Post by Moses on May 30, 2005 20:09:26 GMT -5
Last update - 11:40 30/05/2005
On religious vs. military authority
By Avi Gisser
An uneasy debate is being waged within the Israel Defense Forces regarding those soldiers and commanders from the first rank, who are torn between the commanders' authority and rabbis' authority. Whose soldiers and commanders are they, the generals are asking? Are they ours or are they the rabbis'? While not an official discussion, it is going on all the same. The doubt that lies at the root of the discussion is dangerous, and its implications are harsh.
So it is only right that observant Jews and religious Zionists clarify this point. In a democratic state, the army has the authority to execute military and diplomatic actions under the direction of diplomatic echelons, and with the sanction of the supreme judicial institutions. Not only is this the IDF's right; it is its obligation. The existence of the State of Israel depends on this principle. The IDF has no other sovereign than the government of Israel. Any subordination to another authority, in contravention of the directives of the government, is a type of military insurrection.
Lying in the background of the religious debate over authority of the army is a much more substantial principle. Does the state even have the authority to determine its borders? Are diplomatic considerations - by their nature secular considerations - worthy of being a basis for decisions that are at odds with the Torah's positions on the issue of the Land of Israel?
Here, as well, we must take the religious-Zionist position: The State of Israel and its government have the authority to determine its borders and the geographical extent of its control. From where does it derive this authority? We granted it. The historic religious-secular Zionist alliance granted authority to the authorized governing mechanisms to administer the people residing in Zion in accordance with policy considerations, for the benefit of the existence and strengthening of the State of Israel.
Relying on this as a foundation, the state has successfully weathered several crises. The evacuation of Yamit and the uprooting of residents of a thriving area of the country were not attended by any serious calls in favor of a refusal to follow orders. Rabbi Shlomo Goren was then the chief rabbi and was well known as a fighter for control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He was succeeded by Rabbi Avraham Shapira. Neither man even once issued a call in support of a refusal to follow orders. And the religious-Zionist public followed in suit, despite its internal pain and deep disappointment. Why? Because there is - and was - no argument over authority. There was a coming to terms, if not a concurrence, with the process, with the diplomatic achievements and with the logical price to be paid for implementation of the process.
The state has authority and the army has no authority to act otherwise. The army has authority and the soldier has no authority to act otherwise. We must therefore continue to dissociate ourselves from any call for a refusal to obey orders and any undermining of the right to issue a lawful command.
In addition to authority, there is also the matter of responsibility. The government's authority is given to it, but it is incumbent on the government to make responsible use of it, and act with reason and logic. Every junior-ranking commander knows there is a limit to his authority. Formal authority is not everything. There must be at least minimal coordination between the authority and the goals for whose realization it was given. Because it is forbidden to refuse to obey an order, there are orders that one is forbidden from giving.
The wrath and fury expressed in the present-day calls to refuse orders and undermine authority stem from the lack of this coordination. In the opinion of many, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made irresponsible, extreme use - reaching the borders of what is illegitimate - of his formal authority. Deception of the voters and violation of a commitment to hold a referendum have generated - along with the darkening the considerations that led to the turnaround in his stands on the issues - unresolved frustration.
The refusal to follow orders is not legitimate. But who can say that the soldier must leave his conscience at home? Undermining authority is not legitimate. However, a channel must be found for those whose values conflict with the execution of an extreme action. Legal authority exists, responsibility is required and conscientious authority is granted.
The writer is the rabbi of Ofra, a West Bank settlement.
On religious vs. military authority
By Avi Gisser
An uneasy debate is being waged within the Israel Defense Forces regarding those soldiers and commanders from the first rank, who are torn between the commanders' authority and rabbis' authority. Whose soldiers and commanders are they, the generals are asking? Are they ours or are they the rabbis'? While not an official discussion, it is going on all the same. The doubt that lies at the root of the discussion is dangerous, and its implications are harsh.
So it is only right that observant Jews and religious Zionists clarify this point. In a democratic state, the army has the authority to execute military and diplomatic actions under the direction of diplomatic echelons, and with the sanction of the supreme judicial institutions. Not only is this the IDF's right; it is its obligation. The existence of the State of Israel depends on this principle. The IDF has no other sovereign than the government of Israel. Any subordination to another authority, in contravention of the directives of the government, is a type of military insurrection.
Lying in the background of the religious debate over authority of the army is a much more substantial principle. Does the state even have the authority to determine its borders? Are diplomatic considerations - by their nature secular considerations - worthy of being a basis for decisions that are at odds with the Torah's positions on the issue of the Land of Israel?
Here, as well, we must take the religious-Zionist position: The State of Israel and its government have the authority to determine its borders and the geographical extent of its control. From where does it derive this authority? We granted it. The historic religious-secular Zionist alliance granted authority to the authorized governing mechanisms to administer the people residing in Zion in accordance with policy considerations, for the benefit of the existence and strengthening of the State of Israel.
Relying on this as a foundation, the state has successfully weathered several crises. The evacuation of Yamit and the uprooting of residents of a thriving area of the country were not attended by any serious calls in favor of a refusal to follow orders. Rabbi Shlomo Goren was then the chief rabbi and was well known as a fighter for control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He was succeeded by Rabbi Avraham Shapira. Neither man even once issued a call in support of a refusal to follow orders. And the religious-Zionist public followed in suit, despite its internal pain and deep disappointment. Why? Because there is - and was - no argument over authority. There was a coming to terms, if not a concurrence, with the process, with the diplomatic achievements and with the logical price to be paid for implementation of the process.
The state has authority and the army has no authority to act otherwise. The army has authority and the soldier has no authority to act otherwise. We must therefore continue to dissociate ourselves from any call for a refusal to obey orders and any undermining of the right to issue a lawful command.
In addition to authority, there is also the matter of responsibility. The government's authority is given to it, but it is incumbent on the government to make responsible use of it, and act with reason and logic. Every junior-ranking commander knows there is a limit to his authority. Formal authority is not everything. There must be at least minimal coordination between the authority and the goals for whose realization it was given. Because it is forbidden to refuse to obey an order, there are orders that one is forbidden from giving.
The wrath and fury expressed in the present-day calls to refuse orders and undermine authority stem from the lack of this coordination. In the opinion of many, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made irresponsible, extreme use - reaching the borders of what is illegitimate - of his formal authority. Deception of the voters and violation of a commitment to hold a referendum have generated - along with the darkening the considerations that led to the turnaround in his stands on the issues - unresolved frustration.
The refusal to follow orders is not legitimate. But who can say that the soldier must leave his conscience at home? Undermining authority is not legitimate. However, a channel must be found for those whose values conflict with the execution of an extreme action. Legal authority exists, responsibility is required and conscientious authority is granted.
The writer is the rabbi of Ofra, a West Bank settlement.