Rosner’s Domain: Should Women Serve in Israeli Elite Units?

There is a lot of talk in Israel these days about letting female soldiers serve in combat units. Following a court petition, the IDF announced that several more units will be available for women. The spotlight is mainly on the Elite 669 unit (Airborne Combat Rescue And Evacuation), but equally interesting is the planned recruitment of young women to infantry brigades. There is much debate about this move, and at least three layers of arguments are jumbled. One – the question of equality and opportunities for women; Two – the question of modesty rules for religious soldiers; Three – the question of the IDF’s professionalism. To make it simple, the questions involved are what is good for women, what is good for religious soldiers, what is good for the military. These are three separate questions, each of which puts the discussion on a different path. 

Let’s try to shed some light on them, within the limits of a short article.

What is good for women (and society in general)? The IDF is a “people’s army”, it belongs to all civilians, and hence the discussion about “opening” units to women is a discussion in which there should be an equal voice for women. The IDF is not an institution in which women are guests. They own this institution. Therefore, one should hear what they think is good for them. And of course, a conversation whose starting point is egalitarian will not necessarily lead to a result hoped for by all women or all men. It will merely allow a decision to have broader legitimacy. A “people’s army” must have legitimacy. 

The IDF is a “people’s army”, it belongs to all civilians, and hence the discussion about “opening” units to women is a discussion in which there should be an equal voice for women.

What is good for religious soldiers? Some religious Zionist rabbis warn that the integration of women in combat units will not allow religious men to serve in these units. This claim is based on few facts and many hopes. Are there really a lot of religious soldiers who will give up their dream of serving in the paratroopers lest they come across a sergeant from the other sex? Maybe … maybe not. But suppose the rabbis are correct. What then? In such a case, there are two options: to block the entry of women into combat units (and limit 50% of the population), or to find an arrangement that will allow women to serve in these units (without harming religious soldiers). Such arrangement will come with a price tag. It will probably lead to separation of divisions or companies and limit the mingling of religious and non-religious soldiers. In short – in both cases there is a price. We must decide where the price is higher. 

What is good for the IDF? There are two things that the IDF obviously needs. It needs satisfied female soldiers, and it needs high-level combat units. To say something like “the only thing that matters is that IDF combat units have the highest professional lever”, and ignore the importance of the soldiers’ satisfaction, would be foolish. On the other hand, to say something along the lines of “the most important thing is equality” and ignore the fact that the IDF’s main role is to win a battle, would also be foolish. If the inclusion of female soldiers in combat units erodes the IDF’s ability to win a battle (because lower physical standards are the only way to have women in elite units) the whole country will be the loser. 

So, where does that leave us? On issues such as this it is very difficult to compare profit and loss. Which is better, an orange (female soldiers having more options) or an apple (combat units retain a higher level of professionalism)? This is an unanswerable question. Two different fruits, two different goals, both of which have merit. 

To sum up: This is a debate that will be decided by points, not by a knockout. Someone needs to balance the goals and make a decision. Who is this person? Who should decide? I have a revolutionary proposal: why not the person we trust when the enemy attacks the State of Israel? Why not the person we trust when the Airforce is sent to bomb distant destinations? Why not the person commanding our boys and girls in uniform? Why not the Chief of Staff?■

Something I wrote in Hebrew

When the PM described the last year as dramatically different in the war against Iran than previous years, here is what I wrote:

Naftali Bennett’s rhetoric belongs to the political campaign, not to Israel’s ongoing campaign against Iran. “A turning point”, he called the past year. Even if accurate, and this is indeed a turning point in some strategic and operational aspects, this is not a enough of a turning point in the habit of politicians to talk too much. Benjamin Netanyahu tended to utilize Iranian affairs whenever it served him politically. It turns out that Bennett is prone to the same habit. A suspicious correlation is revealed between the approaching elections and the intensity of talk about Iran’s growing threat.

A week’s numbers

Israel’s government celebrated its first anniversary amid more than rumors that there will be no second anniversary. Here is what happened to the support in the combined group of coalition parties in the last year. Remember: 61 seats is what a coalition needs to function. 

A reader’s response:

Last week I asked: “Must Israel be Moral?” Avrum Melnick writes in response: “Demanding that Israel have moral standards higher than other countries is unfair. But as a Jewish State, Israel is used to unfairness and knows how to handle it.”

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.