The next IDF rabbi: A leader or a bigot?

Back in July, Israel was abuzz over the appointment of Rabbi Eyal Karim as the next chief rabbi of Israel’s military, the IDF. His appointment, as I ” target=”_blank”>IDF's incoming chief rabbi permits raping women in wartime. He does not permit such a thing. But his views are indeed conservative. He is an Orthodox rabbi, who prefers that women do not to serve in the IDF, who considers homosexuality to be a problem, and so on and so forth.

Yesterday, Israel’s High Court ” target=”_blank”>said that it was insufficient for the attorney representing Karim and the Defense Ministry to say in court that Karim would not condone rape. He said that Karim “needs to prepare a declaration where [he] will address the issue directly.”

The whole thing is a small story about an appointment that is not hugely significant. But it is also a big story that encapsulates some of the most burning debates within Israeli society. Whether or not Karim is the next IDF rabbi is not that important. But the debate about his appointment being canceled by the court because of his views is of great importance.

In the coming paragraphs, I will dissect the debate over Karim and demonstrate how this debate is really four debates about four different things – each of which has many implications. There is the debate about court authority; there is the one about the political dominance of the religious right; there is the one about the character of the IDF; and there is the one about the role of the IDF chief rabbi. Let us delve into each of these:

Court authority

Israelis who feel that Israel’s High Court is an elitist institution detached from Israeli sentiments and guarding values that the public does not support – and there are more than a few such Israelis, including high-ranking members of the ruling coalition – got another proof yesterday. The appointment of Karim was made months ago. It was followed by a short outcry. The chief of the IDF called Karim for clarifications when his past statements and views were revealed by the media. Karim clarified his view, and the chief of the IDF decided that he was pleased enough with the explanation to keep the appointment intact.

So the court, by asking for more clarification, was first and foremost expressing misgivings not concerning Karim’s views – but rather concerning the judgment of the chief of the IDF who appointed Karim and investigated his controversial statements. A possible caveat to this conclusion: maybe the court was merely not pleased with the poor representation of the IDF’s position in court. I was not at the court yesterday, but people who were there tell me that the performance of the state attorney was hardly convincing, and that she seemed either unprepared or (if you have a suspicious mind) reluctant to defend the decision as she was supposed to do.

Whatever the reason, calls to limit the court’s ability to intervene in such decisions were promptly raised. They will grow much louder if the court ultimately decides that Karim cannot serve as the IDF rabbi because of his ideological tendencies.

Political dominance of the religious right

The complaints about the court are usually linked to the feeling within rightwing circles – and even more pronouncedly in religious circles – that even though the right has been in power for many years it never truly got the chance to rule. That is, because of a pushback of elites, such as the legal elite, or the IDF elite.

According to this narrative – that is somewhat, but not completely, paranoid – the elites are doing everything within their power to sabotage the will of the people. They question every rightwing appointment and declare the person in question unfit. They appeal to the court over every decision, because that’s the only place where public opinion does not count (in some cases, those with the suspicious minds believe, the government attorneys, who are also part of the elites, deliberately represent the case poorly). They turn to international players and invite international pressure on Israel.

Karim is just another example of the war of attrition waged against having “our people” placed in key positions. He is just another example of a liberal left unwilling to accept the social, demographic and ideological realities of Israel – the realities that make Karim, a rabbi and a praiseworthy warrior, the ideal candidate to be the rabbi of the IDF. The opposition to Karim is not about him, it is about his Orthodoxy, his nationalistic views, his kippah, his conservatism.

The character of the IDF

The day before the debate about Karim started dominating the news because of the court’s ruling, Israel was engaged in another debate: the role of women in combat units. The IDF ” target=”_blank”>would weaken the IDF. An Israeli war hero ” target=”_blank”>few months ago, the IDF faces a choice: it can appoint a rabbi that the religious soldiers would not respect – in such case, they would not trust him and go elsewhere for advice. That is to say, they would consult with rabbis that have even less inclination than rabbi Karim does to approve of IDF practices and policies. Or  – it can appoint a rabbi that they do respect. In such case, they would see him as an authority worthy of their respect. But in such case other soldiers and citizens might not feel comfortable with this rabbi’s views.

The bottom line

The IDF chief, facing this dilemma, has made his decision. I have no doubt that the chief of staff does not agree with Rabbi Karim’s views on every issue, but he was wise enough to see that having a rabbi with whose views he can totally agree would be a mission both impossible and undesirable.

It is now the time for the court to make its decision. I think it is a simple one to make – but the justices still asked for more information.