Strategic Assessment

The issue of opening all positions in the IDF to women is currently under debate, following rejections of requests by female conscripts and trainees who dropped out from prestigious courses to try out for combat positions in assault forces, and High Court of Justice petitions submitted on the issue. An IDF committee was appointed to examine the issue. I appeared before the committee as a representative of Forum Dvorah: Women in Foreign Policy and National Security, along with additional representatives of the forum. The purpose of this article is to present a suitable policy for the IDF, while relating to official reports and studies on the issue of integrating women in combat positions in foreign militaries. 

The Situation in the IDF

The IDF is one of the only militaries in the world that has mandatory conscription of women. In the first few years of its existence, women served mainly in "traditional" support roles. In 1995 the groundbreaking ruling by the High Court of Justice in the Alice Miller case was issued, which ordered flight courses to be opened to women, and for the first time recognized women's right to equal opportunity in the IDF as a human right, rejecting budgetary and technical arguments. In 2000 the Defense Service Law was revised and article 16a was added, which stated that every woman has a right equal to the right of a man to fill any position in military service, unless required otherwise by the essence and nature of the position. However, the 2007 Segev report, which recommended moving to a model of complete equal opportunity in the IDF while adopting the criterion of "the right person in the right place," has only been partially implemented, and in practice the IDF continues to carry out separate selection and placement processes for men and women (the report was not officially published, but was leaked to the media and is quoted in public reports and publications). 

Over the years more and more positions have been opened to women, including combat positions such as pilots, naval officers, and combat soldiers in units deployed mainly along the borders. Today thousands of female combat soldiers serve in the IDF, constituting 17 percent of the army's fighting force. As of today 86 percent of positions are open to women. However, "spearhead" units, assault forces, and elite commando units remain closed to women.   

The United States Military and NATO Experience 

In recent years militaries in the Western world have increasingly opened all positions to women, including combat positions. This trend began in the 1980s, for example in Sweden and Canada, out of values-based considerations of fulfilling women's right to equality and due to operational needs, in light of the benefit of integrating women in these units. In recent years decisions have also been made to open combat positions to women in militaries with more active involvement in combat, such as the United States and the UK.

Until the 1990s, the US military prohibited stationing women in danger zones, but in the 2000s, as part of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, women were integrated in operational positions in combat zones. In 2013 the Secretary of Defense announced the cancellation of the restriction preventing women from participating in ground combat. The services were asked to implement the directive by January 2016, but were given the opportunity to request keeping certain specific positions closed to women. Studies conducted for the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Marines did not find a basis to recommend that any positions be closed to women. Following this, in December 2015 the Secretary of Defense announced that women could fill any military position and serve in any unit, as long as they meet the necessary standards. 

Today thousands of female combat soldiers serve in the IDF, constituting 17 percent of the army's fighting force. As of today 86 percent of positions are open to women. However, "spearhead" units, assault forces, and elite commando units remain closed to women.

Since then there has been a slow but steady increase in the number of women integrating in combat positions in the United States Armed Forces. As of October 2019, in the Army there were hundreds of women serving in combat positions and over 1,000 women who had entered combat specializations; women are integrated in combat positions in the Navy, including in submarine staffs; and likewise in the Air Force. However, in the Marines there is still significant opposition to the integration of women, and in the special forces there are no women who have completed training. A report prepared in 2020 at the request of Congress stated that opening positions to women has expanded the potential to find suitable candidates and enhanced unit performance.  

In the framework of NATO, in recent years studies and conferences have been held on integrating women in ground combat units, and a summary report was prepared with concrete recommendations.

The Arguments Opposing the Integration of Women in Combat Positions

Two principal sets of arguments against opening combat positions for women are raised: arguments on the protection of women from the dangers of the position; and arguments on the undermined performance of combat units due to the integration of women. In addition, it is argued that there are not enough suitable candidates to justify the investment required. 

Protecting Women in the Military

Arguments that focus on protecting women serving in the military relate to three main aspects: protecting women from injury; protecting women from the mental stress involved in combat service; and protecting women from the risks of combat. 

Thus, one central claim is that women are injured more than men due to the physical strain involved in combat unit positions and their lesser physiological capabilities. In a symposium held by the US Department of Defense, it was found that the gap in the extent of injuries stems from the gap in levels of fitness, and that when the level of fitness is the same, the risk of injury is the same for women and men. This is also the conclusion of a NATO report on the issue. The report recommended implementing preliminary training programs to build up the necessary fitness. Such programs were adopted in Australia, for example.

It was also found that the use of equipment that is not suited to the physiology of women leads to excess injuries. Accordingly, it was recommended to the US Department of Defense to obligate all military services to provide suitable equipment to the enlisted women; a similar recommendation was made to the Australian military. Additional recommendations for reducing injuries include ensuring appropriate nutrition, with an emphasis on iron and calcium, and encouraging the report of injuries at an early stage. 

