Media recommendations, vol. 43
Reservists refuse to serve in the IDF, a herem in Atlanta and more
For those who celebrate Passover, here’s wishing you a chag sameach (happy holiday). For those who celebrate Easter, happy Easter.
+972 Magazine continues to produce exemplary journalism. In tandem with Local Call, a Hebrew-language site, it reported on the tens of thousands of Israelis who are refusing to complete their reserve duty in the army.
“Refusal comes in waves, and this is the biggest wave since the First Lebanon War in 1982,” Ishai Menuchin, one of the leaders of the refuser movement Yesh Gvul (“There is a Limit”) which was founded during that war, told +972.
Like conscription into the regular forces at age 18, it is compulsory for Israelis to serve in the reserves when summoned until the age of 40 (though this can vary depending on rank and unit). During wartime, the army is heavily dependent on these forces.
At the start of the war, the army stated that it had recruited around 295,000 reservists on top of the roughly 100,000 soldiers in regular service. If reports about 50-60 percent attendance in the reserves are accurate, that means over 100,000 people have stopped showing up for reserve duty. “That’s a huge number,” Menuchin noted. “It means the government will have a problem continuing the war.”
“October 7 initially created a feeling of ‘Together we will win,’ but that has now eroded,” said Tom Mehager, an activist who refused to serve during the Second Intifada and now runs a social media page that posts videos of past refuseniks explaining their decision. “To attack Gaza, three planes are enough — but refusal still draws red lines. It forces the system to understand the limits of its power.”1
For those wondering about the current state of Israeli politics, The Boston Review published an interesting essay by Shai Agmon. In his estimation, the center is complicit with enabling the far-right government of the worst leader in Jewish history.
This ideological retreat culminated with the emergence in 2019 of the Blue and White Party, a coalition of all major Israeli centrist parties led by Gantz and Lapid. Unlike Sharon’s Kadima, Blue and White actively refused to take a clear stance on national security and the conflict. When forced to address the issues, Blue and White simply echoed right-wing talking points, framing Jewish settlements in the West Bank as a security necessity and excluding Arab politicians from coalition talks. Perhaps the most telling was the party’s 100-day program, which outlined proposals on every issue—from transportation to the economy and religion-state relations—except one: security. “On this critical issue [security],” Gantz declared at a high-profile speech at the Munich Security Conference that year, “there is no right or left—no opposition or coalition.” This statement reduced the country’s most critical political debate to rhetorical neutrality—akin to the Democratic or Republican Party abruptly withdrawing from the ongoing debate over the economy or immigration, an unthinkable scenario even for centrist American leaders.
Compare Gantz’s speech to that of Yitzhak Rabin when he presented his new government to the Knesset—the leader Gantz has often been compared to and aspires to succeed—delivered on July 13, 1992. In it, Rabin, a towering figure of the Israeli left who led the country to peace with Jordan, signed the Oslo Accords, and was later assassinated by a right-wing extremist, drew a sharp distinction between Labor under his leadership and the Likud. “Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,” he declared, “there are indeed significant differences between the national priorities of the Likud and those proposed by us in the government’s platform. . . . The first issue concerns peace and security.” The stark contrast between Rabin’s clear differentiation and bold vision for security and peace, and Gantz’s empty, depoliticized statement in Munich underscores how hollow the new center has become as a political project.2
The man who drafted the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism continues to oppose its weaponization. Kenneth Stern spoke to Amanpour and Company.
Emily Kaiman, who works for JStreet, writes in The Forward about being on the wrong side of a herem (excommunication order) in her Jewish mom’s group in Atlanta. Then she obliterates her peers’ hypocrisy.
I learned I had been booted from the group after a friend sent me a screenshot of a post from one of its moderators. “Anyone affiliated with organizations that undermine Israel’s security and the Jewish people (JVP, J Street, etc.) should exit the group immediately,” she wrote, adding, “I cannot tolerate supporters/sympathizers of terrorism or those seeking to co-opt our community here anymore.”
I did not post regularly in this group, and typically stayed away from posting anything political. I had not even seen the post before I was removed. This wasn’t a case of two Jewish moms seeing the world differently; it was a public excommunication, delivered in the language of fear, suspicion and moral certainty. And I’m terrified by the message this action sends about the state of Jewish communal life. What does it mean that someone like me — a Jewish educator, a mom raising four Jewish children, the partner of a Conservative rabbi, a lifelong Zionist who has spent years teaching, traveling and organizing for a better future for Israel — is no longer “Jewish enough” for a group of local moms?
In recent Jewish history, there have been all kinds of litmus tests to determine who belongs. Different congregations, denominations and social groups have drawn hard lines over kashrut, Shabbat observance, the role of women in Jewish life, intermarriage, acceptance of LGBTQ+ Jews, and many other issues. The message to many Jews, especially young adults, has been clear: Your choices make you less Jewish, or not Jewish at all.3
Last but not least, members of Britain’s Board of Deputies of British Jews are condemning the Israeli government for its war on Gaza. This BBC News story is quite clear.
Dozens of members of the largest body representing Jews in the UK have condemned Israel's government for the "heartbreaking war" in Gaza.
In an open letter published in the Financial Times, 36 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said they "cannot turn a blind eye or remain silent" at the "renewed loss of life and livelihoods" as a result of Israel's renewed offensive in Gaza.
The letter is the first show of opposition to the Gaza war by some members of the board — made up of more than 300 deputies….
Signatories of the open letter criticising Israel's offensive in Gaza warned "Israel's soul is being ripped out and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to".
It took aim at the Israeli government, which it said had chosen to "break the ceasefire and return to war in Gaza", rather than engage in diplomacy and agree the next phase of a ceasefire deal.
Israel blocked the entry of food, medicine and other supplies on 2 March and two weeks later resumed the war. It said it did this because Hamas did not accept a proposal to extend the ceasefire's first phase and release more of the 59 hostages it is still holding, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive.4
This dissent is noteworthy for two reasons. The first is that it further exposes the internal cracks in Jewish institutions over their unflinching support of Israel. The second is that it reflects the spirit of constructive debate over Israel that we, in the diaspora, need to engage in regularly.
Thanks, as always, for reading.
972 Magazine, The Israeli army…: https://www.972mag.com/israeli-army-refusal-crisis-gaza-war/
Boston Review, Israel’s Complicit Center: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/israels-complicit-center/
Emily Kaiman in The Forward, My Jewish mom’s group: https://forward.com/opinion/711262/jewish-community-j-street-anti-zionism/
BBC News, Members of Board of Deputies: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77ndzkz778o