Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Jul 5, 2012
The Likud To Lapid About Jobniks Sharing the Burden
Some just happened that makes me more suspicious of this entire process of drafting the haredim.
Among all the back and forth criticism of what happened with the Plesner Committee, is Yair Lapid. Actually, it was the Likud response to Yair Lapid.
Lapid criticized the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dismantling and rejecting the Plesner Committee. Lapid said that Netanyahu is not really looking for asolution to draft the haredim but rather has chosen to hug Litzman and Gafni and rejected the Zionists.
The Likud responded to Lapid's comment by pointing to Lapid's army servce. Yair Lapid served his time in the army as a writer for the IDF newspaper "BaMachaneh". The Likud used that saying "Yair Lapid, who was a writer in the BaMachaneh newspaper, is the last person to dictate about equality of service to the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was an officer in Sayeret Matkal and risked his life many times for the State of Israel.".
I don't know if that point is legitimate or not. Much can be said about any person's qualifications for offering an opinion on any given topic, drafting the haredim included. However, the denigration of a soldier who is in the position of a "jobnik" as if he did not really serve equally, is troubling.
Let's say they find a model by which they can draft the haredim. And let's say many haredim go into service in Civil Service or as jobniks in the army (and some will probably do front line active duty and maybe move up the ranks becoming officers and generals, etc.). Will much of the country still criticize the haredim as if they have not shared the burden equally? How can the Likud criticize Yair Lapid for being a jobnik as if that wasnt actually sharing the burden of army service, while at the same time attempting to draft the haredim into similar-level positions under the guise of sharing the burden. Is being a jobnik considered sharing the burden or not?
And if it is not, as the Likud is suggesting in its response, perhaps it is time to establish a committee to investigate why there are so many jobniks in the army and how to integrate them into "real" army service so they can share the burden equally.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Among all the back and forth criticism of what happened with the Plesner Committee, is Yair Lapid. Actually, it was the Likud response to Yair Lapid.
Lapid criticized the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dismantling and rejecting the Plesner Committee. Lapid said that Netanyahu is not really looking for asolution to draft the haredim but rather has chosen to hug Litzman and Gafni and rejected the Zionists.
The Likud responded to Lapid's comment by pointing to Lapid's army servce. Yair Lapid served his time in the army as a writer for the IDF newspaper "BaMachaneh". The Likud used that saying "Yair Lapid, who was a writer in the BaMachaneh newspaper, is the last person to dictate about equality of service to the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was an officer in Sayeret Matkal and risked his life many times for the State of Israel.".
I don't know if that point is legitimate or not. Much can be said about any person's qualifications for offering an opinion on any given topic, drafting the haredim included. However, the denigration of a soldier who is in the position of a "jobnik" as if he did not really serve equally, is troubling.
Let's say they find a model by which they can draft the haredim. And let's say many haredim go into service in Civil Service or as jobniks in the army (and some will probably do front line active duty and maybe move up the ranks becoming officers and generals, etc.). Will much of the country still criticize the haredim as if they have not shared the burden equally? How can the Likud criticize Yair Lapid for being a jobnik as if that wasnt actually sharing the burden of army service, while at the same time attempting to draft the haredim into similar-level positions under the guise of sharing the burden. Is being a jobnik considered sharing the burden or not?
And if it is not, as the Likud is suggesting in its response, perhaps it is time to establish a committee to investigate why there are so many jobniks in the army and how to integrate them into "real" army service so they can share the burden equally.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Labels:
haredim,
IDF,
Likud,
Yair Lapid
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
You can never compare a person and the family of a person who is being shot at, with a person or their family who never saw combat.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of saying that Charedim can't join combat units is stupid. You can't segregate society like that.
Some people aren't fit for combat though, and jobniks are important and needed. That doesn't remove the fact that those who are put into combat are more respected and have a greater weight of opinion when it comes to IDF matters.