Two principal sets of arguments against opening combat positions for women are raised: arguments on the protection of women from the dangers of the position; and arguments on the undermined performance of combat units due to the integration of women.

Regarding women’s potential difficulty in coping with the stress of serving in combat units, and in particular on the battlefield, studies have refuted this concern. A study conducted in the US military found that there is no significant difference in the impacts of stress involved in exposure to battle on the overall health of men and women. On the other hand, a correlation was found between the ability to cope with stress and the level of social support that the person receives. Therefore it was determined that it is important to ensure that women receive the support of their commanders and fellow soldiers to the same extent as the men in the unit. 

Another more general argument regards protecting women from exposure to the risks of warfare. This is a paternalistic argument that can be rejected outright, as there is no substantive reason to define harm to women as more serious than harm to men. Moreover, on a practical level women have already served in active combat arenas, been taken captive, and been killed. This is the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Israel, for example through service in the Border Police. 

Protecting Unit Performance

Arguments of the second type, namely, that the integration of women would harm the performance of combat units, include the claims that integrating women would undercut the professional level due to a lowered acceptance threshold for the position; would harm the cohesion of the unit, which is based in part on “the band of brothers”; and that women would not be able to cope with combat situations well thus undermining the performance of the unit in such situations. 

The argument that the inclusion of women would undermine the professional level assumes that there would be reduced standards in order to enable their integration in combat units, for example, by setting a lower standard of acceptance into the unit for women. However, this assumption is incorrect. NATO's recommendation is to set uniform physical standards for all candidates for positions, regardless of sex. It was explained that setting the proper standards is also important to help reduce injuries, in that they improve the suitability of those enlisting to the intended position.  

At the same time, it was recommended to select tests that have minimal bias but still retain the ability to predict success in particular positions, and avoid tests in which there is a built-in preference for the physiology of men versus that of women, for example tests that focus on arm strength versus flexibility. Similarly, tests should be identified that have been retained for historical and cultural reasons that could lead to the mistaken conclusion that women are not capable of meeting the necessary standards for the position. In this spirit, various militaries have reassessed and adopted up-to-date standards, including the Canadian military in 2014 and the Australian military in 2016. 

In order to improve women's chances of passing tests, it was recommended in NATO to hold about half a year of training adapted for women, in order to raise their level of fitness. Indeed, such pre-military training in Australia has been very effective, with 81 percent of women graduates successfully completing their basic training as combat soldiers. 

Another argument is that the integration of women in combat units would harm the cohesion and performance of the units. This issue has been examined in depth in several studies. Soldiers in US mixed units who have returned from tours of duty have generally attested that the connection in integrated units was good, and even better than in all-male units. In addition, a study conducted for SOCOM that examined mixed teams operating in an environment parallel to that of teams from special units, such as FBI task forces and elite firefighting units, found that women demonstrated sufficient physical capabilities as well as mental strength and the willingness to take risks, and that their integration did not negatively affect the performance of the team. The report emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between sex and gender, and that positions should not be given or denied to women based on their "femininity," but only based on their capabilities. 

Furthermore, the study made clear that mission cohesiveness, which relates to cooperation in carrying out the mission and achieving the objectives, is more important than social cohesion. Social cohesion can sometimes even cause damage when it creates situations of group pressure or adopting problematic values. The study referred to previous findings which showed that the integration of women did not affect preparedness, cohesion, or morale, in particular in units in which cohesion is high. The team recommended ways to improve unit cohesion while focusing on professionalism and curbing negative dynamics, including harassment, and emphasized the importance of changing the organizational culture, from the highest levels down. The conclusion of the report is that fulfilling these conditions enables the full and effective integration of women in elite units. 

Similar conclusions appear in a NATO report that also emphasizes the importance of changing the organizational culture and leadership on the part of commanders, from the most senior level down. The report relates to phenomena caused by the scarcity of women in units, such as excessive criticism and a need to succeed more than others; isolating and highlighting differences from others; adopting masculine behaviors and hiding feminine ones; and receiving positions that are stereotypical for women. The report presents practices adopted in various armies to deal with these phenomena. 

Another argument that accompanies the debate in Israel – even if the IDF doesn't raise it explicitly – is that integrating women in combat units would make it difficult for some of the religious soldiers to serve in them. This issue goes beyond the scope of this article. However, in short one can respond that this is a problematic argument. The service of these men and women side by side is regulated by the "shared service" directive. Imposing additional restrictions on women, in the name of the need to keep them away from the company of religious soldiers, is unacceptable and a violation of women’s fundamental rights, while preferring sectorial considerations. The concern regarding contact between religious male soldiers and female soldiers needs to be resolved vis-à-vis the male soldiers through established norms  through education and means to train and work with women in a shared environment, and also, when needed, by creating men-only teams within the unit. The religious sensitivity of certain soldiers cannot mandate violating basic rights of other soldiers, in this case, female soldiers. 

