For more than a decade, it has been perceived that changing the method of service in the IDF, and beyond a professional army of salaried volunteers instead of compulsory service, will be more correct service, the army will be more skilled, Israel's strength will increase, and social inequality in service will be eliminated. What are the security challenges and not only, the defense, but the national security of the State of Israel - it is absolutely clear that in the foreseeable future this approach will be denied any basis.
But alongside this problematic perception, which is clearly unsuitable for either Israel's security challenges or its social challenges, this idea is gaining increasing support, and data presented by the Israel Democracy Institute recently shows that over 50% of the country's Jewish citizens support the transition to a professional army.
As a researcher in the field of military-social relations, alongside my experience in the field throughout the last generation as a combat commander, I may object to some of these findings, I may also object to the research methodology, but in any case, I must reflect on that figure and understand what it says.
In fact, this means that no small part of the public truly believes that a professional army is right for Israel.
Bennett and Kochavi.
"The Israeli government - we are losing the most important security-social asset for us."
, Photo: Ariel Hermoni, Ministry of Defense
Well, my answer to that is, sharp and partly wrong, and not only wrong, but even very dangerous, both for society and national security, and no less - for the Israeli economy.
To understand the situation, I will try to touch on the various approaches that make many in the public think of the option of a professional army as more correct, and refute it.
1. A professional army would be more skilled - from a superficial point of view it makes sense since, but in depth examination, it is really not true.
Military history on the side of thought, as well as a deep understanding of the core of military action always reveals that the quality of the security outcome depends first and foremost on human quality, and no platform, training or technology will change that.
The quality of manpower in a professional army is low mainly because those who serve in this army prefer it as a place of work over other places - they do not have too many other choices.
Anyone who chooses to serve in the military for money does so because he has nothing to offer the job market.
And for those who have reservations about the matter - please examine who serves in professional armies around the world.
2. A professional army will be cheaper - just not!
Expenditure in Western countries on the salaries of soldiers in these armies is much higher than it seems.
Just imagine that instead of paying the soldiers a living wage of a few thousand shekels, each soldier will earn a fixed salary.
The Israeli public hardly tolerates permanent pay anyway, what do you think will happen if the entire IDF becomes a permanent army? It is also important to take this opportunity to mention that over 50% of the IDF's power is based on reserves.
Presumably in a professional army the reserves will be cut and replaced by permanent manpower.
Yes, more expenses.
More salaries.
More pensions.
IDF fighters, "Professional army is the pinnacle of all agendas",
3. A professional army is not a progressive army - some argue that social agendas have turned the IDF into a social battlefield where feminism, religion and more are fought. Therefore, in a professional army all these tensions will disappear. It will be an army that is all about military profession Male) .Well, completely reversed. A professional army is the pinnacle of all agendas. For, whoever wants to enlist in enlists, and who does not, no. So who will really enlist? Agendas.And again, for those who are really interested - please check out what happened to armies that have become professional, and some scholars call them "postmodern armies".
4. Service in a professional army will be equal - in this case it is important to say - completely the opposite! Those who enlist in the professional army are strata who usually come from the low socio-economic environment. They will be the ones to pay the price of blood for the protection of the state. Do you understand what this is about? The most expensive price that a company pays, and that is the price of life risk, will be imposed on a specific and specific stratum in the company - is this equality in your eyes?
5. A professional army will give a better security response - well, that's a very superficial view.
The IDF's ability to change its dimensions in accordance with changes in the security situation, most of which are based on a reserve system that allows the IDF to double its dimensions in an emergency.
To address security crises, and to be a reserve in his words for the regular workforce.
The State of Israel cannot be based on a professional army with fixed dimensions - it must have reserves in order to adapt itself to security changes that occur on us from time to time.
A reserve army is a condition for state security - and where will those reservists come from?
There is no other way but a conscript army feeding the reserve units.
"Reserve army is a condition for national security" (Archive), Photo: Yehuda Peretz
The five points I mentioned are the most central in an argument - you can see that at best, they are all in doubt.
But for all the proponents of the professional army I have a different question - and that is whether there is another social platform in our country that produces a meeting point for most sections of the population?
That really connects the periphery and the center?
Between religious and secular?
Between Jews and non-Jews?
Is there another platform where all this diversity connects under a shared commitment of mutual guarantee?
That in.
We no longer have the IDF, which is the only body that remains state-owned in Israel.
Indeed, the IDF also has problems, and indeed there are difficulties in creating social equality when the population grows and the size of the army does not change in the same proportion - but this does not mean that compulsory service should be abolished - it means preaching to the Israeli government. In the IDF, but also in the police, in the fire brigade, in medicine and in the variety of social areas that are desperate for manpower.
Israeli governments have so far not promoted this, and have simply abandoned the IDF to be the only one that meets the duty of service by law.
The Israeli public must be told the truth, compulsory service in Israel is such that it is needed, and that there is really no other option.
And it is important for the Israeli government to say - wake up, we are losing the most important security-social asset for us, and from there there is no going back.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you find an error in the article, we will be happy for you to share it with us and we will correct it