It never even occurred to me that maybe it isn’t equal, because I was raised on the great value of Torah study, and also, the Haredim, who don’t enlist at all, create a contrast by which we are the “righteous ones” because we do enlist.
Now I’ve heard claims about the length of service, and I thought maybe I’m just captive to that perspective (just like when I started reading in English I realized it’s very easy to argue that Egypt won the Yom Kippur War, or that most if not all of the operations / wars in Gaza ended in Israeli defeat [as Carl von Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of policy by other means,” and in all those cases I mentioned, the enemy achieved its central goals and Israel didn’t really—unless a relatively quiet three years was the goal]).
Maybe here too, if there were no Haredim, then from an atheist perspective, we would be the “Haredim” who get leniencies in service.

And why is absolute equality impossible?
Of course, in my view Torah study has value, and therefore the model is wonderful. But from the perspective of those who see no value in it at all—and that’s their right?

Because no two soldiers make the same effort and face the same level of risk. There are (or were) Nahal, army canteens, military bands, quartermaster units, armored corps, infantry, special reconnaissance units, pilots, and so on. That’s regarding equality.
But there is also added value in Hesder compared to regular soldiers. It is worthwhile for the army to maintain Hesder yeshivot beyond the value of Torah study, because it gets a pool of high-quality, highly motivated soldiers who all enlist in combat roles (depending on their profile), and during the shal"at period they are also available to it in a concentrated way whenever needed—and this is over five years, not just three like a regular soldier.

I never understood this whole shal"at business; it sounds like classic Israeli bluffing comedy.
How is shal"at different from reserve soldiers that the army can call up when needed?
After all, you could argue that all reserve soldiers are in shal"at for 25 years.
As best I remember, every time they called up Hesder soldiers in shal"at, they were also calling up reservists in parallel.

There is a substantive difference between the inequality between Golani and a military band and the inequality between Golani and Hesder soldiers: the first stems from needs that the army itself decided on, while the second stems from the personal preferences of soldiers that were imposed on the army by the political system.

I don’t see any difference. The army is subordinate to the government, and when the government decides, it’s as if the army decided. Besides, Nahal was not decided by the army but by the government. The same is true of teacher-soldiers.

But in all the examples you gave, both the army and the government decide that way because that’s what seems right to them. Hesder, by contrast, is a decision that stems from a sectoral demand of the religious parties. That’s no different from the government deciding not to draft Haredim.

It’s no different except for the content of the decision. The government can also decide to rob you or wipe out all the blondes.
We’ve exhausted this.

To Gabriel — as far as I know, Hesder soldiers are more available than reservists. I think they have restrictions on traveling abroad, which is very significant in terms of emergency order of battle. In addition, I know of cases where shal"at people were called up for various needs that are less relevant to reservists (like Operation Passover). There is also the issue of cost in the event of mobilization. I understand that not all of these considerations are hugely significant, but on the other hand this framework probably adds fighters rather than reducing them (it’s easy to say that everyone could have enlisted for three years in combat units, but in practice we see that such percentages of combat enlistment do not exist in the general public).

Rabbi, in my view you didn’t distinguish here a fundamental point. The essence of equality in a democracy is that citizens have equal starting conditions that do not depend on worldview, religious faith, or ideology.
Draft policy completely fails in this respect. There is no need to elaborate regarding the Haredim, but even in the Hesder track there is a situation in which people, on the basis of their sociological belonging, receive an opportunity that others do not. As those above me wrote, the Nahal track or the military bands are open to everyone. Even the pre-military academy track is open to everyone. The Hesder track, by contrast, is not open to everyone. If tomorrow you open a secular yeshiva in which they study texts by Gordon and Heschel, they simply won’t accept you into the Hesder Yeshivot Association.

I didn’t miss anything. Any secular person who wants to can establish a Hesder yeshiva and request a deferment and shortened service for his enjoyment. The Hesder Yeshivot Association can accept or not accept him; that really doesn’t matter. The state is supposed to allow it, and indeed it will allow it in the name of equality. Just as it allows people not to enlist if it conflicts with their conscience, or to defer service for various reasons. These claims are baseless; it’s just empty formalistic stubbornness.

Besides, this is a question of needs, not of rights. There are populations with needs and the army responds to them, and I have no problem with that within limits of proportion and reasonableness. So even if secular people who wanted a Hesder yeshiva were not accommodated, I still wouldn’t see that as an injustice. But as stated, that is not the case. Let me remind you again that this accommodation only benefits the army and contributes to it. It responds also out of its own interests.

This isn’t the army accommodating anyone; it’s something imposed by politicians. It’s like saying that the fact that Haredim don’t serve in the IDF is because the army is accommodating them.
The argument about the high combat-service percentage among Hesder soldiers is already a different argument, and there it really does offset things somewhat, so the situation is tolerable. But it’s certainly not ideal, and certainly not a situation the army wants or one that wasn’t forced on it by politicians.

At this point this is just an argument about reality. I disagree. The army profits from this a great deal, and it is reasonable that this is also in its interest. And even if the army (who is that? the Chief of Staff?) does not agree, that doesn’t matter. The government agreed, and it is in charge of the army. As long as this is a consideration that aligns with the military and public interest, it doesn’t matter who agreed. Regarding the Haredim, that runs contrary to the interest, and therefore the government’s decision there does not change the moral issue.
That’s it. I’m repeating myself.

Rabbi, do you really think anyone can open a Hesder yeshiva and the state will recognize it and allow shortened service for its students? If so, that is complete naivete.

With God’s help, 29 Shevat 5784

To Shuki — greetings,

On the contrary: someone who is not “religious” needs all the more to study and become familiar with the heritage of his people, so that his motivation to defend his land will grow.

Therefore I once proposed that for everyone, whether in a “religious” framework or some other framework, three years of Jewish studies should count as one year of service in the regular army.

Some would study Judaism for a year and a half and serve two and a half years; some would study Judaism for three years and serve two years. Someone who does not want to study Judaism would serve in the army for three years, and someone who wishes to devote nine years to Jewish studies would thereby be exempt from regular military service and would undergo only brief preparation for reserve duty.

After all, the main defense in wartime comes from the reserve forces, and the deeper a fighter’s familiarity with the heritage of his people, the stronger his fighting spirit will become.

Best regards,
Fishel

Of course anyone can, and it has even happened. See, for example, the pre-military academies. Secular people are not interested enough in this, and therefore it does not arise. And if someone were to refuse such an initiative, there is the High Court of Justice, which would enforce it in the name of the principle of equality (although, as I said, in my opinion equality does not require it). And such things have indeed happened before—for example with Hesder yeshivot for women, which were initially refused and then recognized.

“Of course anyone can, and it has even happened.” Let’s pause for a moment on that statement—can you give one example of a Hesder yeshiva that does not belong to Religious Zionism? A Hesder yeshiva that a secular lover of philosophy or physics can attend and study there for his own enjoyment?

Your statement that the High Court would enforce this in the name of equality is refuted on its face by the fact that the High Court does not force the state to draft Haredim. Of course we all know that the High Court does not operate in a vacuum and knows the limits of its power. I am quite certain that everyone knows that a Hesder track outside Religious Zionism will never be allowed, and on that basis this is wrongful discrimination.

Shuki,
The Nahal settlement outposts operated on the model of Hesder yeshivot. In fact, Hesder yeshivot grew out of the secular Nahal track.