Givati situation must teach IDF it has no time for diversions by religion, egalitarianism - comment

On the surface, it appears to be a classic case of religious conscience.

Religious soldiers operating in Gaza refuse an order to board a Namer armored personnel carrier with a female paramedic because of halachic concerns about men and women being together in enclosed quarters.

They are prepared to fight. They are prepared to risk their lives. But they are not prepared to compromise their religious principles.

Seen that way, the soldiers from the Givati Brigade’s Rotem Battalion are the victims here – dedicated fighters being punished for trying to remain faithful to halacha while defending their country.

But the story is not that simple.

According to reports, the soldiers initially tried to reach the Givati Brigade’s rabbi but received no response. They then contacted rabbis from the hesder yeshivot where they had studied, who instructed them not to enter the vehicle under those circumstances.

Later, however, the brigade rabbi became involved and reportedly ruled that the mission was permissible because of its operational importance and limited duration.

Yet that was not enough. The soldiers continued to refuse, the mission was canceled, and 16 soldiers were subsequently sentenced to terms in military prison – five for 10 days and 11 for five days.

An issue that will arise if more haredi enter the army

And therein lies the larger issue – one that the country will face with increasing frequency if, as everyone says they want, more haredim enlist in the IDF.

The soldiers involved in this incident were not haredim; they were hesder students. But the dilemma is the same: Who has the final say when the rulings of a soldier’s personal rabbi clash with those of the military rabbinate and the orders of his commanders?

The answer has to be the military chain of command, including the military rabbis whose job it is to weigh halachic considerations against operational needs.

The brigade rabbi was uniquely placed to understand both sides of the equation. He could assess the halachic problem, but he could also understand the nature and urgency of the mission – information that rabbis outside the army’s framework may not possess.

Once he ruled that the mission was permissible, that should have ended the matter.

Otherwise, the army risks creating parallel chains of command: the formal chain running from the chief of staff down through the brigade, battalion, and company commanders; and an informal chain running from soldiers to rabbis outside the military.

No army can operate that way.

A soldier may consult his rabbi about whom to marry, where to live, and a whole host of questions affecting his personal life. But when he is fighting in Gaza and receives an operational order, the army cannot wait while competing rabbinical authorities debate whether it should be carried out.

That does not mean the soldiers’ concerns should be dismissed. Far from it.

The IDF’s Joint Service Order recognizes the right of observant soldiers to serve in gender-segregated frameworks during operational activity, except in exceptional circumstances. The army itself, therefore, acknowledges that religious accommodation is not a favor bestowed upon soldiers by the good grace of an individual commander. It is part of the rules.

And that places obligations on commanders as well.

IDF needs to demonstrate common sense, sensitivity, and flexibility

As the IDF incorporates more religious soldiers and more women – both necessary because of severe manpower shortages – it will need to demonstrate common sense, sensitivity, and flexibility. Now is not the time to turn strict egalitarianism into an inviolable principle.

If a male paramedic is available and can accompany a group of hesder soldiers without compromising the mission, then common sense dictates that he should be sent.

Why create a confrontation when none is necessary? Why force soldiers to choose between their religious convictions and their military obligations if a practical solution is readily available?

But if no male paramedic is available, and the female paramedic is operationally necessary, then she should go – and the soldiers should follow the ruling of the brigade rabbi and obey their commanders.

That is the balance: accommodation wherever possible; following orders when necessary.

Common sense must also be the byword for officers commanding hesder soldiers. According to friends of those involved, the Namer incident came after previous confrontations in which the soldiers felt they had been unnecessarily asked to act contrary to Halacha.

In one such incident, they said, the company commander had ordered a training exercise on Shabbat that included evacuating simulated wounded soldiers and inserting an intravenous line. The soldiers reportedly asked that it be postponed, arguing that there was no operational need to conduct it on Shabbat. According to their account, a military rabbi later agreed there was no reason to hold the exercise then.

Those claims have not been independently established. But if accurate, they point to a serious failure of judgment by the officers.

There is no justification for creating avoidable religious friction merely to make a point, assert authority, or test the soldiers’ limits. Commanders need religious soldiers to trust that if they are ordered to violate Shabbat or enter a religiously problematic situation, it is because an operational necessity genuinely exists – not because a commander cannot be bothered to be flexible.

That trust is essential.

But it must run both ways.

Commanders need to know that when they give an operational order – particularly after the relevant military rabbi has ruled that it is halachically permissible – the order will be obeyed. Soldiers cannot treat resentment over earlier incidents as a reason to refuse a later mission.

The two issues need to be kept separate. If commanders ignored the Joint Service Order, behaved insensitively, or unnecessarily scheduled training on Shabbat, that should be investigated and addressed. But those alleged failures do not justify refusing an operational mission in Gaza.

The military was therefore right to discipline the soldiers. It cannot fight and win if soldiers unilaterally decide which orders they will obey, which missions they will join, and which rabbinical authority will have the final say.

By the same token, the IDF cannot afford to lose religious soldiers – or make the already difficult task of recruiting haredim harder – by giving them reason to fear that military service will force them to jettison Halacha.

The IDF is overstretched, understaffed, and alert on seven fronts. It has neither the time nor the luxury right now for these types of diversions.