Professor Yekutiel Shoham is a lecturer on history and philosophy at Tel Aviv University, and does not at all resemble one who would hail from the camp of shomrei mitzvos. That is why the article which he published this week is somewhat unusual on the Israeli media scene when the title of the article read as follows: "To Respect the Values of Others: Chareidim also Fight to Protect Israel."
We shall preface with what is so elementary in the eyes of those who believe in the pure Torah world view that there is no comparison between Torah students and those who serve in the army, and that those who uphold the Jewish people as a whole and the settlement in Eretz Yisroel in particular are really the Torah students. These latter are the very ones who keep the nation alive — and none other.
But in the eyes of the general public, including the National Religious camp, the value of military service is dear to them sevenfold more than the significance of Torah students. Professor Shoham voices his opinion in a sharp critique from the secular viewpoint, which is why his words are so unusual as it is expressed.
"The chareidi views the Torah as the protective wall of the Jewish people, the very source of its continued spiritual existence and the justification of the State. From his standpoint, if the Jewish state has stopped being Jewish, there is no basis for its continued existence. The Jew can just as well live in total faith anywhere else.
"The secular person views the army and its role in the same light, that is, as the protective physical wall enabling full-fledged life, culture and creativity. From his standpoint, if Judaism has failed as an Israeli entity, there is no longer any point in protecting it and he, too, can conceive life outside of it. Both camps protect, each in its own way, the Jewish State as was outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
"The Iron Sword War exposed the depths of the Israeli concept of mission. In times of danger, when the State was faced with actual survival, there were people who flocked from all the corners of the world, leaving behind work places, family etc., and embraced weaponry in order to protect the country. In their eyes, this was a worthy act, a dutiful, ethical service to guard the land at the risk of their very body and soul.
"But at the same time, there were others, many of them chareidim, who intensified prayer, organized funds, assisted the families of soldiers and of the wounded. They, too, believed, truly and consistently, that their actions are what brought about the victory, for it was the spiritual power which watched over Israel, no less than the military power.
"These two camps, which the Israeli society is accustomed to view as separate, operated from the selfsame sense of mission, the conviction that each one was shouldering the responsibility for the fate of the country: the one holding the rifle and the other, the Book, each one at his station, the front lines or in the synagogue, each seeking one goal — the survival of Israel, as free and human.
"In order to bridge the gap between these two worlds, it is necessary to unite the people through mutual respect for the two world-values - compulsory military duty and the need that it be remunerated, not only as a symbol of good citizenship but as an economic value equally commensurate to the general burden, responsibility and personal risk. Concurrently, the economic support of chareidim is to be regarded as equal in economic and civil rights, not being an expression of exploitation but as a basic principle of equality.
"A country that rewards its protectors with honor and respects its scholars for its spiritual support, is assuring its continuance as a society where mutual responsibility is borne out through respect and not through coercion."
These were the words of the columnist And here, we must again clarify that the Jewish People exists only and purely through the merit of Torah scholars.
But in a country which asserts itself as being democratic and which is founded upon the premise that there are others who believe differently and have a dissimilar approach — they, are not expected to lose their basic civil rights.
The judicial system which stomps upon citizens of different values, is not true to the tenets of democracy, even if you wrap up its disgusting actions with slogans of equality — which does not exist in any area whatsoever.
