Pages

Sunday, May 07, 2006

To Shake Or Not

TM on Jewlicious has an interesting post about the political move one soldier made at a recent commendation ceremony.
Sergeant Hananel Dayan was awarded a decoration as one of the finest soldiers in the IDF. The Independence Day ceremony was at the Presidential Residence and attended by not only Israel’s President, Moshe Katsav, but also by Ehud Olmert who is now PM, and the IDF Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz. Halutz was also at the same rank during the disengagement from Gaza.

At one point in this ceremony, the key principals went over to the decorated soldiers to congratulate them. Not only were salutes exchanged, but the Chief of Staff warmly extended his hand to shake that of these soldiers who represent the cream of the crop as far as the IDF is concerned.

...

Here’s where things get a little wacky. Israel being a country where discipline is not always strong, some people feel very comfortable expressing their feelings even when the occasion may not be appropriate. What Dayan did was salute the Chief of Staff, Halutz, but then refused to shake his hand and basically leaned over and told him as much.
Now, the IDF has taken action:
Sergeant Hananel Dayan, the decorated Israel Defense Forces soldier who caused a furor last week when he refused to shake hands with IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz "to protest the expulsion" of settlers from the Gaza Strip, was expelled from his unit.
This is where things get more interesting. Dayan purposely did not shake Halutz's hand as a political protest - but he didn't disobey orders, refuse to serve, or anything of the sort. In fact, the reason he was at the service was specifically because he was an excellent soldier. He did salute, but did not shake hands.

All of this, of course, forces the question: Should there have been any punishment, and if yes, was this a proper one? TM and other argued both on Jewlicious and at the article on Ha'aretz that in fact it was a fair punishment.

TM [emphasis mine]:
There are many who feel the IDF is going over the top by punishing this protest and should simply have let it go. The soldier, they say, continued to act as a soldier but refused on the personal front to be accommodating to Halutz.

I see it differently and happen to agree with the IDF. As a civilian, this soldier has every right to dismiss or be rude or to ignore any member of the IDF. As a soldier, however, he is taking an overt and unacceptable position whereby he rejects the IDF’s actions. Make no mistake, that is his protest: that the disengagement was inappropriate and the man who led it, by extension, is a man not deserving of his handshake.

Huh? Since when does the IDF get to pick which actions it may or may not take? It is an apolitical organization doing the government’s bidding and in this case the government, headed by Sharon and after months of protests and numerous attempts to bring down the government, legimately and democratically ordered the IDF to move ahead with the disengagement. This was their duty from the moment the political echelon gave the order. Not only was it their duty, but in removing the settlers, they were doing something no different than when they were in Gaza, at the government’s instruction, to protect the settlers and the settlements.
TM continues beyond this, but if anything the rest of the argument is overly emotional, somewhat anti-right wing, and undermines these points. This part, however, is very good. Dayan, by rejecting the IDF which only services the government, is making a mistake. It is completely unacceptable to reject the actions of the IDF as a soldier.

However, I don't believe that Dayan did so in this case. There are those who say refusing such handshakes is common practice when disagreeing with a commander in the IDF - I do not serve, and cannot comment, but this makes sense to me. Regardless, however, in this instance Dayan was actually quite careful about what he did and did not do. He clearly was an exceptional soldier, which is why he was at the ceremony. He did salute at the ceremony, as a soldier is proscribed to do; he followed every bit of protocol at the ceremony. The one thing he did not do was accept a handshake which can only be considered a gesture and not part of the military conduct at such a ceremony. In response to this gesture, he expressed his opinion.

Whether it makes sense to blame Halutz for properly following orders or not, Dayan did not act in a way which "caused damage to military discipline and the value of service". If anything, Dayan very carefully followed military discipline and despite his opinion showed his incredible appreciation for the value of service. If anything, he should be looked upon as an example of how to act as a soldier, both by the right and the left, even if you disagree with the actions of the IDF. It seems clear that his punishment is unwarranted and he should be returned to service.

23 comments:

  1. Ezzie,

    I disagree. If he wanted to protest, he could have refused to accept the reward and not shown up at the cerimony in the first place. Assuming handshaking is not mandatory, refusing to shake Halutz's hand is a problem because it publically shows dissent. And that's a bad thing for the army. Not accepting an award looks better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting point, but again I disagree. I don't think it's wrong to show dissent, only lack of military discipline. If a soldier disagrees in the field, he should say as much; this is a far less serious example of doing so. Again, he's still following proper military protocol, and because of that I don't think he should be removed from his unit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought this was a Lulav and esrog hypothetical......

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think we can both agree that not shaking Halutz's hand was worse than not accepting the prize in terms of public dissent. That said, the question is how much latitiude the army should give to its soldiers to express their ideals. I'd grant the army great deferrence on this question because I am not qualified to make the determination. But I can see the argument that the army overreacted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think we can both agree that not shaking Halutz's hand was worse than not accepting the prize in terms of public dissent.

    Yes.

    Based on comments from a very small selection of soldiers both at Jewlicious and Ha'aretz, this doesn't sound *so* out of the norm or extreme, which is one reason I think the punishment is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. His specific action shows just how deeply the feelings run here in Israel, and how conflicted those of us in the dati-leumi world are now. He stayed in the army, and performed so well that he received an award. He followed military protocol and saluted - but he couldn't bring himself to shake Halutz's hand. How the army reacts (or overreacts) is not really the point. What this country will do in the future to repair this rift is the question. Olmert's insistence on more unilateral withdrawals will only worsen the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WBM - That's a very interesting perspective, and I hadn't really thought of it that way. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ez, you are right in the sense that, technically, this soldier didn't do anything wrong by not shaking Halutz's hand. If he had not saluted, it would have definitely violated military protocol, but there is no such mandates for shaking hands. That actually doesn't exist in military protocol. However, I also agree with Naphtuli. If he was protesting the Army over the Disengagement, why allow himself to accept an award from said Army? If he had done this, it wouldn't have been public, and the Army would have just given it to the next best. This minor not shaking of the General's hand was deliberate in its public display, and he should be punished for it.

