Justification for the settlement track

Hello Rabbi,
Following the previous question, I would like to ask a clarification question:
What does the Rabbi think about the "Central Arrangement" track?
The track includes studying Torah in a yeshiva until at least the age of 22, military service of about 8 months (training only), and then regular reserve service like all other soldiers.

In addition, I understand from the Rabbi's words that studying Torah constitutes a certain substitute for military service. (Because just a person who does a shortened service without studying Torah is of course not okay)

If so, the Haredi will be able to claim that he studies, unlike the religious, his entire life. And with greater intensity. And because of that, he deserves an exemption.

What do you think?

This is just superficiality. Sometimes quantity is quality. The Haredim do not contribute to security at all, and when necessary (when the state is in danger) they will not be able to contribute because they do not have military training. Both the central arrangement and the regular arrangement are at the disposal of the army when needed. Everything else (like ongoing security) is a contribution that is not a matter of a picon, and therefore tasks can be divided. So if someone studies Torah, this justifies reducing part of their ongoing service burden. What's more, among the Haredim, the majority do not study at all and simply die. Regarding those who study, I have already written more than once that I am completely in favor of exempting them completely, as long as they are people who really study over time and in the best way. Those who will undergo a reasonable amount of screening.
Incidentally, the central arrangement is really on the border, since it does not have the advantage of having complete units available to the army as is the case with the arrangement. But borders can be debated.
Beyond that, even in the army itself there are differences in the intensity of service. Not all soldiers contribute the same. The justification is that there are different needs, and even the minor needs require staffing. The same is true of Torah study. It is a need of the Jewish people and it is good that there are those who staff it, but in a reasonable amount and when they contribute their share at least to the minor need (which does not happen among the Haredim).

A few questions about the justification that the rabbi gave for the settlement track:
A. The distinction between ongoing security and uncertain emergencies is relevant in a country that is constantly at war. After all, the security needs here are many, even in routine.
B. Why assume that Torah study constitutes a legitimate and agreed-upon replacement for half of regular service? Just because you see it as a value and a need for my people doesn't mean that other people do. And what if someone comes along and demands that studying Kant and Spinoza will exempt him from half of his service?
C. Even if we agree that Torah study is an important need for my people, why should it come at the expense of the army? You will study before, after, and while you are there.
D. You wrote that the Benishim are more motivated and therefore it pays the state to exempt them from half of their service. In fact, there is a hidden condition here that says, "If you want us to come with motivation, you will dismiss us from half of our service." And if you were recruited for three years, wouldn't you be motivated? Is your motivation related to the length of service, or to the fact that it's the right thing to do?

A. Definitely relevant. Indeed, in the current war, the Hesderniks are being drafted into the reserves non-stop. This is not a refutation of my words, but rather proof of them.
B. There is a large public that sees value in this and a decision to recognize it is completely legitimate. Do you expect a unanimous decision to be made?
C. Because learning will be harmed if it is not done this way.
D. No one set conditions, but we are all human beings. And beyond that, the yeshiva itself gives them some of their motivation.

This whole discussion is just stupid pettiness. The matter is completely clear to anyone who does not insist.

‘Is the matter completely clear’? That soldier A’ serves for 3 years and soldier B’ only half of that? A puzzling statement. It is not clear to me how it reconciles with the intellectual modesty that you are educating towards. A situation of not carrying the burden equally is not entirely clear.
Quite a few Sederniks with whom I spoke will testify to this, who are not at peace with this act. They do not insist or belittle themselves, but really feel that way.
And another point that makes the matter completely unclear at all – graduates of preparatory schools and higher yeshivahs who served for 3 years or more and do not fall below the Sederniks in their Torah level. This refutes the argument that in order for learning not to be harmed, service must be cut.

For those who insist, nothing is clear. The fact that there are sederniks who are wrong about something means that it is not a mistake? Is it okay for one soldier to serve in a military rabbi or in Sayeret Matkal, and the other in a military band or a military rabbi? No, but the army thinks that there should also be a sedernik, or in a camp, or a military band or a military rabbi. On the contrary, I would say that the sedernik serves five years while a regular soldier serves three, it is not fair to the sedernik. But in my opinion it is still justifiable. But to see this as an injustice specifically towards the regular soldiers is futile.

And your absurd “pircha” shows that you probably need a few more years of study in a yeshiva (sorry for the lack of intellectual modesty).
The fact that there are a few graduates of mekinot who are at a high educational level (in my opinion there are almost none), what does this prove? Nothing. The results of the preparatory courses are overwhelming proof of the importance of the Hesder track. We are talking about planning a mass service track and you are bringing me evidence from individual people? Here are some additional implications of your pure logic: 1. There are also some people who reach a very high level of soldiering within a week. So you are proposing to do a week-long basic training for everyone? 2. There are a few people who, because of their contribution to society (or to themselves), are exempt from service altogether. Are you suggesting that we exempt everyone from service because of them? Or maybe we conclude that security can be achieved even without anyone's military service? 3. Maybe everyone can serve in their own way.
And as for yeshiva graduates, if everyone were willing to invest a large number of years then perhaps there would be a place for that (although it would not be fair to them because it turns out that they invest a lot of years for us compared to a regular soldier who invests only three). But that is not the case, and now we have to decide between two alternatives.

In practice, it seems that the Hesderniks are contributing to this war above and beyond their share in the population and probably also in their share in the combat recruits. Also because the strengthening of the technological wings in the army (military intelligence, air force, etc.) has caused the army to refer to them more and more of the secular population with technological aspirations while the Hesder has stuck to the tracks of the ground army. Those wings contribute less to the reserves and the army tends to release them from reserve service after a few years. Also because the population of Hesderniks in their older age is more stable, more committed, tends to cause fewer problems, and so on. It is more convenient to call them up for reservists in the IDF and suddenly in a total war rely on them to send reserve forces into Gaza and Lebanon. The number of casualties among the Hesderniks and not the Hesderniks is beginning to resemble the kibbutzim in previous wars.
Perhaps those who are complaining should focus on motivating ultra-Orthodox Jews to enlist and on bringing back 170,000 reserve soldiers that the army released from service without much thought, while massively disbanding divisions and ground brigades.

Response to the rabbi,
1. You are wrong in your comparison between the Sederniks and the Shekists, and the difference is very simple - with the Shekists - it is the army that decided that it was important for it to have a soldier, even at the cost of ‘losing a soldier’ for it. If you had asked the Chief of Staff if he preferred that the Sederniks continue to serve for 3 years, he would certainly have answered in the affirmative.
2. Very similar, also regarding an outstanding athlete - the state decided that it was important to it. Regarding the Seder - it is not that the rabbis managed to convince of the importance of Torah study, but there is some agreement here that was signed once, similar to what the Haredim concluded with Ben Gurion.
3. The army sorts each candidate for recruitment and sends him to the place that suits him. The state also sets very strict conditions in order to receive the status of an outstanding athlete. This is not the case with the Seder - everyone who registers is entitled to any yeshiva.