Date post: | 16-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | pablo-moya |
View: | 222 times |
Download: | 1 times |
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 1/25
Homosexuality and the Israel
Defense Forces Did Lifting
the ay Ban Undermine
Military Performance?
AARON BELKIN AND MELISSA LEVITT
A
S the number of countries that permit gay and lesbian soldiers to
serve in the armed forces has grown over the past two decades, it
has become increasingly important to determine whether official deci-
sions to include homosexual service members in the military lead to
changes in organizational performance. Although most NATO coun-
tries as well as a handful of other nations allow gay and lesbian soldiers
to serve, there has been little empirical analysis of whether the decision
to lift a gay ban influences the armed forces ability to pursue their
missions. Theoretical studies have addressed this topic, but there has
been no in-depth empirical work on the actual consequences of a
decision to lift a gay ban.
Israel is a case in point. A few scholars conducted careful studies in
the immediate aftermath of Israel s 1993 decision to abolish restrictions
on gay and lesbian soldiers. However, the long-term impact of the new
policy was not immediately apparent and even the most thorough of
these early analyses is only eight pages long.^ Our rationale for consid-
AARON BELKIN is an assistant professor in the political science department at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and Director of the Center for the Study of
Sexual Minorities
in the
Military.
His
research interests include gays
in the
military, civil-
military relations, and social science methodology. He is co-editor of Counterfactual
Thought Experiments in World
Politics
published
by
Princeton University Press
in 1996.
Address or correspondence: Dr. Aaron Belkin, Department of Political Science, Univer-
sity
of
California, Santa Barbara,
CA
93106-9420. E-mail: be\km@SSCF UCSB EDU
MELISSA LEVITT is an adjunct professor of political science at San Francisco State
University. Her research interests include Israeli politics, survey research methods, and
immigration policy. In addition to her scholarly work, Ms. Levitt has conducted research
for both private and public organ izations, including the Center for Urban Research in New
York.
ARMED FORCES SOCIETY, Vol. 27, No.
4,
Summer 2001, pp. 541-565.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 2/25
542 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
ering more recent evidence, accum ulated in the eight years since Israel
lifted its gay ban, is that with its history of over half a century of
continuous military engagement,
the
Israel Defense Forces
IDF) are
considered
to be one of
the premiere fighting forces
in the
world.
The
Israeli case thus affords an opportunity to examine the impact of lifting
a gay ban in a high-stakes security context. After discussing the histori-
cal evolution
of
Israel's homosexual personnel policy,
we
examine
whether
its
decision
to
abolish restrictions
on gay and
lesbian soldiers
influenced military performance, readiness, cohesion, or morale. Fi-
nally, we ask if lessons from the Israeli case may be relevant for
determining whether lifting the Am erican gay ban would undermine the
effectiveness
of the
U.S. armed forces.
Our
findings
are
that Israel's
decision to lift its ban had no impact on performance and that, despite
differences between the two cases, lessons from the Israeli experience
are relevant
for
determining what would happen
if the
U.S. Congress
and Pentagon lifted
the
A merican
gay ban.
Historical ontext
The Israel Defense Forces play
a
central role
in the
daily life
and
identity of the Israeli people.^ Since its founding in 1948, Israel has
fought five major wars, conducted numerous major operations against
hostile neigh bors, and supplied an army
of
occupa tion in the West Bank
and Gaza for more than 30 years. The w ide-ranging and extensive nature
of these operations
has
provided
the IDF
with nearly unparalleled
combat experience. Israelis rely on a strong military to ensure their
safety as citizens and as a nation, and the IDF has been central to the
Israeli sense of mission concerning the renewal of the Jewish hom eland.
Although the prestige
of
the IDF has declined somew hat in recent years
and although it no longer plays as prom inent
a
role in the na tion-building
process as
it
once did, the IDF remains an important institution in Israeli
life and the boundaries between civilian and military culture remain
porous or, according to some views, virtually nonexistent.' *
The IDF acts as an important agent of socialization for Israelis as
well. M ilitary service is mandatory for Jewish men and women at the age
of 18, and
it
provides
a
common experience
for
young Israelis entering
adulthood.
