, more explosive." But in his view, the role of leadership is not necessarily to give in to that demand.