MANDATORY
SERVICE
Years ago one of my daughters thought she wanted to
become a politician. When asked what would prepare her for the job, she confidently
answered that she’d need to enlist in the military. If I’m going to approve funding
for wars, she said, I should know what it’s like to fight in one.
Perhaps she was influenced by her father who served in
the IDF, where there is mandatory service of three years for men and two years
for women. There is something quite reassuring when you look around you and
know that everyone served in the military, just like you. Perhaps she was simply
young and idealistic, wanting to serve her country.
Unlike the voluntary American military service and its
two-tiered system of enlistment, the IDF enlist everyone at the private level
and then promotes through the ranks according to merit. Even the Chief of Staff
began as a private.
There is something to say about this egalitarian system
where everyone gives according to his/her ability (my brother-in-law had a leg problem
and worked in the computer center) and in return has his/her security needs met.
But what if you are a conscientious objector or pacifist?
You can always opt out and join instead one of the many civil-service agencies.
Contributing to the whole binds the population together in ways that foster a
sense of citizenship and a stake in one’s country, unless you are an ultra-orthodox
Jew.
For some reason—concern for the ability to fully practice
religion?—orthodox Jews were exempted from military service since the founding
of the state in 1948. Year after year, a brokered deal was in place with weak
coalition governments (in which minority religious parties traditionally hold
the balance of power for parliamentary control) that prolonged this exemption.
Now its extension has expired (August 1st) by order
of the Supreme Court as a discriminatory practice that violates another, more
basic law, about human rights and equality (except Arab Israelis whose rights
and duties differ from those of their Jewish counterparts—but this is another
issue altogether).
As long as religious leaders were able to cut their own
deals behind closed doors and prop up prime-ministers whose majority rule was
so slim that their support was crucial for surviving a no-confidence vote, there
was little public outrage. But as the centrist party, Kadima (Forward), made it
a condition of its continued participation in the current coalition government it
has to leave the coalition.
With fourteen political parties making up the 120
membership Knesset (parliament), one can imagine the ongoing mayhem of bringing
together competing ideological stances and delivering on promises to
constituents. And this doesn’t even include the twenty-one parties represented
in municipalities but not in the Knesset. It’s a mess, lively and active,
personal and contentious.
Kadima left the ruling coalition, bringing a comfortable
super-majority government of 94 down to 66. The Supreme Court’s decision went
into effect, and the Knesset is on summer recess till mid-October. The defense
department, headed by a member of the ruling coalition, has already suggested
it’s not ready to deal with such a large influx of soldiers all at once, so a
wait-and-see policy is in effect by default.
Do principles matter? Or does political reality
necessitate pandering to those who wield disproportionate power to form
coalition governments? Between principles and practice the gap is so wide that
nothing will be accomplished soon. But this doesn’t mean that these principles
are irrelevant or should be compromised. It’s almost as bad as claiming that
“all men are created equal” and overlooking slavery or women’s rights. It took
us almost two centuries to get it right; let’s see how quickly the Israelis
catch up.
Israel is a young nation that needs guidance. Stubborn
and self-righteous as it is, it does have serious national security issues unlike
those we have faced in America, primarily because of the proximity of enemy
states. Its legitimacy as a state is continuously questioned, and some of its
neighbors are bound to annihilate it when the opportunity arises. Numbers do
matter when it relates to land-mass and population size.
Perhaps it is with this in mind that it’s puzzling to see
a large minority of self-proclaimed religionists enjoy the fruits of the
state—claiming educational and welfare rights and funding—while refusing to
share in the burdens and duties facing every citizen. If it were only unfair
and hypocritical, it would be lamentable; but it’s dangerous as well, and that
is unforgiveable.
Equality among people is a religious principle, after
all, since we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Why not extend this
to duties as well?
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who served in the IDF. He can be
reached at rsassower@gmail.com See
previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment