Asa Kasher

The tension between the top political and military echelons against the background of the judicial overhaul underscores the need for defined, normative civil-military relations – for the good of national security

The opposition to the proposed judicial overhaul by officers in the IDF reserves, which linked volunteering to serve with the democratic nature of the state, aroused much criticism and charges that this constituted an unacceptable political statement. Prof. Asa Kasher explains why he believes this is precisely the opposite – namely, a legitimate move that reflects loyalty to the values of the IDF

“The Spirt of the IDF,” the IDF ethical code formulated twenty years ago, was updated recently with a new fundamental value: “stateliness” (mamlachtiyut, in Hebrew). What did Chief of Staff Kochavi intend with his addition of the term, and how can this value be best instilled among IDF soldiers and the general public?

The ethical doctrine of the war on terror is a set of principles that reflects an orderly conception dealing with the proper ways of conducting warfare against terrorism. Such a doctrine mediates between abstract values such as the “IDF spirit,” designed to guide commanders’ and soldiers’ behavior in any circumstances during their operations, and regulations, ROEs, and orders given to guide their behavior in a mission of a certain kind, under specific circumstances, at a specific time, and in a specific place. The ethical doctrine at the background of this article and the articles published in a previous issue of this journal is the ethical doctrine for fighting terror that was developed in the context of the war between Israel and Palestinian terrorist organizations during the first decade of this century. The writers of this article developed it with the help of a team at the IDF Defense College and with the participation of specialists in anti-terror warfare and IDF and academic specialists in ethics and international law. The doctrine was presented in various official forums, and was subsequently published in professional journals. Although it has not been officially adopted as the IDF ethical code of war on terror, three chiefs of staff who were in office during the period of fighting terror and many other officers have expressed support for its principles on various occasions, and many regard it as the Israeli doctrine.

In a democratic state the question of when it is appropriate to embark on a war is within the purview of the government, because it is the body responsible for any activity touching on relations between states and other political entities. This question has ramifications for defense of the state, its citizens, and its soldiers. Similarly, the question of what is appropriate action after the war, when working towards peace, is within the government’s purview because any step towards a settlement between the parties is of political significance in terms of foreign relations and is of internal political significance. The second question, however, deals with the activity of the military, a professional state organization, and often can be dealt with apart from the other two questions. This essay deals with the distinction between what is and what is not proper in military activity during an operation or in a war.