Men
serve
for
three years
and
women
for
just under
two
years. While women
do not
serve
in
combat
and
primarily occupy
support roles,
in
recent years they have gained g reater access
to
a range
of opportunities such as that of elite fighter p ilot training. Once Israelis
complete active duty, men remain in the reserves until they are 55 and
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 3/25
Belkin and Levitt 543
women serve in the reserves until they marry or turn 24. Because Israel
is home to a large number of immigrants and includes people with
diverse cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds, the IDF
still embraces the ideals of a melting pot for many Israeli groups.^
The Israeli military never has formally prohibited service by homo-
sexuals. Because of the personnel demands of a nation continuously at
war, the IDF generally has pursued an officially inclusive conscription
policy. Before 1980, however, known homosexuals usually were dis-
charged . In 1983, the IDF for the first tim e officially spelled out
regulations relating to homosexuality in the Manpower Division Stand-
ing Order K 31-11 -01, Service of Hom osexuals in the ID F. The
regulation stated that homosexuals would not be limited in their posi-
tions or discharged from service solely because of their sexual orienta-
tion. It did, however, prohibit sexual minorities from serving in top
secret and intelligence positions. The order required officers to refer
suspected homosexuals to a mental health evaluation center to deter-
mine whether they were security risks and maintained sufficient men tal
strength and m aturity for military service. Based upon the results of the
evaluation, the Field Security Department could decide to do nothing,
terminate the soldier's service, limit his or her deployment, or conduct
an extensive security investigation. The IDF did not maintain regula-
tions that were specific to homosexual behavior because military codes
prohibited all sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, on
military base s, as well as sexual relationships between officers and their
subordinates.*
In
1993,
the IDF faced mounting opposition to its restrictive policy in
the wake of the Knesset's first hearings on homosexual issues. Professor
Uzi Even, chairman of Tel Aviv University's Chemistry Department,
created a public sensation when he testified that he had been stripped of
his rank of officer and barred from sensitive IDF research in the 1980s
because of his sexual orientation. Even conducted highly classified
military research for 15 years and was open about his sexual orientation
and therefore not at-risk for blackmail when the IDF revoked his security
clearance.^ His testimony created a public storm— against the military
and for Even. * In response, the IDF issued a statement declaring that it
did not discriminate against gays and lesbians and did not prohibit
homosexuals as a group from sensitive assignments. Prime Minister
Rabin declared, I do n't see any reason
t
discriminate against hom osexu-
als,
and called for a military committee to explore the matter.'
The military committee then drafted amendments to the 1983 order
that officially recogn iz[ed] that hom osexuals are entitled to serve in the
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 4/25
544 Armed Forces
Society/Summer 2001
military as are others and declared that sexual minorities would be
judg ed fit for service accord ing to the criteria in force for all cand idates
for security serv ice. ' The amendm ents also shifted the assump tion of
security risk away from sexual minorities as a group. As a rule,
placem ent or advancement of sexual minorities in the military would not
be restricted. Cases where a possible security risk existed were to be
handled on an individual basis. According to official policy, gay and
lesbian soldiers were to be treated the same as their heterosexual peers.
Effect of roF Inclusion of Sexual Minorities
In order to determine whether Israel's decision to lift its gay ban
undermined military performance, cohesion, readiness, or morale, we
gathered information systematically from six different types of publicly
available Hebrew and English language sources including (1) all pub-
lished scholarly books and journal articles on the topic; (2) interviews
of all known experts on the issue of gays in the Israeli m ilitary (listed in
Appendix 1) from the Defense Ministry, the IDF, Israeli and American
universities and civil rights organizations (n=35); (3) all newspaper
articles and wire service dispatches relating to homosexual service in
the IDF stored in the Lexis/Nexis M iddle East database (1985 -2000; n=
24); (4) all articles on Hebrew University's Internet collection of
newspaper and magazine stories concerning sexual minorities (1993-
2000 ; n=199 ); (5) fourteen Israeli web sites related to gay and lesbian
issues; (6) governm ent docum ents that included tran scripts of Knesset
hearings and military orders relevant to homosexual service in the
IDF.
Although our footnotes do not list citations to most of these
sources, we examined all of them and included the most relevant
references in the article. Certainly it is possible that we missed some
evidence, although we tried to ensure that our universe of sources was
comprehensive. For example, we asked interview subjects repeatedly
to suggest additional experts from different sectors and we contacted
all suggested individuals.
In our search for published evidence in English and in Hebrew we
were unable to find any data indicating that lifting the gay ban under-
mined Israeli military performance, cohesion, readiness, or morale. In
addition, none of the 35 experts we interviewed could recount any
indication that the lifting of the gay ban comprom ised military effective-
ness.
The comments of Professor Stuart Cohen, a professor and senior
research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan Univer-
sity, who has written extensively on the Israeli military, w ere typical of
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 5/25
Belkin and Levitt 545
our findings: As far as I have been able to tell, hom osexua ls do not
constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the
IDF.
In fact, the
entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is con-
ce rne d. In a recent interview for ABC new s, Israeli Brigadier-
General Oded Ben comm ented that Israelis show a great tolerance
with respect to hom osexual so ldiers in the military.'^ Scholars, offi-
cials, NGO observers, and service members interviewed for this report
echoed the theme of tolerance put forward by the brigadier-general.
When asked if she had experienced any problems because of her sexual
orientation, for exam ple, a female soldier who served between 1993 and
1996 stated: I was quite amazed to find ou t that people either thought
that my sexual orientation was 'coo l' or were indifferent to it . Am ir
Fink, the co-author of Independence Park: The Lives of Gay Men in
Israel,
argues that the IDF policy changes, among larger societal
changes, have resulted in a more open attitude in the military: I believe
that... after the 1993 change in regulations there are more soldiers who
are aware of
the
fact that there a re gays in the unit and [that] they should
treat them decently. *
In an October 1999 article on sexual minorities in the military
entitled, Com ing Out of the Kitbag , the IDF newspaper Ba machne
includes comments from seventeen heterosexual soldiers about their
attitudes about having a gay com m and er. W hile the responses do not
constitute a representative sample of heterosexual IDF personnel, they
are consistent with the results of our interviews and literature searches.
