These days I find myself in a dilemma every morning.
I've been reading news reports on my morning radio show for years, but I've never had such a dilemma. How exactly do you report on ISIS, the extremist and dangerous movement that has suddenly burst into our lives?
In the last two weeks alone, this has happened to me three times (hoping that ISIS hasn't released another brutal video by the time this issue goes to press). I wake up in the morning, read about the beheading of an American or British citizen, and don't know how to talk about it when even children are listening.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
You see, I’ve already reported on terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other tragedies, but somehow I can’t get this description, this phrase, ”they beheaded him“ out of my mouth – when I know there are children on their way to school. What, do I need to traumatize them? Why ruin their innocence?
That's why I find more convoluted, subtle, and refined formulations each time.
This week, when the news of the murder of British citizen David Haines arrived in the early hours of the morning, I said, for example: ”Unfortunately, there has been another case of the killing of a European person, in the ways accepted by the ISIS movement.“ Those who understand already imagine the orange hood and the sand dunes in the background. And those who don’t understand, thank God, don’t imagine.
Then the night comes, and again I read texts. This time not to just any silly children, but to my own children. During anesthesia, you know. And here I noticed something interesting: those little ears that in the morning I didn't want them to hear about ISIS, listen with great curiosity at night to equally monstrous descriptions. Cossacks, evil gentiles, pogroms and what not.
The climax came this week, in a story about an evil, domineering, and capricious king who, of course, persecuted the Jews. Don't be in suspense. In the end, as expected, the clever Jew solved some problem of the king and rose to greatness, while saving the entire Jewish community.
But even before that, about halfway through the story, at the point where my eyes are half-closed, I found myself reciting the following text: ”Then, my dear, one of the ministers dared to approach the king without permission and offer him his own solution to the problem. The king looked at the insolent man with fury and immediately said to his servants: Cut off his head!“
What an amazing consensus emerged here this week. For a moment it seemed as if we were back in the days of 'Protective Edge.' From the Labor Party to the Jewish Home, everyone competed in condemning the refuseniks from Unit 8200. .
”Cowards,“ said Shelly Yachimovich. ‘They belong in prison,” said Danny Danon. “Spoiled,” said Saint Yoni Shtavoun. “Harmful to Israel,” said Reshef Bozhi Herzog (he would have loved to know the reshef).
And I felt like using another phrase: liars. I don't know why, but I just don't believe them. Everything seems like a pose to me. Or at least most of it seems like a pose to me. Maybe it's my problem, but when I hear right-wing speakers, even the most extreme ones, I believe them that they believe every word they say. I sometimes disagree with them, think they are extremists and racist, but I listen to them and believe them. It's real, comes from the bottom of my heart.
Whereas when I hear speakers from the extreme left, in many cases, the feeling is of a trend, of a scene, of a desire to be special. This is not always true, and it is clear that there are honest conscientious objectors on the left as well, but sometimes too readily there is a feeling of ”let’s make a cool media buzz and feel what it’s like to be moral.“.
That is, when I hear ”death to the Arabs“ – it’s a sentence I don’t agree with, but I believe the person who says it. When I hear ”IDF pilots are murderers“ – it’s a sentence I don’t agree with, and I also don’t believe the person who shouts it.
The record of posing was broken this week. Hello, refuse an order for intelligence work? To collect materials on terrorists? And in the name of some unclear gut feeling of yours, damage the image of the IDF and the state like this? And all this while carrying out a pre-coordinated media campaign? Come on, come on.
And again in the spirit of consensus, most of the condemnation messages against the new refuseniks also included the following sentence: ”Refusenikship is a dangerous thing, from the right and the left. Orders must be obeyed. Otherwise the IDF will disintegrate.“.
It's true, refusal is dangerous, but there's something scarier than refusal: automatic obedience to orders because that's what the state has determined. This is irrelevant to the poseur refusers of 8200, but on a principle level, if I were convinced that they were telling the truth – I would recognize the legitimacy of their refusal. Yes, yes. And so it scares me that everyone suddenly thinks the same thing.
