Bulletin N°36

In the January 7^th 2020 edition of the Israeli paper, Haaretz, the daily caricature depicted two female soldiers looking at tanks under the caption “women in the armored corps”. One soldier is asking: “[don’t they come in] other colors?” The caricature addressed the move in the IDF to integrate women in tank crews and the way the public perceived this change.

The Israel Defense Force (IDF) is a conscription-based military where both men and women serve, religion is a socio-political actor, and women are allowed to serve in some combat positions.  While an all-volunteer force (AVF) can avoid having religious individuals in its ranks, being conscription-based obligates the IDF to conscript all soldiers, including religious ones^[1]E. Rosman-Stollman, For God and Country?: Religious Student-soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces, University of Texas Press, 2014.. For this reason, the IDF is an interesting case study when seeking to understand how religious considerations are used regarding women in combat.

When discussing the issue of women in combat roles in the IDF, arguments can be split into two main categories: functional arguments (regarding functionality and combat readiness) and religious concerns.

While religious arguments are used in the media and by religious figures, with no official support by military officials, combat-readiness arguments are used more often as official military positions. Functional arguments can be supported by academic, semi academic and medical evidence, and comparisons to other militaries. Religious arguments are based on interpretation of Jewish religious law (halakha).

This paper will examine the Israeli case and map out the issues raised within the relationship between the IDF, women (religious and secular) who serve in the IDF in a variety of roles, religious male soldiers, and religious authorities. It asks: what role do religious arguments play in this dynamic?

Functional and Religious Arguments

As noted, when discussing women’s presence on the battlefield, two main categories of arguments surface. These are not present in every military, but both exist in the IDF.

Functional issues focus on the effect female soldiers can have on battle-readiness: can a force that includes women be equal in battle to a force that is exclusively male? Can women improve battle-formation performance? If so – how?

Unpacking this category further, “effectiveness” includes both physical and mental abilities. When women serve alongside men, can their presence have a psychological effect? This can be a positive effect: causing men to try harder, or restraining men and causing them to moderate their behavior. It can also be a negative effect: affecting unit cohesiveness adversely; causing men to be protective of the women and therefore less aggressive in battle.

Additional sub-categories of effectiveness concern the women themselves: Can women meet physical and mental standards needed in battle? Do mixed-gender units perform well during maneuvers and under fire?

Unit cohesiveness is a sub-topic of functionality. Can a military unit achieve true cohesiveness when it includes more than one gender? What are the risks of sexual assault in mixed-gender units and are they greater than in male-only units? Are women soldiers more likely to fear their own unit members more than the enemy?

These are some of the questions every military seeking to include women in combat positions must contend with. Similar questions are debated in the Israeli public sphere, as well as within the IDF itself.

Religious concerns have two main sub-categories: the effect of military service on women; and the effect on the men serving alongside them. Religions, certainly Abrahamic religions, frown on the presence of women on the battlefield. According to this narrative, a woman’s place is at home, raising children, and not in the frontlines, taking lives. Consequently, a woman in uniform is perceived as immodest, and different religions frame her presence differently. Since the current paper focuses on Israel, we will focus on the religious dimension as framed by Orthodox Judaism.

The halakhic discussion of women’s presence in battle begins with Maimonides^[2]Rosman-Stollman, E. (2014). For God and Country?: Religious Student-soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces. University of Texas Press., who stated that in the context of Obligatory War (milchemet mitzva) women are obligated to join the fighting force (if not as part of the actual fighting) (Laws of Kings and their Wars, 5), later commentators tried to minimize women’s presence in battle^[3]For further discussion see Min HaHar, Rabbi Shlomo (1983). “Women in Obligatory War,” Tchumin 4:68-78 [Hebrew]; Shaviv, Rabbi Yehuda (1994). “Women in Obligatory War,” [In Hebrew]. Tchumin … Continue reading.

In 20^th century Israel needed military manpower, irrespective of gender, and therefore instituted conscription that included women. Rabbinic figures became vocal concerning female soldiers during the debate surrounding conscription (1949). In this context, the main halakhic concerns included the concept that serving in a military is “conduct unbecoming” a proper Jewish woman (kol kvuda bat melech pnima). Additionally, it was seen as immodest to have women in an all-male environment such as a military base. Wearing a uniform (specifically wearing trousers) and bearing arms – both defined as masculine garb – were likewise seen as immodest. Moreover, women’s characters are ill-suited for battle. Women are easily frightened and lack sufficient courage to perform well in the field.

