(2016/5776)

Israel’s enemies have long sought to wage a war of words against the Jewish State with attempts to delegitimize the Jewish State. The Israeli leadership takes these verbal attacks quite seriously as damage to Israel’s image and regards them as threats to the vitality and even survival of the Jewish State. In fact, Tzahal (the Israeli Defense Forces) routinely sends a videographer into combat situations to record the events to defend Israel from its determined detractors. The fact that Tzahal risks the lives of the videographers by sending them into a combat zone demonstrates how seriously Tzahal takes these threats. Moreover, important IDF missions are sometimes postponed or even canceled if a videographer is not available to record Tzahal’s activities.

The Israeli army spokesman is responsible for defending the moral legitimacy of Tzahal’s activities against Israel’s many detractors. The internet and handheld cameras used by those who are eager to defame the Jewish State make the job of the Israeli army spokesman that much more challenging. The world of news has become extremely fast-paced and news agencies demand immediate responses from the Israeli army spokesman to anti-Tzahal/Israel claims. If the Tzahal spokesman does not respond immediately[2], then the anti-Israel claim is broadcasted worldwide, causing considerable damage to Israel’s image.

The Halachic Issue

Religious soldiers serving in the office of the Tzahal spokesman have raised the following Halachic question to the Israeli army rabbinate: Are they permitted to violate Shabbat or Yom Tov for the purpose of public relations? Tzahal is undoubtedly permitted to wage war on Shabbat if no reasonable alternative exists, since the military activities are waged with the goal of directly save lives.

The question is whether the waging of the war of public relations qualifies as a war that directly saves lives and therefore justifies Chillul Shabbat. Avihud Schwartz, a young man who worked in the Beit Midrash (think tank) of Israel’s army rabbinate, discusses this issue in an essay printed in volume 30 (published in 2010) of the Israeli Torah journal “Techumin.” While the “Techumin” essay is an excellent essay and it is well worth sharing its main points, an updated perspective from an American rabbi can contribute significantly to the analysis and diagnosis of the issue as well as in shaping a policy for the Israeli army.

Perhaps one could argue that the media is to be regarded as a world of falsehoods where truth is not a sacred value and thus waging the media war is fundamentally an exercise in futility[3]. The critical question is, what is the actual damage incurred by the State of Israel when it loses a public relations battle? Are the consequences simply economic? Is Israel’s security impacted? The answer may very well vary from case to case. A specific focus in this essay is the impact of Israel’s image upon the American government’s relationship with the State of Israel.

The “Techumin” essay addresses the following four examples of situations that might be regarded as “borderline Pikuach Nefesh” (although some of these situations lean more to Pikuach Nefesh than others). One such situation is where Palestinian media claim that Tzahal deliberately destroyed a mosque and Israeli soldiers in the area vehemently deny the charge. Is the Tzahal spokesman permitted to broadcast a response to counter the Palestinian charge? Israel’s failure to promptly respond will not be interpreted by outsiders as emerging from respect for Shabbat or Yom Tov but rather as a concession that the anti-Israel accusation is true. Such an unanswered accusation is quite dangerous as it may spark rioting by some from the Arab community.

A common tactic of some of Israel’s enemies is to fire at Israelis from a crowded civilian area. If Israel captures on film, for example, Arab terrorists firing at Israel from the top of a civilian apartment building, may the Tzahal spokesman broadcast this event on Shabbat in order to justify a Tzahal military response that may unavoidably cause the loss of civilian life[4]? The broadcasting of such a film will mitigate the severity of the world reaction to Israel’s accidentally causing Arab civilian injuries and/or deaths. Does the protection of Israel’s image in this situation justify Chillul Shabbat or Yom Tov? Similarly, if an Israeli drone films Palestinians placing explosives in an ambulance, may Israel’s spokesman broadcast this event on Shabbat in order to discourage such Palestinian behavior[5]? The last example was posed by a religious Israeli soldier working in the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. If the American government demands on Shabbat or Yom Tov an immediate justification/explanation of an activity conducted by Tzahal, does this warrant Chillul Shabbat or Yom Tov[6]?

The Responses of Four Leading Religious Zionist Posekim

Rav Nachum Rabinovitch, the Rosh Yeshivah of the Yeshivat Hesder[7] of Ma’alei Adumim, appropriately responds that “the Halachic response to this issue is not at all simple and clear.” He concludes that each case must be judged upon its own merit as to whether it qualifies as Pikuach Nefesh and that it is impossible to present an all-encompassing answer of permissible or forbidden regarding this topic.

Rav Rabinovitch correctly fears unwarranted and wholesale violation of Shabbat on the one hand, but he also fears for inadequate preservation of Israel’s safety. If our enemies knew that Israel’s public relations office does not function on Shabbat, they would easily manipulate the situation to their advantage and our loss. On the other hand, not every situation, as is clear from the examples we presented, warrants Chillul Shabbat. Thus, each case must be evaluated separately as to its potential impact on Israel’s security.