Another argument holds that women would have difficulty coping with the stress of performing under fire or in combat situations. This concern has been refuted in various studies, based on the practical experience of foreign armies. For example, the NATO report  refers to the contribution of women in combat missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The issue is also discussed at length in the report of an official American committee that quoted many former soldiers who attested that women functioned excellently in combat situations. General Hertling, commander of United States Army Europe, was quoted as follows: "Having served with women in combat, and having seen their courage and skills, I can personally say I have ZERO concerns about women on the front lines in combat units" (emphasis in the original).  

Less Interest among Women in Combat Positions

A common claim is that there is no justification for undertaking the investment necessary for integrating women in combat units, as very few women are interested, and even fewer would succeed in meeting the threshold requirements. The low numbers of women serving in combat units in armies that have opened all positions to women are presented as proof of this claim. 

However, as determined in the Alice Miller case, the economic argument cannot in itself justify violating the basic right to equal opportunity. But beyond the normative argument, conclusions based on the scarcity of women in combat units in foreign militaries – i.e., that in Israel too there would be a negligible number of suitable candidates – should be made with caution. 

First, in most militaries combat positions have only been opened to women in the last few years; this is a process that is still in its infancy, and on the rise. Furthermore, militaries that opened such positions decades ago have recognized that the way they were opened in the past was problematic and kept potential female candidates away, and steps are now being taken to improve the situation. 

Moreover, most foreign militaries are professional armies that enlist a limited segment of the population, rather than all young men and women in the country. In addition, service, especially in combat units, involves traveling to distant countries and participating in missions that do not relate to direct defense of the homeland. What is more, military service is not central in the experience of most of these countries and is not a significant stepping stone toward advancement in the civilian world. Therefore a military career is not especially attractive in the eyes of successful women. In contrast, in Israel there is mandatory service for women, such that high-quality women are obligated to enlist and enter the army; service is seen as meaningful and important for defending the homeland; it does not require traveling to distant places; and it has considerable impact on opportunities after discharge. Consequently, in Israel there is greater potential to identify high-quality female personnel that are suitable for combat units, in contrast with the situation in other countries. 

Furthermore, in foreign militaries one of the central challenges in convincing suitable women to enlist and stay in the army is the serious phenomenon of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. In the IDF the occurrence of sexual harassment, while not nonexistent,  is much less widespread than elsewhere, and incidents of sexual assault and rape are relatively rare. Therefore these concerns would not keep women enlisting in the IDF from serving in combat units, especially given that in any case they are integrated in mixed units.

The Significance of Opening Combat Positions in the IDF to Women

Denying opportunities to women to serve in combat units has implications that go beyond the loss of opportunity to fulfill combat roles. First, it obviates the potential for suitable women to fill positions that are at the core of IDF activity and are considered positions of the utmost significance. Second, in the IDF it is accepted that central senior staff positions, particularly in operational fields, are given only to graduates of combat units. Thus women are blocked from reaching these positions and rising up the ranks. Suffice it to see the scarcity of women at ranks of colonel and up, and even then generally only in positions that are not operational, and the fact that to this day there have been only three woman at the rank of major general, two of them in the advocate general and court units (i.e., in professional disciplines, and not at the core of the military’s operational activity).

Third, military service has considerable influence on the opportunities that open up after discharge and is a professional stepping-stone to integration in the employment world in Israel, particularly for high-ranking personnel, who advance to the business and political elite. Limiting the opportunities of women to reach senior positions in the IDF means undermining their opportunities for advancement in civilian life as well. Fourth, given that operational experience is often seen as essential for expressing professional opinions on matters of national security, there are scarcely any women in the decision making circles in these areas. 

Fifth, military service affects the shaping of personal identity at a decisive stage of maturation and development. When the message is that women are capable of less, this incorrect conception can also accompany them later in their lives. 

Consequently, blocking the possibility of trying out for combat positions means constructing a thick, unbreakable glass ceiling above the heads of all female soldiers and officers in the IDF, both during their service and afterwards. 

Beyond these considerations, opening all positions to women also benefits the IDF. The Segev report discussed better utilization of resources that would enable the IDF to exploit the full potential inherent in women, who are half of the population. This is also the conception that guides the foreign militaries working to increase the number of women serving in all positions. 

