Print
PDF FormatKasher’s airing of such views—as well as others criticizing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and declaring Jewish emigration from Israel to be healthy and natural—makes him a radical opponent of many of the most fundamental precepts of Israel’s Zionist consensus.
Perhaps more important than his political radicalism, however, is Kasher’s stance with regard to military service itself: Kasher is a long-time activist in Yesh Gvul (“There Is a Limit”), an Israeli group which systematically organizes conscientious refusal of military service in the Israel Defense Forces. Thus in one pamphlet published by the organization, Kasher specifically called for refusal to serve in the IDF as a protest against the Lebanon War, against Israeli military activities in the West Bank, and even against the creation of Jewish towns which he considers inappropriately located:
It is usually not obvious whether in each relevant case there is clear justification for employing conscientious objection.... But there are exceptions. The war in Lebanon was an extreme example. Withholding of numerous basic freedoms from the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a classic example, and no less important. There are several additional cases.... The settlements are an outstanding case.... [In each of these cases, t]he deeds are not the same deeds, perhaps the people not the same people, but the war is the same war: The war of the enlightened against the forces of darkness.2
These and numerous other similar exhortations render Kasher, at the very least, a highly controversial figure in Israel, and make Chief of Staff Barak’s decision to appoint Kasher as the sole expert in ethics responsible for formulating the IDF ethical code simply baffling. It goes without saying that Kasher became the moving spirit behind Spirit of the IDF. He worked diligently, according to the dictates of his own worldview, in order to provide the IDF with its code of ethics. And it is his ideological fingerprints that are discernible throughout the text of the code.
III
Spirit of the IDF lists eleven “values,” which are intended to instruct the essential system of behavior of an Israeli soldier: Tenacity, Responsibility, Integrity, Personal Example, Human Life, Purity of Arms, Professionalism, Discipline, Loyalty, Representation and Camaraderie. In addition, the document promulgates thirty-four “guiding principles” which impart to the serviceman a much more elaborated understanding of how these values are to govern his life in a wide variety of circumstances—including principles of soldierly conduct “In Military Service,” “Encountering the Enemy,” and “With Regard to Civilian Bodies.” (The complete text of the code is included at the end of this article.)
Although every declaration of fundamental principles evokes criticism and controversy, the main failing of Spirit of the IDF is the fact that it is purposefully devoid of any Zionist or Jewish content. The code is designed in such a way that the army of every democratic country in the world could adopt it without changing a word. The new IDF code does not reflect or demand any sense of commitment to any of the central tenets of the Zionist idea: It mentions nothing about the loyalty of the army to the Jewish state and Jewish national sovereignty, nor does it provide any expression at all of the country’s bond with world Jewry (as manifested, for example, in operations to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel over the last two decades, in which the IDF played a central role).
As far as actual ideological content, the code obligates the IDF to uphold and defend the “democratic character” of the State of Israel—and nothing more. It embodies no values such as “patriotism” or “love of the land,” and therefore signals an abandonment of the basic points of consensus that were the ideological heritage of the IDF up until the publication of the code.
Let us take as a representative example the treatment of the basic link between the State of Israel and the land of Israel—a conceptual link that is a cornerstone of Zionism and even today appears to be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the Israeli public, including those who believe that a portion of the land should be given up for the sake of peace. The treatment of this traditional Zionist concept by the framers of the code can serve as an effective indicator of the worldview which can be found to undergird the entire document.
Loyalty to the Zionist idea of a strong commitment to the land of Israel is part and parcel of all previous norms of behavior as expressed in seminal IDF documents and in the various oaths of service, including those of the Jewish military units which preceded the formal founding of the State of Israel.
For example, the following appears in the memoirs of a member of the pre-state Hashomer, the first Jewish frontier militia, founded in 1909:
The new member would place his right hand on the flag and the rifle, swearing under oath that he is dedicated to his people and to his land, and that he obligates himself to defend the honor, property and freedom of his people.3
The oath of the Jewish Legion, which fought in World War I as part of British forces, declared:
I volunteer to serve with the national Jewish Legion, fighting alongside British forces to liberate our land, the land of Israel, swearing this blood oath to work truthfully and faithfully in the Jewish Legion to defend with honesty and integrity the honor of the land, the honor of the Legion and the honor of Britain....
Similar themes appeared in the oath of the main Jewish militia, the Hagana, which was the precursor of the IDF:
I hereby swear to devote all of my strength, and even to sacrifice my life, to defense and war for the sake of my people and my homeland, for the freedom of Israel and the redemption of Zion.
Likewise, the oath of the Israel Defense Forces declares:
I swear and obligate myself on my word of honor to remain loyal to the State of Israel, its laws and its legitimate administration ... and to devote all of my strength, and even to sacrifice my life, in the defense of the homeland and the freedom of Israel.
In addition, the modern Israeli military itself did have various codes of ethics previous to Spirit of the IDF, such as the code of the officers’ academy or the school for NCOs, although none aimed to define all of the basic ethical norms of the entire military. These previously existing codes, too, contained “love of the land of Israel” as a fundamental precept and as a matter of course, and this principle had stood at the core of the IDF experience from its inception.4
In contexts other than official IDF codes and oaths, the pattern is the same. The IDF’s educational programs had always endeavored to instill “love of the homeland” in the troops, which was explicitly considered to be part of the effort to bolster “Zionist motivation.” The Education Corps maintains a division whose express purpose is to teach soldiers the “knowledge and love of the land of Israel.” All the personnel involved in IDF educational activities must pass a basic course in which they learn about the land of Israel and how to teach this same material to the troops. There is even a brigade, the Nahal, whose symbol is the sword and scythe, and whose mission is to combine military operations with settlement activity. More than anything else, the continued existence of Nahal as a legitimate branch of the IDF symbolizes the time-honored idea that the Israeli army is an integral part of the Zionist movement, and that the army’s role in securing the land of Israel extends well beyond deterrence and combat operations.
