For G-d - or country?

Stewart Weiss
JPost
23 November 09

The phrase "dual loyalty" is generally used to refer to Western Jews who must decide whether they support Israel, or the foreign country in which they reside.

But now, this same dilemma is occurring among our IDF soldiers, who increasingly are being asked to choose between the immutability of military orders, and their sacred religious obligations.

This is by no means a new phenomenon. There has always been a tug-of-war between the requirements of war and Halacha.

Observant soldiers, particularly in combat roles, face, early on, situations that present a clash of values: Is it permissible to violate the Shabbat - by riding in a vehicle, using a walkie-talkie, or missing prayers - while in the field? What if there is no time to don tefillin, or no succa to eat in on Succot? To what extent should one risk his life to extract a slain fellow soldier so he may be properly buried?

These and other potential conflicts have been researched by leading rabbis and written up in army manuals that are made readily available for observant recruits.

But now another flashpoint has developed; one that not only affects the individual chayal, but threatens the unity of the entire military structure: Can - or should - a soldier participate in the evacuation of a Jewish settlement, resulting in Israeli land being ceded to the Palestinians; or should the soldier refuse his orders on religious grounds?

This problem has become infinitely more acute since the 2005 disengagement - when Israeli soldiers participated in the eviction of the Jewish residents of Gaza - and is coming to a head over fears that the present government, under intense American pressure, may evacuate as many as 63 more Jewish communities in the West Bank and Jordan Valley.

Already, several soldiers have been jailed for holding up signs signaling their refusal to be part of such an action, and many more have gone on record - even before their induction - as saying they will decline, if asked, to be part of such a mission.

Related: Insubordination can save Israel

THE ARGUMENTS on both sides of this Gordian knot are powerful and persuasive. On the one hand, as part of its "purity of arms" policy, Israel has always allowed for conscientious objection to actions judged to be immoral or illegal. As a people who know all too well what atrocities can happen when soldiers "just follow orders," and we respect the right of individual soldiers to refuse to participate in extreme measures which they deem ethically unconscionable.

(Read full article)
.

Insubordination Can Save Israel

Manhigut Yehudit
Moshe Feiglin
05 Kislev 5770

As a result of my attempts to halt the Oslo collapse, I was put on trial for "sedition." I asked the judges to allow me to read a short piece from a book that I had brought with me. The judges agreed, and to their surprise, I removed "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupיry from my briefcase:

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable." (The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupיry, Chapter 10).

It is a mistake to think that the state works within the boundaries of laws. The public does not obey laws. It obeys rules within the boundaries of a triangle, the first side of which is the law. But the triangle has two other sides: common sense and ethicality.

(Read full article)

Related: For G-d or country?
.

Politicizing the IDF

Moshe Dann
Ynet
22 November 09

Condemning IDF soldiers who refuse to expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria as "contravening the values of the IDF" begs the question; what are the values and what is the role of the IDF?

That soldiers should refuse such orders because it is "against Halacha," is arguable. Refusing an order that has nothing to do with military or strategic concerns, however, is not a question of Halacha!

Ordering the IDF to evacuate Jewish communities and destroy homes and property directly violates the IDF's own Code of Ethics. "The goal of the IDF is to protect the existence of the State of Israel and her independence, and to thwart all enemy efforts to disrupt the normal way of life in Israel."

The IDF is not an auxiliary police force, to be used at the whim of the defense minister. Orders which are politically motivated may be technically "legal," but they undermine the IDF's morale and raison d'etre.

Refuse orders? Not when the objective is related to security or military, not when you are ordered to defend and protect Israel. Destroying Jewish homes, however, evicting Jews and beating up children is not the job of the IDF. We need to understand this distinction.

The IDF's purpose is to protect its citizens against our enemies. Who is "the enemy" in Jewish communities and how are they a threat to our well-being and security?

This is especially important since the decision to evict Jews is not sanctioned by the government, cabinet or Knesset. Although the military governor and defense minister have this power under "Emergency Regulations" handed down from the British Mandate, it was intended to be used in extreme cases to stop terrorism – not against innocent civilians who have committed no crime.

Using the IDF to carry out a highly controversial government policy, like evacuating Jews from their homes, has no military purpose. The misuse of IDF soldiers in such actions, therefore, is a direct blow to Israeli democracy, the IDF itself and our soldiers. The "our" is critical.
(Read full article)

Moshe Feiglin on INN Yishai Fleisher Show: Conscientious Objection (23:09)