    However, releaving him of his post falls way out of the spectrum of what he did wrong. Give him 20 days in the brig or extra Shmira on base or no going home for a couple of months. But, kicking him out of his post? Rediculous and way out of proportion. All the Army is doing now is making this kid into some kind of hero, which is the exact antithesis of what the Army wants to do. The last thing this guy should be made to be is a hero for the Orange.
    -OC

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the IDF making such a big deal out of this, it shows you that the IDF isn't such a strong army after all.

    When a democracy or "powerful" instituion has to crush its opposition using tactics like this, it shows that it's democratic essense is rather weak.

    ReplyDelete
  10. jameel, c'mon. Now, that's also blowing things out of proportion. They're doing this as a mini-Amona, ya know? This is political. They used him as an example to show that this kind of "behavior" won't be tolerated. They're doing it all wrong, and it seems to be part of the bigger picture with what's happened in periphery to the Disengagement. You know what I mean? This is a symptom of a bigger problem as westbankmama so astutely pointed out. And, one thing is for damn sure. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
    -OC

    ReplyDelete
  11. OC - I agree that what he did was in poor taste with Nephtuli, but I still think that the first point (that it's not protocol) makes the punishment too severe, if he should be punished at all.

    Jameel - What OC said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. you're looking at it the wrong way. his punishment wasn't for simply refusing to shake dan halutz's hand.

    in the army, personal feelings must be put aside for the greater good. many of the soldiers involved in the disengagement were personally against it, but they took part anyways, because that's the way the army works.

    by refusing to shake dan halutz's hand, the soldier held him personally responsible for the actions he took as chief of staff. Dan Halutz may or may not be a leftist, but the actions he takes as cheif of staff do not reflect that. Dayan, by refusing to shake halutz's hand, undermined the very foundations that the army rests upon; the obligation to follow orders, regardless of personal beliefs.

    on top of all of this, you have the insult to the chief of staff, in a very public ceremony. you may be right, it's not enough to warrant his punishment, maybe, but it's just the icing on the cake.

    jameel: the IDF is not a democratic institution. we do not elect our commanders, and there is no freedom of speech. if a soldier wants to protest, he can vote for a party that will support his policies. soldiers may not make any political statements, including talking to the press, putting political slogans on his gear, or refusing to shake the chief of staff's hand to protest a certain policy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Menachem - Yes, and I acknowledged all of those points; nevertheless, the conclusion (to me) is still that the punishment was unwarranted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ez, but you're qualifying your statement. You're saying that the punishment was not warranted, if any punishment was warranted at all. The point Menachem and myself are trying to make is that what he did was wrong, and it goes against the foundations of what the Army represents. Therefore, punishment is warranted, just not the one given. This soldier cannot be let off scott-free. If he is, then he will set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future.
    -OC

    ReplyDelete
  16. OC - True. I think we basically agree: This punishment was not warranted, but what he did was wrong. Should there be any punishment? I'm leaning to "No", but y'all are saying "Yes". But in the grand scheme we basically agree.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'If he was protesting the Army over the Disengagement, why allow himself to accept an award from said Army?'

    I had wondered this myself.

    The national religious community in Israel has gotten almost everything it has wanted for almost the entire history of the country: Funding for the state religious school system, Orthodox rabbinic monopoly on marriages and divorces, massive investment (a.k.a. subsidies) in settlements beyond the Green Line despite little interest in them from the secular public, kosher food in the army, enforcement of sabbath laws, the hesder yeshiva program, etc., etc. That despite never having received more than about 12 seats in the Knesset. In no other democratic country could such a small minority have such great influence. Occasionally, in a democracy, one loses. Yes, this is a big loss, but why did the NU/NRP continue the sorry performance of Religious Zionist parties this year? Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in a lot more outreach to the rest of Israel's citizens than to engage in meaningless protests like this?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good Q, Charlie. Then again, standing up for one's beliefs no matter how small a minority would likely be the response.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ezzie, I'm sorry to say this, and please do not take offense to this. If you do, I apologize ahead of time, but the fact that you're leaning to "no" on whether this soldier deserves any punishment at all illustrates your lack of understanding of the military structure, what its role is, and how crucial discipline is to sustaining its very foundation.

    When something is done in "bad taste" (if that's what you want to call it) in the civilian world, nothing happens. Who cares? You might get chastized, but nothing more. In the military, "bad taste" dangers the foundation and disciplinary structure. Soldiers who do things in "bad taste" are punished. A couple of years ago, soldiers who were on duty patrolling a Palestinian town decided to play a prank and switched the prayer tape for the mosque loud speaker with some Jewish music. This is something that one can consider being done in "bad taste". No-one was injured, and they didn't really do anything wrong. But, they were severely punished. If you forget your briefcase or leave your papers hanging around the floor, nothing happens. In the Army, if you leave your gun on the floor, you're put on trial.

    Military does not equal civilian world. A solider does something even in "bad taste", he's punished. Plain and simple.
    -OC

    ReplyDelete
  20. But that's my point. This action was, IMO, *not* part of the military world, and does not affect the discipline of the army. The whole point of this post was exactly that - he was careful to seperate the military aspects from the civilian.

    ReplyDelete
  21. me and OC agree on something? wow

    ReplyDelete