by Sally Zahav
The practical arguments are refuted by learned Torah discourse, while the Torah arguments are answered with a practical refutation.
When the State of Israel was founded, the leaders decided to exempt ultra-Orthodox men from mandatory enlistment. It seemed logical at the time, since they were a small portion of the population and the yeshivas of Europe had been destroyed along with their students and teachers. It was time to rebuild. And rebuild, they did. And their numbers grew, generation by generation, until there are now more than 100,000 ultra-Orthodox young men, the great majority of whom do not enlist.
Meanwhile, over the years, religious and non-religious alike enlisted to bear the burden of defending the Land, the people and the state. Many were wounded and many fell in battle. The young men who were studying in yeshivas continued to do so during the wars.
Ultra-Orthodox parties are a significant part of the current coalition and their condition for joining the coalition was that the government would pass a law permanently exempting ultra-Orthodox young men from enlistment.
Then Hamas invaded and perpetrated the atrocities of October 7.
Many of Israel's military operations have been of short duration. As a result of the events of October 7, Israel has been engaged in a long, arduous
war to eliminate Hamas as the ruling entity of the Gaza Strip. Soldiers
are called to do rotations in the reserves again and again, risking life and limb, depriving their families and their workplaces of their presence, while other young men stay home.
As a result of all this, not only is it now unthinkable that there be a law exempting a segment of the population permanently from military service, a majority of Israelis want to see a more equitable sharing of the burden of military service.
Below is my translation of an article written by Orli Goldklang, which appeared in the March 1 issue of the Diokan section of the Makor Rishon newspaper.
Parashat Tzav - Enlistment Order
They respond to practical arguments about enlistment with Torah arguments. And Torah arguments are rebutted by discussions about practicality. But no pilpul can possibly triumph over the need for soldiers and fighters.
The Jewish genome has proven that it has infinite ability in two areas, divisiveness and pilpul. The first means that arguments and conflict can be created over any matter, even minor ones; the latter allows for anything and everything to be justified. It seems that on the critical matter of enlistment, the ultra-orthodox combine these two capabilities into a sort of infinite argument loop over every minor matter; thus, discussions involving a unique existential danger can include within it many expressions of “yes, but” along with even more expressions of “it is not that simple”.
Even before talking about solutions and before saying or writing anything at all, discussions on the matter of integrating the ultra-orthodox into the IDF manages to invite sharp responses to what is described as “an attack on an entire sector of society”. To our great surprise, the counter attack, which involves a lack of patience to even discuss the matter, is not limited to the Haredi mainstream. You can hear it as well from modern haredim who have many family members who have served or are serving in the IDF right now, and even in elite units. All of this is amplified by the loud voices of typical religious Zionist families, with a possible touch of the ultra-orthodox. So all discussion on the matter is shot down with impressive effectiveness, by arguments varying from practicality such as “It will not work by force” to seeing themselves as victims, as if to say, “you only allow yourselves to speak this way with ultra-Orthodox”.
It is difficult (even though not impossible) to argue with the facts: The IDF lacks manpower, especially fighters. The argument against mass exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox population has gone beyond the claim, “It’s not fair” and has moved deeply into “There’s no choice”. Not because it suddenly has become fair, and not because the idea that certain segments of society should bear the burden of security by themselves has become reasonable: but because the State of Israel has no security or economic future without the participation of the ultra-Orthodox sector, which is continuously increasing demographically, and in the next few decades is expected to become about 20 percent of the general population. And yes, it is that simple.
We are not asking for love
With all due respect to the military-practical argument, in this essential matter, there is also a discussion about the Torah matter itself – a discussion about religion, not the state. No, we are not talking about an argument over the importance of studying Torah, and not about it being the medicine essential for the Jewish People’s existence: the religious nationalist public also agrees with this, large parts of the traditional world share this belief, and even part of the secular public. It is about the moral and Torah obligation to save Jewish lives, and even tens of thousands of lives.
Contrary to the attempt to present enlistment to the IDF as a dictate against Jewish practice, the truth is the opposite: Service in the Israel Defense Force is, first and foremost, defense of Israel. Not just the Land, not just the state – but the people. It is a commandment that an entire segment of the population, which calls itself ‘those who tremble before the holiness of the Almighty’, finds a religious excuse to exempt itself from performing. In the name of the artificial division between Torah study and making war, and by forcefully adopting the division of these tasks between the tribe of Yisaschar and the tribe of Zevulun, tens of thousands of strong, able young men find themselves exempted and willingly (or because of societal or familial pressures) distance themselves from a war of commandment, redeeming the Land, and above all, actually saving lives.
Moses and Joshua bin Nun did not recognize a division between studying Torah and military service. Neither did Kings Saul and David. The two and a half tribes were obligated first of all to conquer the Land – although they were not faced with any existential danger – before they could inherit and settle the part of land neighboring Gilead. It wasn’t Herzl or Ben Gurion who wrote the Laws of Kings and their Wars, but Rambam, with the assumption and hope that the relevant passages of Torah would become more relevant in the future, which we have the merit to experience and now, indeed, the time has come.
As with most of the Torah arguments, “saving a life is more important than the entire Torah” is also ruled out automatically with a half-pitying, half-scornful smile. Because what do we understand about ‘dying in the tent of Torah’? And how can we compare war for life in this world with war for life in the next world?
So the practical arguments are refuted by learned Torah discourse, while the Torah arguments are answered with a practical refutation. Because which secular person would send his boy to the army consisting mostly of ultra-Orthodox and how will they take care of all the Hasidic and Lithuanian fighters with their own particular kashrut laws and anyway – what have the national religious fighters enlisted in the army gained if free society accuses them of messianism and does not respect their activity and their sacrifice?
A list of good and totally irrelevant questions stands as a fortified wall before the simple, compelling reality. The national religious people, the spiritual Mizrahi people – do not enlist in order to be liked, even though the heart aches because of the terrible way they are treated by the general media. The right to defend ourselves, the obligation to preserve our existence, are far greater and more essential than one more vicious article in Ha'aretz, a nasty skit in a bitter satirical show or a scathing panel on Channel 13.
We can continue to argue about the essence of the argument, we can bring up difficulties from B’nei Brak to Beitar Illit, but nevertheless, to the question of “Yes, but where do we go from here?“ there must be a short, clear answer: To the enlistment office. How? Here we may differ and put forth sophisticated arguments, find various complex and indirect solutions, but the arrow must only be aimed at one ethical, ideological and Torah point – preferrably as a religious ruling.
Sally Zahav
Source: Middle East and Terrorism
No comments:
Post a Comment