I am vehemently opposed to the idea of introducing varying lengths of service in the Israel Defense Forces. My blood boils when I hear that. First, I would like to point out the obvious reason: Only when Israel's situation improves to the point that the land is "quiet for 40 years" (Judges 3:11) and every man sits "under his vine and under his fig tree" (1 Kings 5:5), would such a measure be warranted. In fact, it would be a welcome development. But since the threat on Israel's security is growing by the day -- something on which there is no need to elaborate -- shortening the length of service would tempt hostile elements to attack Israel, lay more and more demands and insist on more sweeping concessions. A shorter mandatory service is bad for Israel's national interest. It would lower the combat readiness of Israeli troops, and units would once again lack proper training and be ignorant of their role during combat. Most of the citations in the wake of the Second Lebanon War were awarded to soldiers showing extraordinary courage in saving their fellows, not for executing missions successfully. This is a damning indictment on the motivation and quality of our fighters and shows that we are no longer certain we can meet our military objectives. My dissent also stems from a second, more important reason. In the digital world we live in, training is particularly long. Not just in the Intelligence Corps' prestigious Unit 8200, but also in the elite combat units that have to deal with new, highly sophisticated weaponry. The new advances in technology have resulted in longer, more complex training. What if the government does indeed shorten the length of service? The state would then discover it needs combat fighters more than other, non-combat troops. It would try to lure them with higher pay so that they stay past their mandatory service. Would the bang for the buck be worth it? A combat fighter who is required to serve only 30 months, of which 16 to 18 would be set aside for training, could be utilized for no more than 12 months, possibly 14. That is too little. The state would promise combat fighters, especially those who serve in elite units, generous compensation in return for staying on for 36 months (even under current rules, the IDF pays fighters more than those who serve in desk jobs, and rightly so). So what would the end result be? A few years into the new conscription law's implementation, the proportion of poor soldiers in combat units would rise dramatically. Those who hail from well-to-do families would take advantage of the law and stay only for the required 24 months (or even less in some cases), not the 36 they would be offered. This is a crucial point, and let's call a spade a spade: If, God forbid, Israel became bogged down in a protracted military campaign, or even a war, the number of poor soldiers who would be named during the annual memorial ceremonies would increase many times over. The poor would sacrifice their lives for the defense of the country almost exclusively. Their share of the war dead would be disproportionate to their overall representation in our society. No Israeli wishes for more dead and wounded soldiers. But every Israeli knows this is just a fact of life. Every decent person would endorse the Talmudic teaching, "Do not neglect the children of the poor, for from them will go forth Torah." Woe to the State of Israel if the graves in military cemeteries are of poor Israelis only.