Accordingly, this sub-strand of religious arguments focuses on the women themselves: women should not serve, and certainly not be on the actual battlefield. It is debatable whether or not they may serve in supportive roles, but they should certainly not bear arms. Women who do serve, place themselves in immodest environments and are endangering themselves, their reputation, and their morality.

Furthermore, their presence in battle is detrimental to the troops. Not only is this because, as noted above, women can demoralize troops. God frowns upon a military that does not enforce separation of the sexes so that the fighting force remains morally sound. A military where women serve, will undoubtedly become morally corrupt and will not be awarded victory by God. Therefore, if a woman chooses to serve of her own accord, she should be banned from service so that her presence does not cause God to favor the opponent^[4]Shaviv, 1983; Min-HaHar, 1983. .

It is important to note that this category of dilemmas does not differentiate between religious and secular women. Looking through the religious prism, all women should be banned from the military.

The second sub-strand in this category concerns the effect on male soldiers in a mixed-gender force. Clearly, the religious perspective is that men are easily morally corrupted by the presence of women in the field. Men in general should not have unsupervised contact with women. Certainly not with unmarried women. More than it being an immodest situation, it causes men to find themselves in complex halakhic circumstances.

The religious basis for these rules is more substantial, certainly in Orthodox Judaism. While not all religious men abide by the rules set for the separation of the sexes (yichud), it is harder to argue that they are based on “soft” halakhic grounds. These rules have further implications concerning the exact type of interaction between women and men: is it permissible for a woman to speak in public before a male audience? For example, may a woman serve as a tank instructor? May a woman sing in public at a military event?^[5]For a description of the issue of women’s presence in the public sphere in the IDF, the issue of yichud and women’s singing in public, see: Cohen, Asher & Susser, Bernard. (2014). Women … Continue reading.

Whereas functional concerns can see the issue of women in combat as a cost-benefit issue and note advantages as well as disadvantages, religious concerns do not see women’s combat service as containing any positive aspects. It is always undesirable. As demonstrated below, those who utilize religious considerations when questioning women’s combat service, can also employ functional ones in their reasoning. On the other hand, those who utilize primarily functional concerns, seldom turn to religious ones. Interestingly, while religious and secular male soldiers play an important part in the considerations of those arguing for and against women’s combat service, religious women are excluded from the conversation. When discussing women in combat, “women” are considered a monolithic category.

With these points in mind, we can now turn to the way these dilemmas are utilized in the discussion concerning women’s military service in the IDF.

The Israeli Case: Functional and Religious Concerns

The issue of mixed service has drawn much media attention and public discussion in Israel. The Segev Commission (2007) attempted to draft IDF official policy concerning women’s service for the 21^st century. The Segev Report discusses the functional concerns in depth. It devotes some space to the issue of “the proper integration” (hashiluv haraui), which refers to IDF policy regarding separation of the sexes, allowing religious soldiers to feel comfortable in mixed-gender settings. For example, it maps out how living quarters will be organized, what clothing can be worn in public (specifically sports attire), and so on. The Segev Report upholds the Proper Integration, stressing it benefits all soldiers in that it creates an atmosphere where both men and women’s privacy needs are met^[6]Segev Commission Report 2007

At the same time, the Report does not voice any religious concerns. Even when listing the reservations of the Military Rabbinate’s delegate to the Commission, these are framed as functional ones. However, the issue of religion is explicitly expressed only once. The Military Rabbinate delegate noted that joint service on a military naval vessel and in the same closed vehicle “goes against halakha” (p. 97). In other words, the actual citing of halakha as the reason for opposition, appears unambiguously only once. Other reservations are not framed as halakhic concerns, but as functional ones.

This tendency continued throughout the next decade and a half^[7]This can be seen – among other cases – in the State’s response to the Alice Miller petition the Supreme Court, regarding women’s service as pilots, see: Alice Miller vs. The Minister of … Continue reading. When the military itself discussed women serving in combat, it framed its concerns in exclusively functional terms. This, of course, is understandable. Interestingly, the IDF is careful to refrain from juxtaposing women’s service with religious rights of male soldiers. What women can and cannot do in the IDF is always presented in functional terms. The military is careful not to portray gender equality as the flip-side of religious rights.

