B"H - There is confusion here. It is present not by accident, it was planted, nourished and promoted all the way with a purpose in mind and the purpose being the creation and the establishment of the new man, the Israeli, practicing a new religion: Zionism. Why do I keep repeating this? Because understanding this is important for us in order to be able to determine the status of the IDF and its soldiers. It is important to realize that the IDF is the army of the State and not of the Jewish People. Its soldiers in order to operate, to be IDF soldiers at the first place, are required to swear allegiance to the State and to its civil command-structure. This oath goes directly against the essence of Judaism, in as much as Jews are (meant to be) loyal to Hashem, to our jealous G-d. In Judaism He is sovereign, not other entities and agencies. Accordingly, the chief "rabbi" of the IDF recently declared that in his organization the word of a commander overrides halacha, Jewish Law. So, we can safely assume that the IDF is a non-Jewish, anti-Jewish, non-Torah, anti-Torah organization and as such it is prohibited for a Jew to be associated with it, or, if he decides to associate, he will have to assume responsibility for his (or her) association with this evil body. At this point, or maybe much earlier, many people jump on their feet and say various things, like "we need an army to defend ourselves", etc. The answer is we do, but our army should be a Jewish army and as Jews we cannot just give up hoping and praying for and pretending our Jewish army. As far as the protection of the nation is concerned two things have to be mentioned: One is that the IDF has committed and commits terrible crimes against the defense of the Jewish People and these crimes cannot be disregarded and two, that as I mentioned above, the primary action of a sweared-in IDF soldier is to protect the State: The protection of the people comes as a by-product, as it were, as an overlap between the secular, kofer State and the people it rules over on the Land of Israel. Because of these considerations I would conclude by saying that both "rabbinic" opinions mentioned in the article are erroneous, for different reasons.
You Can Share This Item