I am not going to dispute their claim that the merit of
Torah study is why God protects Israel. But it cannot be denied - in my view - that it is through the medium of the IDF that
God has chosen to do so at this time.
I also completely reject the notion that a quota of 35% Charedi enlistment needed to relieve the excessive burden being placed on those who are already serving - is an ‘anti-Torah’ edict. Which has been the mantra of religious and political Charedi leadership from the very beginning.
None of this is new. I’ve said it all before. I just want to
make that clear before I go on.
YWN reports the following:
A group of religious soldiers from Battalion 77 of the Armored Brigade sent a sharply worded letter to their commander following a two-day battalion vacation, Arutz Sheva reported.
The soldiers wrote that they were promised the vacation would take place in a setting that respected their religious lifestyle, including gender separation. But they were sorely disappointed when they discovered “that these were false promises.”
The soldiers said the event was held in a place where female soldiers were walking around in clothing inappropriate for their religious way of life. According to Arutz Sheva, the event was held near a pool, and although they were promised separate swimming hours, this promise was not fulfilled.
“This was a severe blow that damaged our faith, our values, and our way of life,” they wrote. “We expected the battalion—which is entrusted with the value of comradeship—to take care of the needs of soldiers who are shomrei mitzvot. Instead, we left with a feeling of hurt and betrayal.”
The letter was signed by dozens of soldiers from the battalion, who demanded an appropriate response to the situation.
I don’t know if this was a ‘one-off’ or a policy decision. Either
way, if the IDF is going to live up to its promise to accommodate Charedi
sensibilities, they cannot allow something like this to happen. Especially in a
vacation setting. We are not talking about combat situations where compromising
Charedi values might sometimes suddenly come up that are unavoidable.
But when the IDF has full control over conditions such as
vacation time, they must honor their commitment. Or else lose credibility in
their claim that they are ‘bending over backwards’ to accommodate Charedim.
They know full well that placing Charedi soldiers at a pool with
bikini-clad female soldiers is a gross violation of Charedi sensibilities.
Surely they could have devised a plan to provide separate times for secular IDF
soldiers and male-only times for Charedi soldiers.
If this was done intentionally - as is claimed in the YWN
article - as a means of accommodating feminist ideals of egalitarianism, then
Charedi leaders might actually have a point in saying that the IDF is ‘anti-Torah’.
You cannot stick devout Jews who wish to observe the high standards of modesty
demanded by their convictions into such a compromised setting and then claim that
the IDF is not hostile to Torah.
That being said, the obligation to serve in the military
during an existential war is not absolved because of modesty violations during
vacation time. But neither does that absolve the IDF from accommodating
religious soldiers when they can. And if this incident was deliberate, it will
be impossible to argue against the Charedi claim that the IDF is anti-Torah. Even
though serving in the IDF during a time of existential war is clearly not
anti-Torah at all, regardless of the compromised religious circumstances that
may arise.
So, as strong as my criticism of Charedi leadership has been
for urging their youth to shirk their duty to their people during a time of
war, I am equally critical of the IDF for shirking its responsibility to keep
its word to the very community it wishes to attract into service.
This kind of thing ought never happen again. The IDF needs
to apologize to these soldiers and their rabbinic leaders for dropping the ball
on this one. And if there really is some sort of feminist or anti religious
agenda to force Charedi soldiers into compromised modesty situations, that
needs to end - YESTERDAY.