What I conclude from this, and many other examples and statements (such as the fact that equal service according to the Plesner committee basically ignores the Arabs), is that this whole debate is not about equal service but only about hatred of the chareidim. Why do they hate them? Well, why do so many goyim hate Jews? Because they're too rich, they're too poor, they're money-grubers, they don't work, they're communists, they're capitalists, etc. The chareidim are the Jews of Israel. They will never ever satisfy the secular Jews, not if they work or do army service, or if they don't. Complaints by the secular Jews against Torah Jews were exceedingly strident in Europe before the State, when none of the complaints raised today were applicable.
ReplyDeleteWhy should combat service be given more weight in respect to managing the IDF? One of the points which makes democracies strong is civilian oversight of the military, like in the US or England. But apparently Israel wants to be a democracy along the lines of Egypt.
ReplyDeleteAnd how would a combat soldier survive without medical staff and secretaries to file paperwork, and cooks, and delivery people, and yes, newspaper writers. Combat soldiers don't operate on their own, they rely on a network of non combat soldiers. I think that for the Prime Minister to insult the vast majority of people serving in the army is a disgrace and once again, reveals his arrogance and desire for power at all costs.
David, your argument is childish and disgusting.
ReplyDeleteWe can't deal with the issue of charediim in a democratic society without addressing the arab issue as well? That's like my 5 year old saying, but my sister gets to...
And to equate secular jews with the anti-Semitism Jews have experienced is disgusting.
You imply that the charediim have no obligation whatsoever to society outside of themselves and that secular jews are always wrong and jew haters and here to serve you.
Your reply is an excellent example of the irrational hatred applied to chareidim. I see no logic or rational in your reply, only name-calling.
DeleteWhat is "dealing with the issue of chareidim"? Reminds me of the "Jewish problem".
I thought we were discussing equal service for Israeli citizens. In fact, Yisrael Beiteinu and HaBayit HaYehudi left the Plesner Committee because they wouldn't deal with Israeli Arabs serving the state in a real way.
As far as equating the hatred of secular Jews to that of non-Jews, the Talmud goes even further: The hatred of an am ha-artetz (refering to a fully religious Jew, only not a Torah scholar) for a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) is even stronger than the hatred of a non-Jew for a Jew.
enough is enough. if they learn so much Torah they might notice the halacha that learning Torah is not a petur (reason to be excused) from any mitzvah at all and certainly not the greatest mitzvah in the Torah, protecting klal Israel. sorry. if they don't want to participate in that mitzvah then that shows already something is seriously wrong with them.--but of course they know that halacha. It is not obscure. the real reason they dojnt want to serve in IDF is because only they are Jewish --in their own minds.
ReplyDeleteGot to agree with the Way on this. If the haredim don't serve because the Arabs don't serve, why can't everyone else say we won'd serve because the haredim don't serve? Where does it end? Anyway, I don't see what jobnik status has to do with any of this. No way army service is always going to be equal for everyone - that's just the nature of an army. Some guys get sent to the front lines, some guys patrol roads, and some guys have to maintain the computer systems, take care of burial, and any number of other tasks. In WWII, and probably every other war, there were soldiers assigned to army newspapers and that kind of thing. It was stupid of Likud to use this argument against Lapid, very stupid.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet a lot of haredi guys will want to do combat service, just like non-haredim - from what I hear, the Nachal Haredi has done a very good job, with excellent motivation. I'll bet that once they get over the mental hump and realise that this is going to happen whether they like it or not - hopefully not after too much kicking and screaming and demonstrations - a lot of haredim will turn into great soldiers.
As a final point - regarding hatred of haredim - I really have a hard time understanding why so many people have a hard time understanding why the rest of society would resent a self-defined group of people that insist on not giving up the same three years of their life that most of their fellow citizens give up, while still accepting - in fact, insisting on - benefits from society equal to or greater than those received by those fellow citizens. What people hate is this unfairness, which I think is perfectly justified.
Baruch - I never said chareidim don't need to serve because Arabs don't serve. My contention was that equal service is not really the issue here, as evidenced by the Plesner Committee ignoring the Arabs. The issue is something else, and I contended that it's irrational hatred.