Rav Dov Lior, the Rav of Kiryat Arba/Chevron and Rosh Yeshivah of its Yeshivat Hesder, permits activities that are forbidden only rabbinically on Shabbat or Yom Tov but forbids violating Biblical level prohibitions for the purposes of public relations. Rav Lior defines telephone calls and writing on the computer as forbidden only on a rabbinic level. Rav Lior regards public relations as “indirect Pikuach Nefesh” that is analogous to manufacturing ammunition which is usually not produced even in war time.

Rav Lior suggests that Biblically forbidden activities, such as driving a motor vehicle, should be performed by a Nochri in case of legitimate need. He suggests that a trustworthy Nochri be designated to drive items such as a disc from a battlefield to military headquarters in Tel Aviv[8].

Rav Shlomo Levy, the Rosh Kollel of Yeshivat Har Etzion, responds similarly that in general only rabbinic level prohibitions may be violated for the sake of Israel’s public relations and that arrangements should be made in advance wherever possible to have Nochrim perform forbidden tasks on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Rav Levy compares this situation to Chazal’s concern for “Eivah” (hatred or enmity), for which they consider permitting violation of rabbinic prohibitions (see the many sources addressing this issue, cited in Nishmat Avraham Volume 1 to Orach Chaim 330:2). Rav Levy wisely suggests that experts should be consulted to help formulate guidelines[9] as to which public relations situations require immediate attention on Shabbat and which may be delayed until after Shabbat.

Rav Yisrael Rosen of Machon Tzomet, an Israeli institute dedicated to utilizing technology to solve Halachic challenges, argues for utilizing Machon Tzomet equipment in the office of the Tzahal spokesman. He notes that the necessary equipment has already been developed by Machon Tzomet. These include telephones which operate on the “Gerama” principle (accomplishing a task in an indirect manner) and computer keyboards which operate by changing electric current rather than by completing electric circuits. Rav Rosen writes that this type of equipment was developed specifically for these types of “gray areas” so prevalent in the area of security and medicine, which may be defined as essential but not life threatening.

Conclusion

We will, God willing, complete our discussion of this topic next week by highlighting an enlightening and surprising interaction between religious Israeli diplomat Yehuda Avner and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

[1] A special thank you to Kesher Israel of Washington, D.C., where I delivered a Shiur on this topic on Parashat Pinechas 5776. The many insights of the participants in the Shiur, many of whom hold responsible positions in government and political think tanks, have greatly enriched our discussion.

[2] Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, in his celebrated essay “Kol Dodi Dofeik” (written in 1956) mentions the pride he experiences when he reads in a newspaper that the response of the Israeli government is not yet known since its offices are closed on Shabbat. Journalists at the time had the integrity to note that the Israeli response will be forthcoming. Today, if the Israeli government does not offer an immediate response, Israel defamation can “go viral” with all the attendant damage to Israel. Few journalists will have the patience and/or integrity to note that the Israeli response will be forthcoming after the Jewish Sabbath or holiday. The notion of not receiving an immediate response is an alien concept in the current environment. The culture of an immediate response is even more pronounced in the contemporary media culture.

[3] A cynic might also claim that the media is incurably biased against Israel and that attempts to preserve a positive image for Israel is futile. While there is some basis for this approach, this approach ignores the fact that polls consistently demonstrate that a large majority of Americans remain supportive for the Jewish State. Preserving this majority support is critical to maintaining American military and political support of Israel. In addition, Israel’s Foreign Ministry has recently scored many successes in drawing a wide variety of countries closer to Israel. As reported by Wikipedia, Israel has diplomatic ties with 157 of the 192 member states of the United Nations as well as with Vatican City and the European Union. It seems that Israel’s public relations effort have borne significant fruit.

[4]For a discussion as to why Halachah permits such military activity if no reasonable alternative exists, see Gray Matter 3 (pages 211-223).

[5] This case is difficult to justify Chillul Shabbat. One would have to argue that, if not broadcast immediately, it would be disregarded as “antiquated,” since the contemporary shelf life of news is exceedingly short.

[6] With Sabbath observant Jews holding very high offices in the United States government (such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and Jack Lew, who served as the President’s Chief of Staff from 2012-2013), some have suggested that these high placed officials can explain the reason for delay to United States government officials. However, a Torah Academy of Academy of Bergen County graduate who has worked with the government for many years noted that the idea of a twenty-four hour delay due to Sabbath observance is completely foreign and unfathomable to many and would not be received well by government officials.

[7] Students who study at Yeshivot Hesder serve in the Israeli army, usually in combat units. Each of the four Posekim cited in this essay are Religious Zionists who are deeply committed to the continued thriving of Medinat Yisrael.

[8] The utilization of Nochrim, as well as the use of telephone and computer, appears to provide adequate public relations responses.

[9] Formal guidelines are a must in these scenarios to avoid hesitation and delay when a timely response is sorely needed. The Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:5; cited by the Mishnah Berurah 328:6) condemns Torah scholars who are posed with the question as to whether danger to life warrants the desecration of Shabbat. The Mishnah Berurah explains that a Torah scholar should publicize the fact that one must desecrate the Shabbat in case of Pikuach Nefesh, in order that if an emergency arises people respond expeditiously and without delay.