This latest tempest in a teacup about Naftali Bennett supposedly advocating refusal of orders has been badly played by everyone, in my opinion. Netanyahu, by pouncing on him the way he has, has given the impression that he is, indeed, planning Disengagement II - although I don't personally believe that to be true; rather I think he's just trying to win back some of the swing votes that Bayit Yehudi has been steadily pulling from Likud. And Bennett himself, by climbing down do hurriedly, left himself looking wishy washy.
Personally I think Bennett could have made a stronger and more principled stand by clarifying a nuance that seems to have been overlooked by pretty much everyone.
There are two types of refusal of orders. One is where you are second-guessing your superiors, because you think you know better than them. If your commander screams, "Acharai!" - then you better darn well be there behind him, even if you think it's a foolish move. Refusing orders under such circumstances is indeed dangerous and damaging to the entire structure of the army.
The other kind is where you are given an order that you believe is immoral. For example, let's say a commander orders a soldier to drive his fellow soldiers to the beach for a party on Shabbat. Under such circumstances, the soldier is obligated to say, "I'm sorry, Sir, but I take my orders from the King of Kings, and I cannot do that." The penalty could be a court-martial, imprisonment, or any amount of money, and the soldier is obligated to refuse orders.
In practical terms, going back to 2005, if a soldier decided to refuse orders because he believed the Disengagement was a foolish mistake and tactically wrong, that it would bring rockets on the whole of Southern Israel and make Israel's geopolitical situation infinitely worse, he would have been wrong to do so. A soldier's business is not to reason why, but to carry out his orders.
On the other hand, if a soldier saw the Disengagement as immoral and evil, because of (among other things) the injustice it was doing to the families of Gush Katif, then he would have been obligated to refuse to participate in any way, even by taking over the duties of another soldier stationed on the Lebanese border, so that that soldier could go and rip Jews from their homes (מסייע לדבר עבירה).
I believe this is the moral duty of any soldier, anywhere, to be true to his morals - and be ready to pay the price. This is true also for a leftist who believes it is immoral to serve in Judea & Samaria. He should refuse orders, and be prepared to be court-martialed and imprisoned for his beliefs. And if he is not prepared to stand tall, openly refuse orders and take the punishment, that's a good sign that his refusal is not based on moral considerations.
Suppression of the soldier's individual conscience and morality is a very dangerous and evil thing to advocate. The logical extreme of this attitude is summed up in the infamous excuse:
"Ve vos chust following orders!"
Personally I think Bennett could have made a stronger and more principled stand by clarifying a nuance that seems to have been overlooked by pretty much everyone.
There are two types of refusal of orders. One is where you are second-guessing your superiors, because you think you know better than them. If your commander screams, "Acharai!" - then you better darn well be there behind him, even if you think it's a foolish move. Refusing orders under such circumstances is indeed dangerous and damaging to the entire structure of the army.
The other kind is where you are given an order that you believe is immoral. For example, let's say a commander orders a soldier to drive his fellow soldiers to the beach for a party on Shabbat. Under such circumstances, the soldier is obligated to say, "I'm sorry, Sir, but I take my orders from the King of Kings, and I cannot do that." The penalty could be a court-martial, imprisonment, or any amount of money, and the soldier is obligated to refuse orders.
In practical terms, going back to 2005, if a soldier decided to refuse orders because he believed the Disengagement was a foolish mistake and tactically wrong, that it would bring rockets on the whole of Southern Israel and make Israel's geopolitical situation infinitely worse, he would have been wrong to do so. A soldier's business is not to reason why, but to carry out his orders.
On the other hand, if a soldier saw the Disengagement as immoral and evil, because of (among other things) the injustice it was doing to the families of Gush Katif, then he would have been obligated to refuse to participate in any way, even by taking over the duties of another soldier stationed on the Lebanese border, so that that soldier could go and rip Jews from their homes (מסייע לדבר עבירה).
I believe this is the moral duty of any soldier, anywhere, to be true to his morals - and be ready to pay the price. This is true also for a leftist who believes it is immoral to serve in Judea & Samaria. He should refuse orders, and be prepared to be court-martialed and imprisoned for his beliefs. And if he is not prepared to stand tall, openly refuse orders and take the punishment, that's a good sign that his refusal is not based on moral considerations.
Suppression of the soldier's individual conscience and morality is a very dangerous and evil thing to advocate. The logical extreme of this attitude is summed up in the infamous excuse:
"Ve vos chust following orders!"