Likewise, in the creation of female tank crews, noted above, the framing of the issue is entirely in functional terms. The State’s response to the Supreme Court Case regarding the IDF discontinuing its pilot program for female tank crews has no reference to religious concerns^[8]Or Abramson and others vs. The Minister of Defense and others 5923/19; Osnat Levy and others vs. The Minister of Defense and others 34/20. . The State (representing the IDF) refers to the women’s physical abilities and to their ability to function as members of a tank crew^[9][1] Since then, the program has been reinstated.. Likewise, there is no mention of difficulties on the part of religious male soldiers.

Semi-academic writing, such as articles in the right-wing Mida online magazine and in Maarachot, the periodical published by the IDF, also focus on functional arguments. For example, Raz Sagi, a retired colonel who publishes and speaks extensively on the topic of women in combat, argues in an article in Maarachot against women in combat. All of his arguments are functional, and do not refer to the issue of the rights of religious soldiers^[10]Sagi, 2014. It is interesting to note that Sagi is a popular speaker, invited to speak on this topic at religious pre-military preparatory seminaries (mechinot). In general, it seems that those … Continue reading. Likewise, an article in Mida directly addressing the issue of women in tank crews, focuses exclusively on functional concerns, mainly the medical aspect of combat service and on its effect on women’s physical well-being.

These articles, and others like them, highlight two important points. First, those who oppose women’s combat service in public, tend to hold conservative views in general, not just concerning women in combat. For the most part they are old-school military veterans, many times senior officers in the reserves. Their conservative views are not limited to integrating women in the ranks, but include opposition to what they see as “leftist” tendencies, such as disobeying orders in the ranks in connection with political issues. They are not religious and therefore it would be odd for them to employ religious terminology. Second, those who oppose the stationing of women in combat frame themselves as champions of women’s health and well-being. They are opposing combat service because it is detrimental to the women themselves^[11]Greenstein, Arik (2016). “What you need to ask yourself before you get in a tank,” Mida 22 Oct. 2016 < … Continue reading.

On the other hand, the religious establishment tends to employ both functional and religious considerations. Past halakhic writings addressing women’s military service (not just combat postings) have naturally cited halakhic considerations. Classic cases include articles by rabbis who admit that the basis for excluding women from the battlefield is social convention. However, in this case, social conventions are strong enough a basis and can be seen as halakhically binding. As noted earlier, military service in any capacity is “conduct unbecoming” a proper Jewish woman, in the broad sense of the concept^[12]For a discussion on the halakhic arguments for and against women’s conscription, see: Rosman-Stollman, 2014; 2018. . In this respect, the classic halakhic arguments do not use functional terms but are purely religious. Again, they make no distinction between combat and non-combat posts.

In the past decade, the main religious voice against women’s combat service comes from rabbis from pre-service preparatory seminaries (mechinot), as well as the more stringent rabbinic voice coming from Hesder yeshivot closer to the view points of yeshivot hakav (the religious seminaries stemming from the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, founded by R. Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook). These figures have inspired a campaign against women’s service in general and women in combat in particular. While the current paper cannot cover all of the writings and public statements of these rabbis, a number of examples below demonstrate the most pivotal points highlighted here.

In 2017, Hotam^[13]Hotam site: … Continue reading, a rabbinic organization aimed at integrating religious outlooks in state matters, published a short film on youtube portraying military service as seriously harming young religious women who choose to enlist^[14]Hotam (2017). “Film against Religious Women’s Military Service,” Hotam Youtube site (26 Jan. 2017), <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heA1IpTNwwg>, accessed June 2020. . The film focuses on the women themselves and uses socio-religious reasons to explain why military service is harmful: while women think they will be doing the state a great service by enlisting, in truth the system is only using them to portray itself as pluralistic, it does not understand religious constraints, does not address real concerns religious women in uniform have, forces them to go against their religious beliefs, and in general causes the women to be less religious and less feminine^[15]In the film, the religious girl who enlists with much motivation is forced to stand for guard duty alone with a man, cannot finish her prayer after meals, and little by little abandons her principles. . Interestingly, Hotam has an entire section of its activities dedicated to the issue of convincing religious women to avoid enlistment. In continues to publish short films and other material on social media to this effect.

