Q&A: The Third Identity in the Context of the Draft
The Third Identity in the Context of the Draft
Question
Regarding the third identity, the Rabbi kept repeating that the dividing line is modernity, not Zionism, and the Rabbi argued that the debate over Zionism is anachronistic. Does the Rabbi now change his mind? After all, there is one public that sacrifices of itself for the state and for its people, and a second public for whom it seems that the only reason they are here is convenience. Isn’t that much more significant than arguments about religion? For me it is far more significant whether there will be an exemption for Haredim and a few other issues connected to parasitism than whether the rabbinate will have a monopoly over kashrut and marriage.
Answer
On the contrary. I have become even more strengthened in my view. This debate has not the slightest connection to Zionism. The concern is corruption, meaning exposure to modernity. And the proof is that the Hardalim are completely with them, both in the public discourse and in politics. Non-enlistment because of alienation from Zionism characterizes only a small minority among the Haredim (even the Jerusalem Faction is not entirely like that).
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, for them it exists less. But the question is whether corruption is an exemption. On that they agree. The question is whether you come out against the Haredi instruction not to enlist. Definitely not. Not for nothing, their representatives support the law in the Knesset, and their rabbis do not join the protests and the calls for Haredim to enlist.
So why do the Hardalim themselves enlist? You’re basically claiming that the Hardalim also agree with the Haredim that it is forbidden to enlist out of concern for corruption, only that the Hardalim think that with regard to themselves this concern does not exist?