Q&A: Equality in Sharing the Burden
Equality in Sharing the Burden
Question
Do you think that for this purpose there should also be mandatory conscription for women—canceling the exemption for religious women {you could organize a separate battalion for them}—as well as for the Haredim, and that there should also be a mixed battalion, and that a vegan meal should always be served too. Then nobody would have any excuse, and we’d discover the real reasons they don’t actually want it.
To abolish the category of outstanding athlete, military bands, [if they want performances, bring in outside artists] Army Radio is not part of military service,
and other similar things, like unnecessary positions that exist?
Answer
No, unless it is impossible to win without them. I’ve written this more than once. Obviously unnecessary positions should be eliminated, but you are assuming that all the positions you mentioned are unnecessary. In my view, not necessarily.
Discussion on Answer
It’s no different. Just that men come before women.
Personally, I was raised on gentlemanliness and ladies first, and paying for a woman on a date, and opening the door for her, and pouring her a drink, and moving her chair when she sits down, and no forcefulness, certainly not around women and children. So yes, when it comes to obligations, men first; when it comes to rights, women first—that’s all very nice. Here we’re discussing equality, so I agree they can be non-combat service personnel. In general, in a situation where it’s not really mandatory, you also can’t obligate men to be potential deaths in battle, and who can obligate them anyway— is the blood of the one doing the obligating any less red? So if the one obligating is young and can be a combat soldier, let him go fight in his place. In Gaza too, at the beginning of the war they could have flattened all the buildings with simple artillery and soldiers wouldn’t have died for nothing, unlike Lebanon where a terrorist could hide behind a mountain and suddenly pop out. So the Religious Zionist public could have banged on the table—after all, it’s 50% of the army—and could have said: if the situation doesn’t change and you don’t give us proper representation in senior army positions, why aren’t they being promoted enough? It’s really not proportional to this public’s full enlistment. Right now it wouldn’t help because for the side that wants to stop the war, it would only serve their interests, so they could have done it and the army would have obeyed immediately because it would collapse without that 50%. Maybe in the future it will be possible again.
And I want to emphasize for anyone reading quickly: to say we’re leaving the army—but not for the sake of just any promotion, rather to make sure our best sons don’t die for nothing, so that first and foremost the interest is protecting our soldiers and our people. (And again, not relevant right now because it would stop the war, maybe later), and the army would listen. Gantz said a few years ago, and boasted about it in the international media, that when he was Chief of Staff: “I endangered soldiers in order to save Gazan women and children.” So what should have been said to him was: my friend, your own people come first. And even today one has to check that they aren’t acting differently.
What is the reason you say that—it’s no different, just that men come before women?
Because men are more suited to fighting than women, and when female combat soldiers fall into captivity the problem is much more severe than with men (as we see in the current war, and of course nobody talks about it because it’s not politically correct). And if there’s no need for all the men, then obviously there’s no need to draft all the men either. What’s the question?
That’s clear; I thought you were speaking not in a situation of female combat soldiers.
In rear-echelon roles there’s no problem.
So why should that be different from men whom it’s possible to win without, if there are such cases?