In a pamphlet published by Hotam to encourage women to avoid enlistment, the main arguments can be grouped in two categories^[16]Ben David, Eyal (n.d.), Bat Chayil (n.p) … Continue reading. First, military service is not a place for religious women. It is a liberal-feminist ploy to secularize religious women. Second, feminists are liberals who wish to harm the IDF and cause it to be unfit for combat and this is why they push for integrating women in the ranks. Women are not needed in the military. Consequently, feminine postings are ridiculous and do not contribute to security. The military is not a place for women, no matter how convinced the women are that they are aiding the IDF. In truth, they are harming themselves and the IDF when they serve – even in non-combat postings. In other words, the pamphlet includes both religious and functional arguments.

Another pamphlet published at the same time included short articles by heads of yeshivot and mechinot published by LIBA^[17]Libayehudit.org – the organization presents itself as aiming at “strengthening the Jewish identity of the State of Israel” stressing the halakhic side of Judaism and attempting to demonstrate … Continue reading, addressing the integration of women in combat. This pamphlet consolidates both functional and religious arguments, speaking to both religious men and women, and utilizing the entire range of possible arguments against women’s combat service in order to present its case.

Another medium attacking women’s service, are sectoral media publications, mainly the weekend paper BeSheva and pamphlets given out at synagogues every weekend, supposedly dealing with the weekly Torah portion (dapei parashat shavua), but in truth serve as sectoral newspapers. The pamphlets include responsa on various issues, articles by religious figures and news that interests the national-religious sector. One of the topics that features regularly is how religious soldiers fare in the IDF. Among the topics that surface are the way secular officers treat religious soldiers, and – naturally – mixed-gender service. In these cases, the pamphlets usually focus on the religious male soldiers and on what is seen as a violation of their religious rights^[18]For example: Shvi’i, 24 January, 2020, p.12.  All of these publications indicate just how disturbing women’s military service is for more stringent religious figures.

In stressing how important it is that women stay away from military service, the religious establishment is signaling not only externally, but internally. Women cannot serve in uniform at all, and women who serve in combat are even more damaging to the IDF and the nation in general. It may be that since these religious voices fear they have lost the battle over women’s military service in their own camp, since religious women do enlist^[19]The scope of the current paper does not allow for an in-depth discussion of this phenomenon. For further detail, see: Rosman-Stollman, 2018. , they are taking a last stand regarding combat service for women, and prepared to attack religious female soldiers so as to make sure that the final line of combat service will never be crossed.

In this respect, the issue of women in combat indicates that the conflict within Religious Zionism over religious women’s military service has spilled over into the general sphere of the IDF: in an attempt to control women’s conscription, the issue of women in combat is playing an internal role. By seeming to discuss a broader topic, rabbis can stress the detrimental side of women’s military service and discourage religious women from enlisting.

Interestingly, while the discussion focuses on combat service for women, it pays no real functional attention to women serving in non-combat positions. All of the arguments against women’s service in non-combat roles do not claim that women are unfit to serve in these postings. Likewise, there is almost no attention paid to men serving in non-combat positions and on their relationship with the women they serve with.

Religious concerns are very much present in non-combat situations, but rabbis do not voice them. In one of the very few rabbinic texts addressing halakhic difficulties faced by non-combat religious soldiers^[20]Weinberger and Bitner, 2007, of the 500 plus pages of this book, one section alone deals with service alongside women. The five short chapters in this section do their best to help non-combat soldiers and assuage their conscience. There is no attempt to convince them to find a different posting, where they will have no contact with women.

Discussion

In the IDF, non-combat postings include many mixed-gender positions: religious soldiers who serve in intelligence positions, for example, will most certainly serve alongside women, often keeping long hours together in joint office space. They will have long night shifts together, sometimes being the only man in the room with another woman. In halakhic terms, such service might even be more problematic than being in the same armored personnel carrier with a woman, as well as other crew members.