DeleteAs far as society's resentment -- why don't those same secularists who hate the chareidim so much for not giving up three years of their life not hate the Arabs so much? Would they admit that they don't consider Israeli Arabs a part of Israeli society? Of course not! So why so they hate certain elements (chareidim) so vociferousy and not other elements (Arabs)?
Because anyone with any sense understands that there is a much bigger issue with the Arabs, namely, that their loyalty is seriously in question, and that many if not most of them probably sympathize with the people they would be required to fight. One would hope and expect that is not the case with the haredim.
DeleteEven so, the Arabs have also been subject of discussion, and I think the Plessner committee recommendation vis-a-vis the Arabs is quite reasonable - that deliberations continue towards coming up with a suitable framework for service, with a goal of legislation early next year (I think - I didn't go back a recheck the committee recommendation). The immediate issue is a replacement for the Tal law, for which the Knesset is working on a tight deadline.
Ezactly. So why hasn't there been any resentment for 64 years that the Israeli Arabs haven't given up three years of their life for national service of some kind, in their communities, even? And they get all the benefits of the State, as well as many special affirmitive action programs in employment and education. Where's the resentment (from those seculars that have so actively and stridently protested against the charedim)? Hmmmm
DeleteI thought I just answered that, but I'll make my answer more explicit. They don't resent it, at least not to the same extent, because they don't expect Arabs to fight on behalf of the Jewish state against other Arabs, and they do expect Haredim to fight on behalf of the Jewish state, along with the rest of the Jewish population. For the most part, the Israeli Arabs have been seen treated by the state either as a potential security threat, or they have been ignored, for most of the state's history, and I suspect that this has been more to their detriment than to their benefit. That is because the whole focus of Zionism and the state of Israel has been on developing a state for Jews, not for Arabs. That's why the public attitude towards the Arabs, as opposed to the haredim, has been more apathy than resentment, not only in terms of national service, but in terms of development. Then again, there are the Druzim and Bedouin, many of whom do serve in the army.
DeleteWhich brings me to the rest of your comment. I think the benefits issue is at best debatable - Arabs may receive the same personal benefits, but I think it is likely that the Arab community in general receives less from the state than the Jewish community, including the haredim. For example, I do not think there is any such thing as an Arab development town, a status that confers tax benefits on the residents, among other things. Beitar Illit, to use one example, is, or at least was, a development town, which entitled residents to a tax benefit. I don't think there is an equivilent in the Arab sector to kollels, which receive state funding. For whatever reason, Arabs are far underrepresented in high tech - whether that results from discrimination, poor education, or other reasons, I don't know, but part of the process of integrating Arabs into some kind of national service framework would be to investigate these issues.
Well put. That makes sense.
DeleteDo you think that when they pass a new law with 94 members of the knesset, the largest majority in decades, or maybe ever, it will stop the hatred?
Thanks. I don't think they'll get anywhere near 94 votes for this - personally, I think they'll be lucky to push it through with about 61. As to stopping the hatred, I would like to defer to what I thought was a very good article written a few weeks ago by Jonathan Rosenblum. It's a shame that none of the Yahadut HaTorah MKs seem to be paying much attention:
Deletehttp://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/06/27/the-failure-of-chareidi-advocacy/
What people hate is this unfairness, which I think is perfectly justified."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Also, there are jobniks and there are jobniks. Yair Lapid got a cushy job writing for "Bamachaneh", but there are a lot more non-combat soldiers fulfilling duties like warehouse management, driving, and technical support. They work long hours also including guard duty, with plenty of deprivation and lack of sleep, but none of the glory. And yet, an army needs a lot of such soldiers; without them, the combat soldiers would not be free to fight.
And learning Torah is a heck of a lot more interesting than learning about equipment storage or delivery.
The way, What percentage of US presidents of UK Prime Ministers never served in the "volunteer" armies that they have? The answer is very few.
