The divide between the pro-judicial reform camp and those who oppose it is not only getting wider, it’s getting uglier. It seems like nothing is sacred anymore.
One of the last institutions that brought people together was the IDF. The illusion that it’s a people’s army has been one of the casualties of the current infighting. It was seen a month ago when decorated IAF pilot Col. (ret.) Ze’ev Raz and war veteran and attorney David Hodak publicly legitimized the use of arms against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his government, although they apologized following the public outcry.
A group of submarine veterans is protesting near the Knesset and the threat by fighter pilots from the 69th Squadron not to turn up for training last week also received a huge amount of publicity. Members of the elite Sayeret Matkal unit and the famed 8200 intelligence unit have also drawn on their units’ names and reputations to demand the reform be halted, as have a group of military doctors in the reserves.
Apart from the dangers of each soldier or group of soldiers deciding what order to follow or not, the veterans from elite units are damaging the democratic precept of equality – that the vote of an army cook is worth the same as the vote of a fighter pilot.
Disobeying orders
During the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, much was made of the threat that religious soldiers would refuse to obey orders to evict residents (and in some cases, relatives) from their homes. The question resounded: Will they obey rabbis or officers? We now know that with the exception of a tiny minority, they followed the IDF’s orders.
Among those active among the anti-reform demonstrators, Ehud Barak and Dan Halutz – both former chiefs of staff – stand out. Halutz in particular condemned the threat of not following orders during the disengagement but seems to be encouraging reserve duty refusers now.
Legitimate battles must be fought through legitimate means. Although the right to demonstrate is deeply enshrined in democracy, there is a major difference between protesting and encouraging civil rebellion. Reserve soldiers can inform their unit that they are not prepared to serve; they can do that in a private message and by submitting the relevant request form. But they don’t have to do it in public while putting pressure on others to join them.
The principle that a clearly illegal order should not be obeyed has not been questioned and is not at risk from the judicial reform. Soldiers will remain free to follow their conscience as individuals.
And that is how it should be. Israel has always prided itself on its individuality as a means of solving problems. Groupthink among certain units – where soldiers will not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and ideas – does nothing to make the country more democratic, nor will it make the military stronger.
We were encouraged to see a call by high-ranking officers to keep the IDF above politics. In an open letter “to our brothers, commanders and reserve soldiers,” more than 35 IDF generals “from across the entire spectrum of Israeli society, in a bipartisan effort, call upon everyone to unite. We cannot allow politics to tear apart the IDF.”
The senior officers concluded their “Unity letter from IDF generals” by stating: “We are aware that the recent events and changes taking place in the government and society have provoked rigorous debate and discord but at the same time, we strongly disapprove of any non-compliance of the reservists. We further call for the respect of all reservists and we encourage a spirit of brotherhood so that we can maintain the great integrity of the IDF.”
The country continues to face serious threats, from the ongoing wave of terrorism to the dangers of Iran on the threshold of a nuclear breakout. As it approaches its 75th anniversary, Israel cannot afford to continue fighting itself. Its citizens, military and leaders – government and opposition – must take a step back before it’s too late. Both sides need to heed President Isaac Herzog’s call and report to the President’s Residence to battle out their differences respectfully, through debate, until a compromise can be reached.
Since both camps agree that judicial reform is necessary, what is required is dialogue and not rhetoric – and certainly not attempts to mobilize the military for domestic political means.