Implementation and Recommendations for the IDF

The right to equal opportunity as part of military service is a moral and ethical obligation, in particular given that the IDF is the people's army and service is mandatory for men and women. According to the law, positions can only be closed to women when this is necessary "due to the nature and essence of the position." As shown in the comparative analysis, most Western militaries, after carrying out in-depth studies, have concluded that there are no positions whose essence and nature "require" closing them to women. There is no reason for this conclusion not to also apply to positions in the IDF.

Just as it is unthinkable that women would be denied the opportunity to apply for a certain position in civilian life because of their sex, this should also be the case in the IDF. The right to apply for a position means that whoever is not suitable, male or female, will not be accepted. Denying women the opportunity to even try out for certain positions just because of their sex offends the dignity of female soldiers. Consequently, it is necessary to cease the practice of selections and placements according to a person's sex, based on the model already defined in 2007 in the Segev Report as "archaic," and to adopt, as recommended there, a model of "the right person in the right place" – as is done in most Western forces. 

Physical differences between the average man and the average woman do not justify blocking the placement of suitable women in all positions. This does not mean that the standards for acceptance to a position should be lowered, rather, that they should be reexamined in order to ensure that there suit the requirements of the position. In addition, tests should be adopted that preserve the ability to predict success in the position with minimal gender bias. 

Even if only few women succeed in meeting the standards, they should not be denied the basic right to equal opportunities just because women, on average, do not meet these requirements. Furthermore, conclusions should not be drawn based on gender assumptions, for example, that women are by definition more delicate than men. It is also important to refrain from the tendency to treat a certain woman as representative of all women, such that her lack of success is evidence of the limitations of women in general, just as the failure of a man is not seen as representing the inability of all men. Each person should be judged individually. 

Of course injuries of IDF soldiers should be reduced as much as possible. However, the fear of injuries does not justify preventing the enlistment of women in combat units, just as it does not impede recruiting men for these units. Certainly women should be protected from unnecessary harm and injury, and the physiological differences between men and women should not be ignored. However, as a rule, women deserve the same level of protection as male soldiers deserve – no more, no less. 

In order to reduce injuries, preliminary training should be encouraged, both in pre-military frameworks and in private frameworks, in order to reach a suitable level of fitness; the military equipment of female combat soldiers should be adapted to the bodies and needs of women; suitable nutrition should be ensured; and reports on injuries should be encouraged along with professional monitoring of the issue. 

The experience of other militaries shows that women function well in combat situations. Moreover, because women already serve in positions that expose them to the dangers of terrorism and combat, it seems that the IDF has already crossed the Rubicon on this issue. Nor is there justification for treating the death or capture of a female soldier as more serious than the death or capture of a male soldier. Differential treatment of these situations reflects outdated conceptions that ignore the right of women to decide and fend for themselves. 

Most Western militaries, after carrying out in-depth studies, have concluded that there are no positions whose essence and nature "require" closing them to women. There is no reason for this conclusion not to also apply to positions in the IDF.

Successfully coping with the mental stress involved in combat situations requires social support, and it is necessary to ensure that women receive this support. The key is in the hands of unit commanders, and senior commanders have responsibility for imparting these approaches. An appropriate environment and organizational culture that encourages the integration of women in units must be guaranteed. In addition, the IDF must ensure zero tolerance for incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and deal harshly with such incidents. On this issue the IDF is a leader compared to other militaries, and it should continue to be a "light unto the nations" in this respect. 

Presumably at first only a few women will succeed in being accepted into combat units, but any social change involves a prolonged process. It is necessary to overcome social conceptions that are instilled at a young age and devise ways to cope with a challenging masculine environment. This was the norm in every new area where women advanced – from secretaries to managers, from nurses to doctors, and so on. Therefore, a small number of candidates cannot justify completely preventing the acceptance of women, and the necessary adaptations should be made in order to enable the placement and service of women. Otherwise a vicious circle will develop that perpetuates the continued exclusion of women from these positions. As time passes, more women will try out for combat positions, and more women will succeed in completing the training. In order for this process to succeed, it is recommended that at first these positions only be opened to women who are interested in them. Only later might the compulsory placement of women in such positions be considered.

Any attempt to present the advancement of women in the IDF as clashing with the advancement of "victory" should be rejected. There is no doubt that the purpose of the IDF is to protect the security of the country. Blocking the path of women to combat units misses an opportunity to integrate high-quality and highly motivated personnel in these units. The integration of suitable and outstanding women in all positions, including the opportunities inherent in this process – enabling senior female officers to integrate afterwards in the decision making forums of the IDF – will improve the IDF's capabilities both on the operational and strategic levels, and will increase the prospects of success in important missions. The integration of women in the decision making circle is not only justified because women are half of the population, but also because studies have made clear that the integration of women improves decision making processes and their results. Consequently, there is no clash between the value of equality and success in the IDF missions – on the contrary, the integration of women in all of the IDF's units will advance both equality and the pursuit of victory.