Women in Israel reached a milestone this week when the IDF’s General Staff Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal) welcomed its first-ever female member.
This comes after the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice in HCJ 3227/20 Mika Kliger v. Minister of Defense, ruled on April 13 that the IDF must provide equal opportunities for women to apply for combat roles, and ordered the military to move forward with opening additional positions, including operational trials for female soldiers in the maneuvering Armored Corps by the November 2026 draft cycle.
While many Israelis support this decision, others view it as a calamity. The ongoing debate reflects larger questions about the future character of the IDF and whether it should prioritize maximum integration based on individual rights or preserve traditional frameworks to maintain unity and combat effectiveness.
Against this move is a coalition of prominent Orthodox-Zionist rabbis from the Torat Ha’aretz HaTova organization who have issued a sharp letter condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling on mixed-gender service in the IDF, describing it as a serious threat to the army’s operational effectiveness and Israel’s Jewish character.
The rabbis, who convened at the home of Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, expressed deep concern over judicial overreach into military, religious and societal matters. According to a report in Israel National News, they argued that the court’s interference exceeds its proper authority and disrupts longstanding arrangements among the state, the military and religious institutions.
In their letter, the rabbis warned that such rulings “endanger soldiers’ lives, damage Israel’s social cohesion and create dangerous internal divisions within the nation.” They reaffirmed their support for the Chief Rabbinate as the highest religious authority in Israel and stated that judicial decisions contradicting the Chief Rabbinate’s halakhic guidance should not be obeyed.
A central focus of the letter is the push to integrate female soldiers into combat roles, particularly in the Armored Corps.
The rabbis described this development as “a grave violation of Jewish law,” citing the biblical principle of maintaining sanctity in military camps. They argued that mixing men and women in such units harms operational readiness and contravenes Torah prohibitions. Beyond religious concerns, they highlighted practical risks, cautioning that expanding mixed-gender policies could lead thousands of Orthodox and traditional soldiers to avoid front-line service, weakening the IDF’s combat strength.
While the rabbis’ position emphasizes preserving the IDF’s cohesion and alignment with Jewish tradition, the Supreme Court ruling has drawn strong support from women’s rights advocates who view it as a milestone for equality.
Gali Zinger, interim CEO of the Israel Women’s Network, hailed the decision as historic. She told JNS: “This is a historic day. Today, young, courageous women won, women who fought for six years against the State of Israel so that it would not discriminate against them solely because of their gender—and with them, all of Israeli society won.”
Zinger stressed the contribution women can make.
“These amazing women sought to contribute to the country according to their skills and abilities,” she said. “The Israeli public must continue to demand shared and equal service, which will ease the burden on those who serve and open doors to meaningful roles for everyone, women and men alike.”
Burden of proof
Shelly Blatt Zak, CEO of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University, defended the legal framework of the ruling.
In response to questions about the balance between equality and military needs, she told JNS, “The ruling is unequivocal: Equal opportunity in IDF service is a binding legal obligation. The exclusion of women from combat roles must be limited to exceptional cases, for which the army is required to provide detailed justification.”
She added, “This represents a correct and necessary reversal of the burden of proof ..., equal opportunity is not a favor granted to women, but a right. Of course, legitimate operational needs can justify specific restrictions, but these must be based on substantive, evidence-based reasoning, not on stereotypical assumptions about women’s capabilities.”
On the pilot program for armored units, Blatt Zak argued for clear standards.
“The criteria for determining whether the pilot ‘succeeds’ must be transparent, measurable and free of manipulation,” she told JNS. “The female petitioners asked for one thing only: ‘The right to compete honorably under the exact same standards and criteria applied to men—nothing more and nothing less.’”
She further emphasized operational benefits, quoting Justice Daphne Barak-Erez: “The integration of women into combat roles not only advances the realization of the right to equality, but also reflects the army’s own need to make maximum use of the human potential available in the country to meet its security challenges. This is not, therefore, a balancing act between security needs and the right to equality; on the contrary, these are two vectors pointing in the same direction.”
The contrasting positions highlight a deep societal divide. The rabbis maintain that the court’s intervention risks fracturing the delicate balance that has allowed Orthodox soldiers to serve effectively, potentially causing mass avoidance of combat roles by traditional communities. And while the rabbis warn of weakened military readiness and cultural erosion, women’s rights advocates see the ruling as advancing both equality and security.
Zinger noted that women already make up approximately 21% of combat soldiers and said they “have proven again and again ... that women can serve in every role, and that their value to Israel’s security is immense.”
Blatt Zak pointed to real-world examples of the female soldiers’ role in combat, stating, “On October 7, [2023], three tanks from the all-female Fara company raced for an hour along the combat route, assaulted dozens of terrorists, ran over attackers and broke through the gate of Kibbutz Holit. This is not theory; it is battlefield proof.”
