You are the teacher, you’re guilty

Obviously everyone is in favor of refusal in specific situations, for example when there is a manifestly illegal order.

But if I try to sharpen the question—if today someone asked you whether to report for reserve duty to guard the Gaza envelope/Lebanon or to bomb Yemen, would you tell him that in your opinion he should refuse as long as the current coalition is in power?

Not as long as it is in power, but as long as it conducts itself in its current way.

If I understood you correctly, then from your perspective soldiers should now abandon the borders with Lebanon, Syria, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza?

Isn’t that a matter of saving life?
Won’t people actually die from that if soldiers implement your approach?

The government needs to act accordingly, and then there will be no abandonment.

So a close reading and asking the right questions shows that you are only threatening, and not saying that people should actually abandon guard posts, fail to carry out the prevention of ticking bombs, or not intercept Houthi missiles.

It really did sound puzzling, because for a moment I truly worried that you thought the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow crews should abandon their posts and let missiles fall here in population centers.

By the way, even a threat is problematic.
Hamas assessed that we were in serious military trouble, and therefore attacked. Its assessment of our weakness stemmed mainly from the threats of refusal. A threat of general refusal can itself bring about a danger to life. That is why the question is also being asked whether you have pangs of conscience. It’s important to understand that.

Want to replace the coalition?
There are elections in Nov. 26.

I wrote this all along. One should threaten refusal if the government does not change its conduct. But this is a threat that must be carried out if they indeed do not change their conduct. If something happens, that is the government’s responsibility. Exactly as on October 7, when the refusers did have some contribution (quite negligible) to what happened, but the responsibility lies with the government, which ignored the fact that there is a public that is unwilling to cooperate with its antics. By the way, in my view the main grounds for refusal are not the reform (that was the pilots’ grounds), but the overall conduct (corruption, Haredim, irresponsible and bullying legislation).
And if someone draws conclusions from our weakness, the government has to take that into account.
There are situations in which the coalition conducts itself in a way that the minority is not obligated to cooperate with, even if it is a minority. Therefore elections are irrelevant here. I would refuse even if in the next elections this disgusting coalition again won a majority. In fact, I would refuse especially in such a situation. I’ve explained this quite a few times already, and you can search for it here on the site.

I too, as a Hardalnik, have for a long time been thinking of stopping my combat reserve service as a protest against the rule of the judicial system, which is not loyal to Jews, and also as a protest against the progressive IDF commanders, who are also fighting against Jews, and also against the anti-Jewish Shin Bet. So according to your view, should I too stop serving, until the system of evil rule (in my view) of the High Court collapses?

Right.
I also agree with Daniel. Because of my worldview, and within the framework of “common sense,” which doesn’t fit with the conduct of the High Court, I think I should threaten to stop reserve service and even stop it completely, with clear knowledge that this will endanger Jews.

Common sense.

And even worse, of course: because the lives of Gaza civilians, who are enemies in every respect, are more important to IDF commanders than the lives of soldiers—and this was said explicitly, as quoted here: https://www.srugim.co.il/1077383-%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%a8-%d7%95%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%98%d7%a8-%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%a0%d7%95-%d7%9b%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%98%d7%9b%d7%9c-%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a9%d7%91-%d7%a2%d7%a7%d7%95
am I also allowed to refuse, even if only in order to save my own life from death—and worse, disability—at the hands of such idiots?

To Daniel and the fools who come after him,

I’m not sure how much the Jewish people would lose if you stopped serving; maybe it would even gain.
I recommend channeling your energy into drafting Haredim, so that you won’t have to demand that leftists come save you from yourselves.

I am considering whether to delete all the nonsense here. If it doesn’t stop, I definitely will.

But you still didn’t answer the question why Hardalim are not allowed to refuse to serve until the High Court and the IDF commanders change their ways. And that’s not even as a protest.

Because there’s nothing here to answer. And does anyone need my permission to refuse?! Every refuser makes his own soul-searching and decides whether this is something sufficiently grave and extreme to justify refusal or not. In addition, one has to weigh the circumstances, the chance of success, the level of injustice, the price from the standpoint of the side that does support such a move, and the like. If all that obtains, and from their perspective it is something sufficiently severe, then let them refuse.

No. What I meant was why this (rule by a High Court alienated from the Jewish people, and a policy of sacrificing soldiers on the altar of noncombatants, etc.) does not, in your opinion, justify refusal. In my opinion it justifies it many times more than the reasons you gave.

This demagogic drivel is not worth an answer. But in any case, a person decides for himself, not me.

Sorry, I’ll focus the question more:
To me, and roughly to every normal person forever, it’s obvious that when two collectives are fighting each other, like us and the Gazans, we should not have sent even one soldier into Gaza and should simply have killed hundreds of thousands from above until they surrendered the way Japan surrendered. Without eliminating Hamas and without nonsense (let’s put the hostages aside for the moment, because it’s obvious that’s not the issue. After all, the matter is relevant to Lebanon too). So why aren’t you calling for soldiers’ refusal as a protest, if only to save their lives, their health, and in fact the economy as well? The war expenses would drop a thousandfold because of that. And that itself is economic bondage no less severe than the damage of boycotts.

Fears of international boycotts are not supposed to stop us. Mutual responsibility also means “all for one,” no? Should families sacrifice their children for the sake of economic welfare? Have we gone crazy? Soldiers are not cannon fodder so officers can travel abroad.
Why aren’t you calling for refusal because of this? How does this seem normal to you?

How is it that over such crimes against the Jewish people not a sound comes from you, while over things a million times less severe you cry out (that’s only my opinion, but still: bullying legislation—regards from Oslo and the Disengagement, which of course will happen the same way if the left rules again. Haredim—what you were willing to give the Arabs, who are almost certainly a fifth column. Corruption—compared to what the judicial, military, and bureaucratic gang does, this is just youthful mischief…).
Something here is not logical.

Why do you think this elaboration is helpful? In my eyes it’s a collection of nonsense, but whoever truly thinks so (or fantasizes so) should act accordingly.

I’ll add: it’s not only that you personally refuse, but that you encourage, support, and openly and publicly call for refusal, even with full knowledge that Jews will die because of it. And this is in days when Jews are being murdered and falling in defense of the homeland.

I don’t understand how on the one hand you can attack the Haredim for not enlisting, and say they should enlist despite the fact that they see the army as a foreign body and fear “being spoiled,” because of danger to life, while on the other hand supporting refusal against the government. Physician, heal thyself.