The Orthodox Union should raise its voice against Orthodox disobedience

1.

The political orientation of the Orthodox Union is quite clear, and its right to express it on matters related to Israeli decisions have also been uttered not long ago. The OU has stated that "In light of past events, the UOJCA further stated it is "skeptical" of any policy "that relinquishes part of Israel without obtaining?security and peace." In anticipation of possible future proposals for further disengagements, and other matters of concern to the UOJCA community, whether regarding territorial issues or issues relating to the Jewish character of Israel, the adopted Resolution also empowered the senior leadership of the UOJCA to, on a case by case basis, express opposition to Israeli government policies in any appropriate way ? including publicly".

2.

Whether this was the right decision is a matter of debate, but the Union now has a golden opportunity to address a problem in need of urgent care, publicly: the Duchifat Battalion affair.

And the excuse of we-do-not-engage-in-intra-Israeli-matters is gone.

3.

In July 2005, prior to the Gaza disengagement, when emotions were in high gear, the OU proved to be capable of restraint and self control. Clearly, most of its constituency opposed the withdrawal vehemently, and was demanding that its leaders raise their voices against the Israeli government. But this never happened. The statement formulated by the OU was carefully crafted. "The current Israeli debate over disengagement from Gaza and parts of Shomron", it said, "has evoked strongly held feeling within the Orthodox Union family. The intensity of these emotions is compounded by the profound identification that so many in our community feel with the plight of Jews who face removal from their homes".

It also said that the OU was "deeply aware that questions of Israeli foreign policy and domestic security are best left to the citizens of Israel," and expressed "admiration and encouragement for those in Israel and North America who express their differences with civility, eschewing behavior, language, and terminology of hatred and vigilantism".

4.

"Eschewing behavior, language, and terminology of hatred and vigilantism" is not what we've seen this week, when the Israeli military was evacuating settlers from the market of Hebron. 11 policeman were wounded in the skirmishes that erupted as security forces clashed with settlers whom they were evacuating. Local Jewish community leaders said that 26 activists were treated for injuries.

5.

We know that the OU doesn't encourage the government of Israel to evacuate settlers. Back in April, it has asked Israel to reconsider the evacuation of an outpost near Hebron. Today, some members and friends of the OU probably expect that the leaders will express such reservations again, but this time it is better if they take the opportunity to speak out on a matter of greater urgency: Orthodox soldiers should not refuse to obey the orders of their military commanders. Orthodox rabbis should not encourage such behavior, but condemn it.

6.

Overall, between 20 and 30 infantry soldiers have refused to participate in the evacuation. They are mostly religious troops conscripted in accordance with the Hesder program (alternating periods of military service and Torah studies). They consulted with their rabbis, who instructed them not to play any role in the evacuation. Twelve were sentenced to varying terms in military prisons.

7.

In the days of engagement, I wrote an article for Slate saying this: "[disobedience is] the real story of the next couple of disengagement days. The heated debate about the benefits and risks of the plan is no longer interesting. The opponents have made some good points, but their battle was argued and lost. The government approved Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan, and the Knesset approved it. Disengagement is legal, and there's no way around it. So, opponents have now adopted a new strategy: They say legality is not everything. Morality is what really counts. Simply put, they answer to what they conceive of as a higher authority than that of the Israeli government and its army? what Israel is facing now is a major crisis over the issue of law and order. At this point, no tolerance is possible, no hesitation can be justified".

8.

I have reason to suspect that OU leaders do understand how dangerous the game that these disobeying soldiers and their irresponsible rabbis are playing is. How fragile society can be if the rule of law does not apply. How crucial it is for the military to have a clear chain of command. I know they understand that - because I?ve seen their past, cautious, statements.

9.

But now is not the time for caution, but rather for strong words and a clear message. That is why the OU should avoid the temptation of shady "deals". When people tell them they should "either condemn both evacuation and disobedience or stay silent on both," they better refuse to budge. This is no time for cowardice or compromise. It?s time to speak up, and set the priorities straight.

10.

Why the OU?

Because it has the credibility with the community in question; because it?s their constituency; because it will not be blamed for making statements for political reasons; because its leaders and supporters are those who care both about the State and the settlers.

In sum: If not you, who?