A soldier receiving an award at a national ceremoney on Wednesday refused to shake the hand of Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz in protest against the disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria last August.
A reader in the comments section of an earlier post posed a question which I think deserves open debate. The reader, Nili Scham, writes:
I am writing this in response to something I read in the Jerusalem Post. They spoke of a soldier who refused to shake Dan Halutz's hand during a ceremony on Yom Ha'atzmaut to honour outstanding soldiers. He did so in protest of the disengagement. And I quote:
"The IDF said that, following the incident, Meged's nomination as an outstanding soldier would be re-examined. The official response stated that such behavior was political, was not appropriate and there was no place for it in the armed forces. "
As much as I understand this response, we have to understand that soldiers have opinions and have the right to voice their opinions -though whether this soldier did it in the right forum needs to be examined. I find this a very interesting dilemma. Any responses?
Feel free to comment...
Update at 5 May
The soldier has been removed from his brigade.
Update at 7 May
Ze'ev Segal argues in Ha'aretz that the decision to suspend the soldier from his brigade was disproportionate. Segal argues that the decision denies the IDF the outstanding services of a soldier who did not refuse an order, but rather failed to behave in accordance with the degrees of politeness and respect the chief of staff deserves. Furthermore, Segal makes the case in favour of allowing soldiers the right to personal expression. (Steve: A right they have, it's illicit public expression of a political or military matter which is - I believe correctly - prohibited.)
I think that he is entitled to his own opinion but he must respect the state that he serves. In a public ceremony he has no right to use an honour which the state is endowing upon him as a way to allow him to send a political message.
Soldiers of the IDF are supposed to be apolitical are they not? (Actually I'm not so sure how fair that really is...)
You should ask that guy from the only in israel blog (he is on your blogroll) what he thinks since he is a soldier.
i dont mind if he doesnt get the award now.
Posted by: Anti-UN | May 04, 2006 at 09:30
Nili I tend to agree with your sentiments.
I am not happy with the soldiers display but he is entitled to his own political opinions. his own likes and dislikes. That said, an army has a very strong need for discipline and respect. And the Chief of Staff should be respected - especially in public.
But his service obviously demanded acknowledgement and so he was being rewarded. His actions at the ceremony do not change the good service that he has provided and so he should in my mind still receive the award. He probably served well during the disengagement and I have absolute respect for the soldiers who opposed disengagement ideologically yet still managed to provide the service that the state demanded.
But the IDF must not let that lack of respect become commonplace - so what can be done to signal that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable?
As Anti-Un says, an award ceremoney should not be leveraged by the soldier as a tool to send a political message.
But I dont know enough about the Military to even suggest how they can still give the award and still send a message that this must not happen again (in public).
Posted by: Steve | May 04, 2006 at 10:56
As far as I know, active soldiers are barred from making public political statements. This was clearly a public political statement and is thus a violation of Israeli law. He should thus be put on trial in a military court and sentenced to the full extend of the law.
However, his prize should not be revoked. His political positions should not be a test for brave military service. That is a disgrace. A strong country should encourage internal criticism. It should not be punished.
For me the real dilemma relates to banning soldiers from expressing political opinions freely. Is that justified in a democratic society?
Posted by: Mike | May 04, 2006 at 11:02
Israelis are so quick to throw soliders who refuse to serve in the OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN LAND into the pits - yet when they show extreme right wing sentiments they are given awards.
Posted by: Just a Caring Individual | May 04, 2006 at 11:26
Ummm...just ignore the above comment. Please dont feed him by responding. He clearly has misread the entire account of what is being discussed. Just like he has misread history.
Posted by: Steve | May 04, 2006 at 11:31
Don't feed the troll. They are generally dim-witted, and while their bites are not particularly dangerous they do tend to poison whatever they sink into.
I pretty much agree with the rest of the comments here. Serving members of the IDF are supposed to be apolitical in the carrying out of their duties, and what this soldier has done is completely unprofessional. The IDF has no option but to punish him, because that sort of behaviour cannot be allowed to spread. It's also a bit of a slippery slope; today soldiers might be refusing to shake the hand of the chief of staff, in a few months they might be refusing legitimate orders because of their political beliefs.
As for the award, it all depends on what sort of award it was. "Outstanding service" is rather ambiguous, but it doesn't sound to me like an award for bravery. Rather, it is more likely one of those "good service" awards, and as such it makes sense to re-evaluate his receiving it in light of his most recent action.
Posted by: Darren | May 05, 2006 at 00:45
I would say that both sides in this "drama" have displayed childish behavior. Which is a bit more excusable for the soldier than it is for CoS, taking into account the age difference between the two.
Punishing the youngster after the fact will only strengthen his opinion.
Posted by: SnoopyTheGoon | May 07, 2006 at 11:59
But the punishment has nothing to do with changing his opinion. He is entitles to his opinion. He is just not entitled to express it publicly when he is representing the IDF.
So they dont care that they will strengthen his opinion.
Posted by: Anti-UN | May 07, 2006 at 14:42
You can't blame the guy for being bitter if his family where forced out of their homes , to appease the Arabs?
Posted by: Gary | May 07, 2006 at 15:21
I think the issue here is not if the soldier was correct or incorrect - he was obviously wrong - but what response the army should take. It was incorrect of the soldier to express his political views in such a public manner. I think that the correct punishment was to remove the soldier from his brigade(which was done) but definatly not to re-examine his award of excellence as a soldier. What he did does not take away from his previous performance as a soldier!
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 07, 2006 at 17:14
Another update:
Meged (the soldier) has given Dan Halutz an ultimatum:
"Meged has requested that Halutz publicly announce, within three days, that he committed no offense and that he be reinstated to his unit.
In a letter written to Halutz by Meged's attorney Adi Keidar, Meged will petition the High Court of Justice immediately following the three-day deadline if Halutz does not acquiesce to the demand. "
This is, in my opinion, ridiculous! The soldier acted in a political way in a public setting and was punished for his actions. I feel that by giving the chief of staff an ultimatum is showing unbelievable Chutzpah, no regard for military law and should be grounds for oust him from his post for showing such utter disrespect.
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 07, 2006 at 23:35
I agree. But on a purely legal platform Meged may be safe.
The Haaretz article states "The soldier came up onto the stage, saluted Lieutenant General Dan Halutz as required by military orders and therein fulfilled his duty."
Posted by: Steve | May 08, 2006 at 00:16
Interesting to see if that also holds in a military court. It will be interesting to see the final outcome!
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 08, 2006 at 21:55