Religious male soldiers serve in these positions and their rabbis know this. This begs the question, why are religious concerns voiced regarding combat not heard regarding non-combat postings. Perhaps this is due to the small numbers of the pre-military program students who serve in non-combat postings. Of the approximately 2600 students who enlist every year through these programs (mechinot and yeshivot hesder), about 20% serve in non-combat postings^[21]Author’s interview with Leizer (Eliezer) Deutsch, deputy director of the Hesder yeshivot association (Igud yeshivot haHesder), 23 December, 2010.. Perhaps the small number of students who serve in non-combat positions is not enough to generate rabbinic attention. However, this seems to be an unfair conclusion: are not even these small numbers worthy of halakhic consideration?

Another possible explanation is that non-combat service is not as intense as combat service. Men and women need not share bathrooms when they serve in an office together. However, as noted, desk jobs provide much more close personal contact than combat does. The laws of yichud certainly apply much more to non-combat situations. Therefore it seems that one must search for additional explanations to this phenomenon.

Another explanation might be that the religious establishment is not aware of the halakhic difficulties non-combat mixed gender service poses. This may be true for some rabbis, but certainly not for all. It seems that many rabbis are aware of the issues at hand, but prefer not to discuss them.

An additional explanation is that the pre-service programs fear that if they try to negotiate with the IDF over single-sex service for their male students in prestigious postings (such as intelligence), they might lose the possibility of sending their students to “good” military jobs. The IDF might prefer to keep the women in these postings and move the religious male soldiers to less prestigious military jobs. It would be possible for the IDF to decide that single-sex service will be limited to certain military jobs, such as the military rabbinate, but that other postings require mixed-gender service. They therefore prefer not to create problems and accept that their students will be in halakhically compromised situations. Since these students are a minority, and most students serve in combat roles, perhaps it is a sacrifice the programs are willing to make.

If so, it seems that religious arguments – like all arguments – can be used at different times for different things.

This conclusion can be better understood when viewed together with the way the religious establishment views religious female soldiers. As noted in previous scholarship^[22]Rosman, 2018, religious female soldiers are slowly gaining legitimacy. While in the past, religious women who enlisted were frowned upon and paid a social price when making this choice, it has become far more accepted for religious women to serve in uniform. While the religious establishment still opposes women’s military service, in many ways it seems to have accepted the shift from below; realizing this is not a battle that can be won. Public rhetoric opposes religious women’s service in the IDF, but in practice, no real social penalties are used against women who serve; forcing those opposing women’s military service to revert to the pamphlets described above.

It seems that for most religious leaders, the reason to oppose women in combat is internal. While this can be seen as a cultural issue, and not religious, some of the soldiers themselves view it as a fundamental halakhic consideration. Serving in the IDF, a secular institution very far removed from their civilian lives, is difficult enough for these men without adding the possibility of serving with women.

Another reason to oppose women in the IDF in general and in combat in particular is to deter religious women from enlisting. Here religious voices hope that when seeing how opposed the mainstream (or what is perceived as the mainstream) is to women’s service, religious women will think twice about enlisting. If they do enlist, they will certainly draw the line at combat postings in order to maintain some legitimacy.

Conclusion

As both King^[23]King 2013 and Epstein and Heled^[24]Epstein and Heled, 2014 note, the issue of women’s military service, specifically in combat, is first and foremost a socio-political issue. More often than not, those who oppose women’s service in combat, do so due to social considerations and prejudices^[25]Harel-Shalev, A., & Daphna-Tekoah, S. (2019). Breaking the Binaries in Security Studies: A Gendered Analysis of Women in Combat. Oxford University Press.. When weighing the issue of combat service for women, many considerations come into play. In this respect, religious considerations are no different.

It is also important to note that just as functional concerns are flexible and subject to socio-political influences, religious concerns are not as rigid as they sometimes seem. Religious men serve alongside women in non-combat postings. These can be no less problematic than combat postings when viewed in halakhic terms. Such behavior cannot be explained purely in halakhic terms. Consequently, religious male soldiers serve in intelligence postings, despite halakhic difficulties.

It seems that in the case of the IDF, religious considerations serve two main purposes. They are result of intra-religious tensions that spill over into the IDF, and they are a way to voice patriarchal views framed as rights. This is not to say that religious soldiers do not find it difficult halakhically and culturally to serve with women. The reality of mixed-gender units is one that religious soldiers (both men and women) find truly problematic, and solutions are needed as long as the IDF remains a conscription-based force.