Rabbis For Human Rights

There is something very troubling about the Awakening movement of those reserve soldiers who are arguing for better conditions as they assume a burden of responsibility for "defense of the country." One cannot argue with their claims for understanding on the part of universities and employers regarding their obligatory absenteeism from classes and work.

Indeed, it is a disgrace that flexibility is not the watchword of those places that see either their work force diminished or their corridors of academia empty as a result of the demands of the security needs of the country.

However, the virtually exclusive concentration by the reservist on gaining compensatory relief for their absences is misguided. If the matter that concerns them is only the conditions of their service - and if those conditions are not sufficiently altered to satisfy their demands, they will refuse to serve - then we are setting ourselves up to host an army of mercenaries.

The real issue that should be argued is whether they are serving a cause that they believe in or not. Requirement to perform reserve duty should be considered first and foremost a matter of moral responsibility.

It is here where these reservists' claims are most problematic. Their sense that they are bearing an unfair burden of responsibility because of haredi exemptions exposes the moral bankruptcy of their "awakening."

But because they do not include in their protest the slightest hint of ethical conflicts, it makes sense that they would deny the possibility that some haredim hold religious beliefs that genuinely prevent them in good theological conscience from serving in an army - any army. It seems that it does not cross these soldiers' minds that one of the reasons that they are serving in the IDF is to protect the fabric of democracy that we all should care about so deeply.

An essential building-block of a democracy is the right of refusal to serve in the army, providing that refusal is based on a principled decision.

Religious beliefs and moral conscience must take precedence over national loyalties. While it is true that too many in the haredi community hide behind the walls of the yeshiva, it would be syllogistically faulty to conclude that all Orthodox manifestations of religious objections to service in the army are suspect.

In our enthusiasm to proclaim army service as the supreme expression of national commitment (a potentially dangerous notion), we overlook the majority of those haredim whose refusal to enter the ranks of the IDF is genuinely based on religious belief. Also, we are being unfair in presenting the yeshiva world as monolithic, as many ultra-Orthodox Jews do serve in the military.

By focusing one's wrath upon one segment of the population, we are setting a terrible precedent. Twenty-five percent of non-Orthodox women do not serve in the army often for the simple reason that the army believes that there are too many female recruits. (I would feel more supportive of our reservists' demonstrations if they directed their protest against the unequal treatment of women in the army, both in the demands placed upon them and the abuse hurled against them.)

What about women who make aliya after the age of 20, or men after the age of 29? Are they deserving of a reservist's contempt because they are not required to "serve their country?" What of the Israeli Arab population? Are they to be forever condemned because they, as well as we, do not want them conscripted?

If anything we should extend the right of refusal for reasons of belief to include matters of conscience. Conscientious objection should not be taboo in this country, nor should selective conscientious objection, nor the refusal to carry out an illegal or immoral command or one that totally contradicts a person's ideological world-view. It is for these matters that our reservists should be demonstrating.

The only question that we should be asking is: In their refusal to serve in the military, are haredim treated in the same manner as someone from Yesh Gvul who might refuse to serve in the territories? Here there is a glaring imbalance. Yesh Gvul reservists have already borne a level of responsibility in the army, where a haredi may not have. If anything, preferential treatment should be accorded to the Yesh Gvul activist. This is worth protesting about.

Lastly, we should totally reject the populist diatribe that links one's refusal to serve in the army for reasons of principle to one's entitlement of full rights as a citizen. Matters of conscience and beliefs should have nothing to do with issues of civil rights.

The IDF protects us so that we can lead a life of freedom, which includes the rights of choice, diversity and conscience. The highest goal of a democratic Jewish society should be the maintenance of these ideals. This is what our reservists should be saying.

Concentrating only on their own parochial concerns, no matter how legitimate they may be, weakens their moral position. Those activists in Awakening should ask themselves whether they are serving in the army for a higher cause than simply the protection of their monetary and academic status, and that is the protection of every citizen to express his or her democratic right to deeply held moral and religious beliefs, that may include refusal to serve in the army.

It is only hoped that anyone who serves in the IDF does so because he or she too possesses deeply held moral or religious convictions that prompt them to risk their lives for all.

Originally published by The Jerusalem Post, Sunday, April 22 2001; 29 Nisan 5761
Original Online version can be found at: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/04/22/Opinion/Opinion.24959.html
© 1995-2001, The Jerusalem Post - All rights reserved
Republished with Permission.