Q&A: The Ethical Status of Mandatory Conscription
The Ethical Status of Mandatory Conscription
Question
I was sitting a few days ago with a group of people involved in the ethical side of military actions, some from within the system and some from outside it. They talked a lot about actions that are being raised these days by the organization “Breaking the Silence,” etc.
After that, someone spoke about the Haredi struggles against enlistment in the army (some of them), and the question came up: what really is the ethical status of mandatory conscription?
They mentioned there, for example (one of many), that a commander is permitted to give an order involving levels of risk that a person would never take upon himself on his own (and perhaps this would even be forbidden from the standpoint of Jewish law). It turns out that mandatory conscription involves a terrible negation of citizens’ rights, and then they began the obvious discussion that the state has a general purpose that obligates everyone, and without it the state would not exist, etc.
In short, they couldn’t make heads or tails of how one can obligate a person who feels he has a right to live in this place (his grandfather lived here before there even was a state, etc.) without the patronage of this or that state, to bear governmental obligations—and certainly such a dangerous obligation as this.
That, roughly, was the discussion. More or less.
Well… this whole discourse didn’t sit well with me and my preconceptions. The attitude toward “Breaking the Silence” was too accepting as well, and since mandatory conscription really seems to me like a privilege, I didn’t connect with the whole discussion. But in truth, ever since then the question has been nagging at me: who has the right, and by what right, to force a person to endanger himself against his will? And I’m asking this not necessarily about someone who isn’t interested in the state’s continued existence (leftists, Neturei Karta, etc.), but even about a person like me (Religious Zionist, without a hyphen), who benefits from the state and is happy about its existence (even in the spiritual sense), yet whose life is certainly more important to him than anything else in the world (I think that’s an unavoidable thought for any rational person). How is it possible to ask and demand that I give the thing most precious to me—my very self?
I’m still astonished.
Thanks,
Reuven
Answer
I don’t see any problem here at all. Someone who wants to detach himself from the state—with no rights and no obligations, of course—should be allowed to do so (and if he has property here, then he can stay here without services and without any benefit from his surroundings except in exchange for full payment). But someone who wants to be a member/citizen of this group is required to endanger himself. If his life is dear to him—fine, let him buy a villa or a submarine in the Pacific Ocean and live there peacefully. Or at least let him disconnect from civil society and from its services and benefits. There is no such thing as being happy that there is a state—that is, receiving benefits and services—without taking part in the obligations.
Needless to say, an order to endanger ourselves contains not the slightest conflict with Jewish law, of course. On the contrary, Jewish law obligates us to take much greater risks even in optional wars. When we are defending our lives, it is as obvious as can be that one may demand of us that we risk our lives. According to Jewish law as well, this lies within the authority of the secular government (= the king), and if there is no king, then within the authority of those who decide on behalf of society (= the government).
I don’t see any dilemma here at all. This is one of the simplest questions (theoretically, not experientially. Obviously risking one’s life is not a simple matter) that I can think of.
Discussion on Answer
By the way, from the standpoint of Jewish law I meant in cases that aren’t war, etc.
Another question is whether a state, or any body at all, is permitted to establish (by a majority that is not unanimous) a civil-social framework (an army) that does not accord with human rights (the above-mentioned order involving risk).
I don’t understand what’s troubling you. Things are completely simple, just as I explained (and not connected in any way to liberalism). What is there to add here? Indeed, if Neturei Karta want to stand on their own separately (neither your honey nor your sting), it would be proper to let them, and good health to them.
If you could address the last question.
I already answered.
What here does not accord with human rights? An order to risk one’s life does not contradict anything, so long as it is necessary for defending the state and its citizens. Obviously we are speaking about a risk that an ordinary person would not take. Why should he take it if he is not in danger? We are not talking about taking risks as a hobby. But if there were a threat to your life, you certainly would do so. Therefore the state as a collective that is in danger can demand of its citizens that they risk themselves (in a proper and equal manner) in order to defend it.
Of course, someone who does not want this should not be a partner, and he is exempt. No obligations and no rights.
Is coercion considered as though one acted?
???
If so, it would be appropriate to develop a social-political alternative that could contain within its areas of control also those who do not recognize or are not interested in its authority.
Because in the current situation, an individual or a group has no ability to detach itself from society and its laws without leaving its place of residence.
This would need to be an international movement that recognizes people’s personal right over themselves and the non-imposition of these private individuals upon society.
I believe that in many countries (and especially ours, with its unusual diversity) there will be people who are interested in shedding the burden of society and the rights it gives.
I think I would be among the first and not among the last who would not be willing to sacrifice myself for whims or policy decisions that are not to my liking.
Excellent. You’re welcome to develop it, and good luck.
So in your view, someone who has a right—and that’s a very murky concept; I also don’t understand the concept of property that you mentioned except in the social-public sense—that in his view does not derive its force from the state (and it’s not hard to find such a thing in a country so young and so full of different kinds of claims of right as ours), and does not wish to receive anything from the state in which he lives, can and has the right not to be part of it, with all that implies.
I immediately think of the Neturei Karta I mentioned, who even have a plan (delusional in my opinion) for how to manage from a security standpoint if the state were abolished.
There is a common claim among the extreme Haredi public (I don’t like labels like that, but still) that the founders of the state created the problem of the Jewish state, and they (the Haredim) are not obligated to participate in solving it.
And now I’m thinking that the Jews (Haredim, religious people, and the rest, who derive their right to the Land of Israel from various spiritual reasons) think they have a natural right to the Land of Israel and all the resources in it (and there are quite a few), and taking all these resources in order to establish a state and maintain it creates obligations toward those Jews who think their right to the land does not derive from the consent (or lack of consent…) of the UN, etc., to establish a state.
I don’t think this is a simple problem, because for example I consider myself a liberal and I don’t like government intervention at all (in every area from taxes to drugs), but when it comes to protecting Jews my attitude is very positive. But suddenly I realized that in the army I am doing one thing for one reason (protecting Jews) within a framework that is something else entirely (protecting the regime or something like that; I still haven’t understood what that means), and lately these two things do not always lead to the same course of action. And I ask myself whether it is even a commandment to do this within the framework of the army.
So maybe logically it’s very simple (not practically, of course), but with so many details and particulars and rights and property claims, I don’t see how to navigate my rights.
By the way, a correction: I meant human rights, not citizens’ rights, of course.