What will happen when the refuseniks are on the other side? I know it's absurd, but let's say the Israeli government decides in a bizarre way to unilaterally evacuate thriving Jewish communities, what will we say then? That the refuseniks are spoiled? Arrogant?
At the end of the painful season of commemorations for Gush Katif, in which there was much talk this year about the spirit, the strengths, and the rebuilding, one sometimes feels like asking a question that is not often asked: How is it possible that in all this time only one refusenik made the headlines? Remember that Israeli-American soldier, Avi Bieber, who declared on the sands of the settlement of Sherit Hayam, ”I can’t take it anymore“? He was almost alone.
Here and there there were reports of similar cases, but even Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said in a Knesset debate after the disengagement that he was surprised by the tiny dimensions of the phenomenon compared to early predictions.
Why, really? No, I'm not calling for mass refusal and the disbandment of the IDF, and it's pretty clear that such a government decision could not be changed, but where did the minimal right to refuse and protest go then? Could it be that all those tens of thousands of soldiers who took part in the deportation effort simply adopted - in the name of the sanctity of the order - a blank stare in the face of the cries of the evacuated, the deported, the displaced, the destroyed? What kind of bad movie were we all living in then?
And in a week when you knew in advance what everyone would say about the new refuseniks, on the right and the left, there was, as usual, one person who didn't say anything expected. MK Moshe Feiglin of the Likud. I'm not a Feiglinist, but somehow his responses are almost the only ones that make you think a little outside the box.
So this is what he wrote at the height of the storm of condemnations, against the current: ”Their right (and duty) to refuse! It is the full right of the guys from 8200 to refuse to carry out an order that seems immoral to them. It is even their duty. At the same time, the system’s duty is to punish them with all the severity of the law, and they must accept this and rejoice in the punishment. This is the essence of conscientious objection.‘.
This short text ties in well with a speech that Feiglin gave recently in the Knesset, which received almost no attention. It happened two months ago, in an official plenary debate to mark nine years since the disengagement (even before Operation Protective Edge was added to the list of ‘achievements‘ of the program).
In his speech, Feiglin challenges the “state“ worldview, and in my opinion also responds to Yair Lapid about the famous text he wrote at the time about the disengagement (for those who have forgotten, this is what Lapid wrote in his personal column at the time: ”This was never related to the Palestinians, demography, or the desire for a peace settlement. Why was it so urgent and important for the State of Israel to evacuate from Gaza? It was not in spite of the settlers, but because of them. We wanted to teach them a lesson in modesty, and perhaps also in democracy“).
These things already irritated me when they were written, but Feiglin explained to me better why: ”Gentlemen members of Knesset,“ he said to the half-empty plenary, ”there is a dimension to the whole issue of expulsion from Gush Katif that is not being discussed, and I must mention it. The expulsion from Gush Katif was not actually explained to the public. After all, we pressed and asked and said: ’But why? What does it give? Even for the leftist approach, it will not give anything without an agreement!‘
""From every possible angle, it didn't 'make sense,' it didn't make sense. In the end, they told us this: 'You have to get out of there, and if you have to - expel your parents and friends. And if you are a police officer and an officer, you have to obey. Why? Because the government decided. This is the order. And if you don't obey the order, what will happen? The country will fall apart!'’
""Do you understand, gentlemen, what will be the justification for the matter in the end? Because there was no answer, it will be justified by the fact that this stupid and horrific order must be carried out just to carry out the order. To preserve the state. Because the state is above everything. Above morality, above security, above logic, above the law, above democracy. What does it mean, the state is above everything? To say 'the state is above everything' is fascism. And this fascism was not brought about by the right, but by the left.".
And here Feiglin ends the speech in a rather Yair Lapidian manner, with a quote from an American philosopher, but for a change the quote is correct: ”Members of Knesset, you are invited to my room, Room 207 here in the Knesset. There is a proverb on the wall there, a saying by an American philosopher named Emerson: A good man must not obey the law too well.“.
• The column is published in the newspaper 'Bisheva''
