David Bromwich writes:
Ethan Bronner in the New York Times today gives an informative view of "A
Religious War in Israel's Army," but his story evades the requirements of full
description at a couple of points. Dany Zamir, the military instructor who
released the testimonies on Gaza, is described as "left-leaning." By contrast,
the fanatical orthodox rabbis, who teach the settlers and the soldiers that it
is better to die or kill for the land than to live and let live without the
land, are referred to as "religious nationalists." As if this were a conflict
between politics (left) and religion (orthodox). Why not admit that the rabbis
are ultra-right–very much part of the Netanyahu-Lieberman coalition–and draw
the relevant analogy with the politics of Le Pen and Haider?
Bronner writes: "For the first four decades of Israel's existence, the
army–like many of the country's institutions–was dominated by kibbutz members
who saw themselves as secular, Western and educated." Saw themselves as? They
were in fact secular, Western and educated. And that has changed. The
testimonies of the Israeli soldier-witnesses in Gaza are the first record of
the extent of the change to be seen by an international audience.
The article turns slack and unspecific when it comes to address the refusal by
Zamir in 1990 "to guard a ceremony involving religious Jews visiting the West
Bank city of Nablus." A ceremony involving? They brought Torah scrolls to the
Tomb of Joseph in a Palestinian city in the Occupied Territories. An act of
overt religious propaganda, carried out with clear provocative intent; and an
act of the sort the IDF had often winked at or passively supported. Zamir was
tried and sentenced to prison for refusing to give aid to the provocation: the
stand of a secular conscientious objector.
