A threat to democracy?
Latest insubordination cases must be analyzed in context of Gaza pullout
Following recent incidents of soldiers expressing their refusal to evacuate Jews from their homes and the subsequent punishment some of the soldiers received, calls have been heard to both punish the rabbis responsible for encouraging such behavior as well as to stop the funding of specific hesder yeshivot. Moreover, one of the reasons given for such a harsh response is that behavior of this sort by Israeli soldiers threatens the very fabric of Israeli democracy.
Whether or not this claim is true and regardless of how one wants to define "Israeli democracy," it is disingenuous to analyze such behavior in a way that is disconnected from the larger social and historical context. A proper analysis of the phenomenon cannot be divorced from the traumatic influence that the 2005 Gaza disengagement had on large segments of Israeli society.
The events leading up to the disengagement started with Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party’s landslide victory against Amram Mitzna and Labor. In addition to Sharon enjoying a high popularity rating prior to the elections, the runaway victory was all but sealed by the fact that many voters were simply terrified of Mitzna and his proposal for a one-sided withdrawal from Gaza. At the time such an idea was only taken seriously by the fringe Left, a group which in many ways was the antithesis of the traditional Likud voter base.
Nonetheless, Sharon proceeded to adopt the exact policy that had just been overwhelmingly rejected. Realizing that such change of direction was clearly against the platform of his own Likud party, Sharon eventually brought the plan to a vote by party members. Not surprisingly, Likud members overwhelmingly rejected it by more than a 20 point margin and thus handed Sharon a stinging defeat. However, rather than following the wishes of his voters, Sharon went forward with his plan.
Three months later, in a non-binding vote by the Likud Central Committee, Sharon's proposal to invite other parties into the coalition was turned down as well. Although not a formal vote on the plan, it was obvious to all that this was an attempt to move it forward, albeit via the back door, by inviting other parties into the coalition that supported his plan.
Uneasy feeling
Eventually the plan came to a vote in the all-important cabinet, where it seemed certain that once again Sharon was going to suffer defeat. However, in order to avert another setback, Sharon simply fired two ministers a few days before the vote in order to create a majority. With these two out of the way, Sharon was finally able to secure the victory he desperately needed. With this in his pocket, the rest was more or less easy sailing.
Even though it was clear to all that such behavior by a prime minister made a mockery out of any sense of democracy, at the time there were very few calls that such behavior threatens the very fabric of Israeli democracy. The same defenders of democracy, the ones who currently are in an uproar against the behavior of the soldiers, were deafeningly quiet during this dark chapter in Israel's history.
Thus, having witnessed the above events and then the actual disengagement itself, not surprisingly many people were affected. Many were left with the feeling that the army was being used solely for political interests, to defend the ruling establishment rather than to defend the country. This uneasy feeling, combined with the fact that many followed orders during the disengagement because of fear, despite their inner revulsion against physically removing Jews from their homes, as well as the clear knowledge for many that doing so was forbidden from a Jewish perspective, has caused many to vow not to make the same mistake again.
Therefore, to analyze the current behavior in a way that is disconnected from the Gaza disengagement is both dishonest and hypocritical. These soldiers are the very best and like all other Israeli soldiers they are always ready to risk their lives to defend their country. They are not the problem and they should not be vilified. In fact, the opposite is probably true. By exercising their democratic right to refuse something that they view as clearly immoral and anti-Jewish, they should be praised for their inner strength and courage to stand up for their beliefs.
Moreover, perhaps such behavior will cause Israel’s leadership to finally stop and look in the mirror and do some long-overdue soul searching. If this was to happen, and the country was actually to change its direction, then these soldiers will one day be hailed as true heroes.
