With the renewal of the wave of refusal – described in sanitized language as "ceasing volunteering" – it's important to recall the long-standing discourse that has taken place here regarding the issue of refusal.
"Who will they listen to, their commander or their rabbi?" This question has been asked for many years, in hundreds of opinion columns in the press, in academic research papers and books, at conferences and seminars.
Regardless of the answers given, the components of the equation in the question were clear. The IDF commander represented the state, the elected government, rule of law, and especially statehood. On the other side were religious-nationalist soldiers and officers, seen as potential refusers. The question contained a clear message that there's a social group – religious nationalists – with a constant, permanent potential for refusal. And of course, there are important rabbinical authorities with the potential to instruct and make halakhic rulings for large segments of religious nationalists who follow them.
Amir Oren, a columnist for Haaretz, once seriously asked what would happen if Yoram Cohen, the kippah-wearing head of the Shin Bet, received an instruction from the prime minister that contradicted guidance from his rabbi. This reflects ignorance.
The combination of ignorance and anti-religious sentiment that characterizes the discourse was provided in the past, how could it not be, mainly by the newspaper Haaretz. For example, there was a time when Yoram Cohen, the former head of the Shin Bet who wears a kippah, was practically persecuted for his religiosity. Amir Oren, a columnist for Haaretz, seriously asked what would happen if Cohen received an instruction from the prime minister that contradicted guidance from his rabbi. There are quite a few ignorant people who believe that every religious person has a rabbi, and not only that, but that religious people receive regular instructions in all areas of life from their rabbi. According to that imagined reality, for example, a brigade commander who graduated from the pre-military academy, now approaching his 40th year, is a potential suspect. Why? He is perceived as connected through some religious communication network to instructions from the academy's rabbi. Many believe in this imagined reality even today.
Such a question about dual authorities was almost never asked regarding left-wing refusal. It was never described as relying on instructions from external authorities like rabbis. Left-wing refusal was accompanied by beautiful, lofty words like conscience, humanity, and other noble values that supposedly justified the refusal.
However, in the wave of refusal before the war, something unprecedented in scope occurred. The rabbinical authority in the question has now been replaced by senior academics, including ethics and morality experts, and especially former senior security establishment officials, who gave a sort of supposed professional and moral validity. The support of many of them for mass cessation of volunteering, along with the weakness shown by the then-defense minister and chief of staff, led to a willingness to genuinely harm operational readiness.
All this was possible because at a deeper level, there's a reason why the question "Who will they listen to?" was asked specifically about religious nationalists, mostly by those identified with their political opponents. From the questioners' perspective, the commander in the question represented the state, rule of law, the elected government, and statehood only under a very specific condition. The condition was that the policy included evacuating settlements and withdrawing from territories under Israeli control. Only then was the commander the good representative of statehood versus the potentially bad refusers.
When this condition is met, the fact that this policy is completely opposite and contrary to what was promised in elections no longer matters. And if this is the policy, there's even a moral obligation to protect the prime minister like an etrog, even from possible criminal charges. And, of course, it doesn't matter at all that the government relies on a tiny majority of 61 Knesset members, since even the smallest possible majority is still a majority in a democracy. It doesn't even matter if this majority was achieved by the narrowest of margins. Recently, it became clear that if the policy is to withdraw, even a transitional government can do so without needing to bring the agreement to the Knesset. And these are clearly irreversible decisions.
Now, some of the refusers dare to speak in the name of defending democracy and statehood. The chief of staff's firm policy of discharging every refuser from the IDF reflects an appropriate state policy that isn't conditional statehood.
