As with all public debates, the question of IDF army conscription involves an “Is” and involves an “Ought“. Even the facts are in sharp dispute, a real-life “Machloket Bametzi’ut”.
We have often discussed the “Ought“. Today we address only the “Is“.
(Disclaimer: This argument is written clumsily, puts my words into others’ mouths, and the more I read it the more I hate it. Still, I suspect it has a grain of truth, and it must be said.)
Those who oppose IDF army conscription claim that the religious problems and traps in everyday life under State servitude are considerable (e.g., being forced into extreme yichud [the kind forbidden even with one’s sister], listening to women sing, testing tactics and arms for resale to genocidaire goyim, orders to desecrate Shabbos for absolutely no need, throwing Jews out of their rightful homes, etc., delivering supplies etc. to the enemy., shaving one’s beard with a razor, eating impure food for no reason, listening to missionaries, entering houses of idolatry, etc.). More importantly, the effect of constant and prolonged exposure to wicked surroundings causes a majority of conscripts to weaken or even abandon their Torah observance. This is true for both “Charedi” and “Dati” soldiers.
Those who support IDF army conscription claim the above dangers are negligible, the claims false, or the conclusion invalid for other reasons (or a combination of the above).
Those who oppose IDF army conscription claim that wars are fought with great regard for supposedly innocent “civilians” among the enemy and with little to no regard for the lives of the IDF’s own soldiers (per disgusting IDF ethics). Worse, any even-somewhat religious soldiers are maliciously flung by the anti-religious army command to the frontline to be maimed and slaughtered. I’m not even talking about today’s army, led by imbeciles and incompetents (for example, letting the Shmini Atzeres attack happen, then ordering the army to stand down so it could continue, and much more).
Those who support IDF army conscription claim the above dangers are negligible, the claims false, or the conclusion invalid for other reasons (or a combination of the above).
(There is more, but this will suffice for now.)
Now, how can the two sides ever come to an agreement, when even the basic facts are disputed?! As the saying goes: “Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
Maybe I can help here.
Firstly, we know we have ample reason to doubt the religiosity and honesty of statisticians, politicians, partisans, and witnesses; their method and methodology, questions of definition, their motives, their track record, their incentives, their disinterestedness, their systemic selection, Survivor bias, sensitivity, Bayesian priors, and so on and so forth ad nauseous infinitum.
Second, we regard any Garmi and Grama murder of Jewish soldiers by their commanders (unlike glorious fatalities!) [WERE THIS TO OCCUR] or any religious reduction [WERE THIS TO OCCUR] as world-shakingly catastrophic. Unlike murderous secular State socialists, who fear the Fear of Heaven (“hadatah”) and overpopulation (hint) and their hangers-on, for them “על חייו לא חס על חיי חבירו לא כל שכן”, while for us “One is too many”, and “One is an entire world” (well, we at least accept it should be so and try to act as if). As Nassim Taleb keenly remarks (in Fooled by Randomness): “It does not matter how frequently something succeeds if failure is too costly to bear”.
Before we talk about the question at hand, a logical Hakdama (Propaedeutic):
What is factually and provably true, or otherwise in the past cannot be parried (you may enjoy reading this!).
But we don’t look (only) to what has already transpired in the past.
- If a fact mostly fits with everything else we know and grasp well (and care deeply about), that fact is illustrative.
- If a fact barely fits with everything else we know and grasp well (and care deeply about), that fact is not illustrative.
This was explained earlier, elsewhere. And find a similar point here.
Got that?
Back to our subject:
- 1. Even if, per impossible, they would convince us that both physical and religious harms have thus far been demonstrably minuscule or zero, this fact would only be in our eyes an oddity, a curiosity, a quirk. In other words, since we absolutely view the whole entire government and army and deep state leadership (and followership), um, well, a certain way, therefore…
OK, let’s demonstrate with percentages:
Imagine you convinced us that 98% of soldiers came back safe and sound in body and neshama, with only 2% fatalities. (This requires superhuman imagination, but let’s try anyway.)
Would the oppositional position budge as regards the future? Not hardly. We would still consider the 2% of casualties as representative, enlightening, statistically significant and crucial, worthy of study, relevant, and horrifyingly ominous while dismissing the entire 98% (!) remainder as contingent, suspect, dangerously misleading, and strictly ephemeral.
Imagine you convinced — actually convinced — us that 100% of soldiers (in a given cohort) returned as is, with 0% fatalities. Would that be a help?
No. We would scream it was all a neis, a fluke, and a nisayon. Whatever data you couldn’t access or examine must then ipso facto support our concern. And this is about the brute facts, without getting into the Ought.
But what’s logically wrong with using that cohort?
I dunno. Does it matter?! It’s a Known Unknown. The impending menace of IDF conscription in our eyes would remain the same!
So, we have here a Dialogue of the Deaf, even before we all get into what the Torah means, what Hashem wants, Zionism, Right and Wrong, etc.
To be clear, this mental exercise in no way constitutes any admission of the counter-to-fact claims made by the Evil Lying Liars supporting IDF conscription.
And yes, the current situation is awful beyond words, but I can’t and will not explain why, wherefore, or what to do since I don’t believe in going to government jail.
