Q&A: Liberman’s Remarks – Muzzling Free Speech?
Liberman’s Remarks – Muzzling Free Speech?
Question
What does the Rabbi think about Liberman’s following remarks?
“I instructed the army that Rabbi Aviner and the rabbi of Safed are not to take part in IDF events; they need to calm down and respect everyone,” Liberman stressed. “Neither the Chief Rabbi nor Rabbi Aviner can call for the Chief of Staff to be dismissed, call for people not to enlist, and at the same time be part of ceremonies and any other events within the IDF. I do not intend to give them a platform within the army until they retract their statements. These are state employees who, among other things, receive a salary from the taxpayers.”
In my opinion this is anti-democratic muzzling of free speech. After all, Rabbi Aviner is a major supporter of the army, and he said what he said because of the impossibility (in his view) of observing Jewish law during service.
Liberman does not deny Rabbi Aviner’s assumptions; rather, he attacks him even though the assumptions are correct. In other words, in his view it is illegitimate to call for people not to enlist even if the army is deliberately causing you to violate your principles. In my opinion it is completely legitimate to call on people not to enlist if the army is not taking their needs into account when it definitely could do so.
What does his honor think?
Answer
It sounds to me like a completely reasonable decision. You can say that the army’s policy, and his policy, are unreasonable in your eyes, but assuming that this is the policy, the army has to uphold it. Just as it would not be reasonable to invite Breaking the Silence to lecture in the army, because that contradicts its values. That too is muzzling free speech.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu has the right to call for the Chief of Staff’s resignation, and the army has the right not to invite him.
(But Rabbi Shlomo Aviner does not have the right to slander the Religious Zionist public, as he does in the responsum.)
But this is not a values-based policy; it is a practical policy of lack of consideration and religious coercion.
It’s like not allowing in lecturers from the Disabled Association because they are calling for disabled people to refuse army service until the army is considerate and makes accessibility accommodations in army buildings.