ReplyDeleteGoerge Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower were all generals. JFK and George W. Bush served in the army as well. Out of 44 presidents, that's 11%.
DeleteIf we're counting everyone, not just generals, add Monroe, Andrew Jackson (also a general), W.H. Harrison (general), Zachery Taylor (general), Pierce, Lincoln (short volunteer service, no action), Hays, Garfield, B. Harrison, T. Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. There may be more, those are just the ones I know about, which adds up to about 43%. Not that this has anything to do with the Tal law or drafting haredim, but history is more fun to talk about anyway.
DeleteP.S. - we really need a Brit now to answer about Prime Ministers. Don't know why we shouldn't count kings either - I think most of the 20th century kings did serve in the English navy. Churchill began his career as a soldier, and first became famous as a soldier/journalist by getting captured in the Boer War, and escaping. Come to think about it, that's a pretty good rejoinder to the original thing about Lapid being a jobnik - guess Churchill was a jobnik too, at least in that particular war (he was a combat soldier in other periods of service), but he risked his life in a big way, and turned into one of the war heroes of the Boer war. Harold MacMillan fought in WWI (as did Chuchill), and I think Anthony Eden did as well - don't know about any other British PMs.
DeleteThe last US President to have real combat experience was the first president Bush. Before that it was Carter. The Only US president in the 20th Century to have been a General was Eisenhower
ReplyDeleteIts just such a stupid argument anon.
ReplyDeleteand its wrong.
aside from the fact that you clearly don't understand how democracies have developed and that civilian control of the military is important for a healthy and free society, by your logic, there should be separate governments for all types. Why stop at the military. Charediim should have their own govt, their own land, their own tax system and school. Seculars should have their own. Arabs, their own. etc... after all, what right does anyone have to represent or make rules for or against anyone who they are not like?
I think Theodore Roosevelt deserves honorable mention as a Colonel, whose war exploits led him almost directly to the White House. And Captain Harry Truman, who was inducted along with his militia unit, and served with distinction on the Western Front. Finally, I think Nixon deserves a mention as one of America's most famous jobniks. While Kennedy was gathering glory in PT109, Nixon ran a hamburger stand in the Solomon Islands (I think), for which he was much loved by the men serving there and passing through. By the way, when Nixon ran for Congress right after the war, running as an ex-soldier, I don't think anybody complained that he was "only" a jobnik.
ReplyDeleteI agree the jobnik comment is not a fair one about equal service. However, it is a fair comment for the other common criticism - why is their blood redder than mine? Why do we have to send our sons and they don't? To that I would indeed use the jobnik answer. Not everyone gets put in harm's way, but you wouldn't accuse a jobnik of not serving, would you? So don't use the redder blood argument.
ReplyDeleteIt is for this reason, I think the focus should shift away from Charedim in the ARMY per se, and call it Charedim serving their country, which we all seem to agree does not mean it has to be military. It could be a jobnik position, or it could be some other form of sheirut leumi.
I'm all in favour of Torah learning, and I do think it provides a shmira on the country. Even those out to draft charedim are still agreeing to grant exemptions for a certain number of illuyim - budding geniuses in Torah. For the rest, I think it would be a good experience to serve in some way. Once we do away with calling it military, which has its own culture and environment that charedim are uncomfortable with, then other options open up. There can other forms of service which can be gender-separate, doesn't take them far away from shuls or kosher food, doesn't make them sit at an assembly with female singers, doesn't make them work on Shabbos, and so on.
8 hours a day still leaves time for 1 full seder of learning, and for a duration of 18-24 months,it's not going to snuff out a budding Gadol HaDor, as I've heard some say. Quite the opposite, I think it would be helpful for a budding Gadol to gain some people experience.
It's not as if they'll lose their whole life learning. After serving they can go back to full time learning.
And for those who dress the part but aren't learning full time, then this is certainly a more productive thing to do.
In summary, I think both sides need to lighten up a little. A solution can be found if people are mature about this. So far we haven't seen that from either side.