Time for a decision
By Alexander Yakobson
Haaretz, November 2, 2004
It is possible that former chief rabbi Avraham Shapiro and his colleagues who promote refusal have, unwittingly of course, done an important service for Israeli democracy. They have put a matter of principle on the agenda: Who rules in Israel - the nation by way of its elected institutions or the rabbis through their halakhic rulings?
This is a question that has been discussed for some time in the context of the argument over dividing up the land of Israel and the future of the settlements, but it has never been so clearly defined and in a way that calls for an unambiguous decision. Now it seems the time has come for a decision to be determined. The rabbis have decided to force a direct confrontation over this issue on Israeli society. It is better that the matter be determined now, in the context of the withdrawal from Gaza, rather than when we have to face more difficult diplomatic decisions in the future. It will be good to know, at last, how many divisions Rabbi Shapiro has. He appears to have fewer than he thinks.
The question to be decided can be phrased differently: Does the state of Israel exist at all, or is what we have here merely the "Israeli Authority" that exists alongside armed groups acting under the aegis of religious leaders, an entity unable to make diplomatic decisions to which these leaders are opposed?
It is imperative, beyond any ideological differences of opinion, that there be a democratic regime in Israel - it has no practical alternative. Israeli society's structure is such that if the country is not administered according to the democratic mechanism of freedom of argument and decisions by the majority, there will be no possibility of running it. Destruction of the democratic regime means destruction of the state. Under such circumstances, loyalty to democracy and loyalty to the state are overwhelmingly two sides of the same coin. It is impossible for Israel to exist without a democratic regime, and there will be no democracy here if there is no Israel.
There is reason to believe that the majority of IDF soldiers and officers realize and feel it is forbidden to undermine the common framework of the regime, and it is certainly prohibited to cause the army to disintegrate. The halakhic ruling aimed at getting the army to rebel against the legal government is in conflict with their sense of responsibility and loyalty to the state. At the same time, if there are people in the army, particularly officers, who believe that their commander in chief is Rabbi Shapiro, not the government of Israel, they clearly have no place in the IDF, and it is better that this come to light now.
In any event, even if there is a significant amount of refusal no one will prevent the IDF from carrying out the government's and Knesset's decision. But it is reasonable to assume that the threat of mass refusal by religious soldiers will turn out to be an idle threat. The talk of civil war will be proven erroneous: There is no army of rebels for such a war. Some of those opposed to disengagement place the responsibility on Ariel Sharon for blood that may be spilled in the struggle against his plan. It is to hoped that they clearly understand what political destruction awaits their camp if, heaven forbid, an IDF soldier is killed by someone from their ranks.
It would be interesting to know how those on the left who in the past few years supported political refusal envisaged the scenario in which the settlements are evacuated. Perhaps they thought the settlements would be dismantled on their own through pressure from mass demonstrations of the radical left. And perhaps someone expected Che Guevara to arrive in Israel and dismantle the settlements. Or perhaps it was indeed possible to assume in advance that the chance of an evacuation would be contingent on the Zionist state's ability to impose it and the readiness of its soldiers to obey the legal orders?
The writer is a lecturer in history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
