Hello Rabbi,
Following up on the previous question, I’d like to ask a clarifying question:
What does the Rabbi think about the “Merkaz hesder” track?
The track includes Torah study in yeshiva until at least age 22, military service of about 8 months (training only), and afterward regular reserve duty like all other soldiers.

In addition, I understand from the Rabbi’s words that Torah study serves as a certain substitute for military service. (Because obviously, if an ordinary person just did shortened service without studying Torah, that would not be okay.)

If so, the Haredi could argue that unlike the Religious Zionist, he studies all his life—and more intensively. And if so, he deserves an exemption.

What do you think?

That’s just superficial. Sometimes quantity is quality. The Haredim contribute nothing to security, and when there is a need (when the state is in danger), they will not be able to contribute because they have no military training. Both Merkaz hesder and regular hesder stand at the army’s disposal when needed. Everything else (like routine security duty) is a contribution that does not fall under life-threatening danger, so tasks can be divided. So if someone is studying Torah, that justifies reducing part of his burden of routine service. Especially since among the Haredim, most are not learning at all and are simply getting exempted. As for those who are learning, I’ve written more than once that I am completely in favor of exempting them entirely, as long as we are talking about people who truly learn over time and in an optimal way. The kind who would pass a screening process of reasonable scope.
By the way, Merkaz hesder really is on the borderline, since it lacks the advantage of complete units standing readily available to the army, as there is in hesder. But borderlines can be debated.
Beyond that, even within the army itself there are differences in the intensity of service. Not all soldiers contribute equally. The justification is that there are different needs, and even lighter needs require staffing. The same applies to Torah study. It is a need of the Jewish people, and it is good that there are people filling it—but in reasonable measure, and while contributing their share at least to the lighter need (which is not what happens among the Haredim).

A few questions about the justification the Rabbi gave for the hesder track:
A. The distinction between routine security and emergency is not necessarily relevant in a country that is in a constant state of war. In the end, the security needs here are extensive, even in normal times.
B. Why assume that Torah study is a legitimate and accepted substitute for half of regular service? The fact that you see it as a value and a need of the Jewish people does not mean other people do. And if someone comes along and demands that studying Kant and Spinoza should exempt him from half his service?
C. Even if we agree that Torah study is an important need of the Jewish people, why should that come at the army’s expense? Study before, after, and during.
D. You wrote that hesder yeshiva students have more motivation, and therefore it is worthwhile for the state to exempt them from half their service. There is basically a hidden condition here saying: “If you want us to come motivated, exempt us from half the service.” If you had been drafted for three years, wouldn’t you have had motivation? Is your motivation connected to the length of the service, or to the fact that it’s the right thing to do?

A. It is definitely relevant. And indeed, in the current war the hesder soldiers are being called up to reserves nonstop. That is not a refutation of what I said but proof of it.
B. There is a large public that sees this as a value, and the decision to recognize that is entirely legitimate. Are you expecting a unanimous decision here?
C. Because the learning would be harmed if it were not done this way.
D. Nobody set conditions, but we are all human beings. And beyond that, the yeshiva itself gives them some of their motivation.

This whole discussion is just petty nitpicking. The matter is completely clear to anyone who is not being stubborn.

“The matter is completely clear”? That soldier A serves 3 years and soldier B only half of that? That is a puzzling assertion. I don’t understand how it fits with the intellectual humility you teach. A situation of unequal sharing of the burden is not completely clear.
Quite a few hesder soldiers I’ve spoken to testify to that—they are not fully at peace with this arrangement. They are not being stubborn or nitpicky; they genuinely feel that way.
And one more point that makes the matter far from completely clear: graduates of pre-military academies and advanced yeshivot who served 3 years or more and are no less advanced in Torah learning than hesder students. That refutes the argument that in order for learning not to be harmed, service has to be shortened.

For someone who is stubborn, nothing is clear. The fact that there are hesder students who are mistaken about something means that it isn’t a mistake? Is it okay that one soldier serves in the army canteen or as a military rabbi, while another serves in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit? Is that equal? No, but the army thinks it also needs a canteen, or the army magazine, or an army band, or a military rabbi. On the contrary, I would say that the fact that a hesder student serves five years while a regular soldier serves three is unfair to the hesder student. But in my opinion it is still justifiable. But to see this specifically as an injustice toward regular soldiers is nonsense.

And your absurd “refutation” shows that you probably need a few more years of yeshiva study (sorry for the lack of intellectual humility).
The fact that there are a few graduates of pre-military academies who are at a high level of learning (in my opinion there are almost none)—what does that prove? Nothing. The products of the pre-military academies are decisive proof of the importance of the hesder track. We are talking about planning a mass service track, and you bring me evidence from a handful of individuals? Here are a few more implications of your pure logic: 1. There are also some people who reach a very high level of soldiering within a week. So do you suggest making basic training one week for everyone? 2. There are a few individuals who, because of their contribution to society (or to themselves), are exempt from service altogether. So do you suggest exempting everyone from service because of them? Or maybe should we conclude that security can be achieved without anyone doing military service? 3. Maybe everyone can serve in the canteen.
And regarding yeshiva graduates, if everyone were willing to invest a greater number of years, then maybe there would be room for that (although it would not be fair to them, because it would come out that they invest many years for our sake, compared to a regular soldier who invests only three). But that is not the situation, and right now we have to decide between two alternatives.

In practice it seems that the hesder soldiers are contributing in this war above and beyond their proportion of the population, and probably also above and beyond their proportion among combat draftees. That is partly because the expansion of the technological branches in the army (military intelligence, the air force, and others) has caused the army to direct more and more secular recruits with technological ambitions into those branches, while hesder has stuck to ground-force tracks. Those branches contribute less to reserve duty, and the army tends to release them from reserve service after a few years. And also because the hesder population at older ages is more stable, more committed, tends to cause fewer problems, and so on. It is more convenient to call them up for reserve duty in routine security operations, and then suddenly in an all-out war to rely on them as the ones bringing reserve forces into Gaza and Lebanon. The number of fallen soldiers among hesder men and non-hesder men is starting to resemble the sons of the kibbutzim in earlier wars.
Maybe those who are outraged should focus on getting Haredim to enlist, and on bringing back 170,000 reserve fighters whom the army released from service with little thought, while massively dismantling ground-force divisions and brigades.

A response to the Rabbi,
1. You are mistaken in your comparison between hesder students and canteen soldiers, and the difference is very simple: in the case of the canteen soldier, it is the army that decided it was important to have a canteen even at the price of “losing a soldier” for that purpose. If you asked the Chief of Staff whether he would prefer the hesder students to continue serving 3 years, he would certainly answer yes.
2. Very similarly, also with an outstanding athlete—the state decided that this is important to it. As for hesder, it’s not that the rabbis managed to persuade the state of the importance of Torah study; rather, there is some agreement that was signed once, similar to what the Haredim arranged with Ben-Gurion.
3. The army screens every candidate for enlistment and sends him to the place suitable for him. The state also sets very strict conditions for receiving the status of outstanding athlete. That is not the case with hesder—anyone who signs up and is eligible for some yeshiva is eligible.