Q&A: Women's Enlistment
Women's Enlistment
Question
Hello Rabbi,
First, I wanted to express my thanks and appreciation for your blog—more power to you.
I wanted to ask you: what is your opinion regarding women's enlistment in the IDF? Is there a commandment for women to enlist? Is there a halakhic problem with women serving in a combat unit more than in a rear-echelon unit? What would the Rabbi answer someone who argues that it is unjustified that religious girls have the option of doing national service while secular girls do not?
Thank you in advance,
Alon
Answer
Hello Alon.
It is hard for me to say that there is a halakhic prohibition on girls enlisting. Prohibitions such as wearing men's gear, or even being under male authority, seem to me anachronistic and not really well founded. Still, there is a certain problematic aspect to girls' military service, except perhaps in adapted frameworks. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with national service. My impression is that usually the contribution there is more significant.
As for equality, if someone thinks there is inequality here, then all the more so they should exempt the secular girls from military service as well. It is absurd to draft them in the name of equality, and then complain that religious girls can be exempted and see that as inequality.
I have to add that there are several other non-negligible drawbacks to women's service as well (serious health harms that are not exposed to the public, the hysteria there would be if a female soldier were wounded or taken captive, and the like). In my opinion, the slogan of equality leads to problematic results.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Gabi,
1. Why should there be an obligation to enlist? One can contribute to society in other ways as well (national service). The fact that the state established military service for women does not mean that this is justified. Beyond that, it also established that national service is also a legitimate option.
Of course, if a girl thinks there is a prohibition incumbent upon her and she makes such a declaration, there is nothing wrong with that (even if I myself think there is no formal halakhic prohibition). But beyond that, even a problem that is not strictly halakhic (as I believe) is significant, and in my view a declaration is not improper even for a girl who sees military service that way. A pacifist ideology is also not a halakhic prohibition but a value-based outlook (or a psychological sensitivity), and yet the army recognizes it as grounds for exemption.
I do not see any holiness in military service. It is a necessary evil, and I oppose turning it into a supreme value and a religious obligation. Contributing in other ways is no less significant, and in my impression usually more so.
2. That is my impression, which is of course subjective and not representative. It seems to me that you are greatly exaggerating the role of girls in the army today (similar to the exaggeration regarding the advancement of women in Torah study. There is a huge gap between the discourse and propaganda presented outwardly and the actual situation, which everyone in that field knows, unfortunately). Maybe I am mistaken, but that is my impression.
To the best of my knowledge, the army has a surplus of soldiers, and enlistment for everyone today is done mainly for reasons of equality. In my eyes, a meaningful role in national service usually contributes much more. Of course, this depends on the girl herself (unlike in the army, where the significance depends not so much on the female soldier as on the role itself).
I will just note that in the period when I served in the army (when not so many roles had yet been opened to them), this was certainly the case, and even then the state required women to enlist with no real need for, or value in, the service of most of them. So the fact that the state decided this really does not impress me.
I definitely see value in obeying the law and in civic loyalty, but I do not see this as a sacred obligation, and I also do not have such great trust in the decisions made here. I absolutely allow myself to be critical of them, and therefore the mere fact that they decided something does not impress me very much.
By the same token, they decided to open combat roles to women, and that decision, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others), is highly dubious and very problematic. The army conceals information regarding the problems involved (such as medical problems that emerge among female combat soldiers in highly troubling numbers), which shows that decisions are not always made on substantive grounds.
As stated, the state also decided that national service is an option. So the argument about the state's decision seems to me entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
3. As I explained, in my view it would be preferable for girls not to enlist at all—neither religious nor others—and then equality would also prevail (between religious and secular people. Between girls and boys that is another matter, and I do not think there needs to be equality in that literal sense. Unlike the American Supreme Court, I have no principled problem with the approach of different but equal). The claim to exempt all men is merely formalistic disingenuousness, nothing more. After all, it is not possible to shut down the army. That is not the case regarding women, whose enlistment is often done for reasons that are not substantive, and as I understand it the army would manage perfectly well with an exemption for all women. Let them first draft the men who evade service in droves.
Sometimes I feel uncomfortable being so conservative on this issue, but despite all my internal opposition to conservatism, if one thinks honestly, sometimes the conservatives are right.
Dear Rabbi,
I would be glad if you could clarify your position on the matter:
1. Assuming this is not about combat roles (which are not mandatory for girls) — if there is no prohibition on women's enlistment, is there not then an obligation to enlist:
a. By the same rule that applies to the boys?
b. Because if there is no prohibition, then the girls' declaration that they are unable to enlist for religious reasons is not true?
2. In an era when a whole range of roles is open to girls in the army in intelligence, logistics, education, instruction (in the field corps, the air force, and the navy), medicine, and more; when units are competing over religious girls and are ready to offer prestigious and meaningful roles within a core group of religious female recruits; when varied command roles are offered, including in the most sensitive and strategic places, to religious girls (and the girls are voting with their feet, with a huge rise in enlistment percentages) — how, and on what basis, can one say that the contribution in national service is more significant? My personal impression (and admittedly unofficial) from the variety of service girls I encounter במסגרת my work, as compared to the military service of my daughter and her friends, is the opposite.
3. Why is the equality argument not relevant? If there is no halakhic prohibition on girls' enlistment and the state has decided that women are subject to compulsory enlistment, why can one not demand of the religious girls that they do their part? By the same logic, the Haredim could argue that in order to reach equality, all men in Israel should be exempted from compulsory enlistment instead of requiring them to share the burden.
Thank you in advance,
Gabi