Two of the seventeen soldiers (12%) interviewed for the Ba machne
article felt that serving under a homosexual commander would consti-
tute
problem for
them.
One soldier explained that The truth is it would
be a bit strange for me. Not that I am primitive or homophobic, but
among my friends there aren't any gays. I would try to get used to the
idea and if I did not succeed I would request a transfer. I do not think that
gays are less good, but it would be a bit difficult or strange for me . The
rest of the respondents stated that the sexual orientation of their com-
manding officer would not make a difference to them. Ayah provides
one example of this attitude: I respect gays a lot. There is no problem
with their service in the Army. It is none of my business if my
commanding officer is gay. If he has already decided to participate this
does not have to interfere with work...
W hile the question posed about working under a gay comm ander did
not address the issue of showering together specifically, 12 of the
respondents brought up this issue as well. Three soldiers expressed
some concern about showering with a homosexual solider, although
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 6/25
546 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
t h e y s t a t e d th a t i n g e n e r a l t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h g a y s o l d i e r s .
S e c o n d L i e u t e n a n t G a l i n H u m a n R e s o u r c e s e x p l a i n e d h i s f e e l i n g s : I
d o n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g a g a i n s t h o m o s e x u a l s i n t h e a r m y . T h e y ' r e c i t i z e n s
o f I s r a e l l i k e y o u a n d m e . T h e s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e w o r k e r s a r o u n d
m e d o e s n ' t i n t e r e s t m e . I t d o e s i n t e r e s t m e i f h i s o u t p u t s u f f e r s f r o m i t ,
m a y b e if i t b o t h e r s h i m a n d h e n e e d s h e l p . I w o u l d n ' t s h o w e r w i t h h i m .
T h e r e a r e c u b i c l e s h e r e a t [ t h e o f f i c e r ' s t r a i n i n g
b a s e ] .
E i g h t o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t s s t a te d t h a t t h e y h a v e n o p r o b l e m s s h o w e r i n g w i t h s e x u a l
m i n o r i t i e s . D i m a , a n o f f ic e r , e x p r e s s e d t h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t s w h o b r o u g h t u p t h e i s s u e : T h e y ' r e c i t i z e n s o f t h e s t a t e , l i k e
a l l t h e o t h e r c i t i z e n s . I t h i n k t h a t e v e n i f t h e y h a v e a d i f f e r e n t s e x u a l
o r i e n t a t i o n , t h a t d o e s n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h h a t e f u l f e e l i n g s . I
d o n ' t h a v e a p r o b l e m s h o w e r i n g w i t h [ h o m o s e x u a l s ] . I t s e e m s t o m e t h a t
i t w o u l d n ' t b e a p r o b l e m .
N o s t a t i s t i c s h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d o n t h e n u m b e r o f i n c i d e n t s o f
h a r a s s m e n t o f k n o w n h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e I D F . I n 1 9 9 3 , i n t h e
w a k e of t h e c h a n g e s in I D F p o l i c i e s t o w a r d h o m o s e x u a l s , th e K n e s s e t
e m p a n e l l e d a c o m m i t t e e to i n v e s t i g a t e c o m p l a i n t s o f h a r a s s m e n t . U z i
E v e n , w h o w a s i n v o l v e d i n t h e r e v i e w , s t a t e d t h a t n o n e o f t h e c a s e s h a d
t h e i r r o o t s i n a n t i - g a y b i a s . ' * B r i g a d i e r - G e n e r a l U r i S h o h a m , t h e
m i l i t a r y ' s j u d g e a d v o c a t e g e n e r a l , r e p o r t e d r e c e n t l y t h a t h a r a s s m e n t
b e c a u s e o f s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s v e r y r a r e a n d t h a t h e c o u l d r e m e m b e r
f e w , i f a n y , c a s e s . H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h a t h e h a d n e v e r h a d t o d e a l
w i t h h a r a s s m e n t a g a i n s t g a y t r o o p s i n h i s c a r e e r a s a m i l i t a r y l a w y e r .
B e c a u s e i n d i v i d u a l c o m m a n d e r s g e n e r a l l y h a n d l e h a r a s s m e n t , h o w -
e v e r , S h o h a m ' s l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f s u c h c a s e s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t
p r o b l e m s h a v e n o t o c c u r r e d . ' ^ F o r e x a m p l e , a f e m a l e o f f i c e r p r e s e n t l y
i n t h e I D F t o l d u s t h a t s h e e x p e r i e n c e d g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e f r o m m o s t o f
h e r s u p e r i o r s a n d p e e r s . S h e s a i d t h a t I n t h e u n i t I s e r v e i n I h a v e h e a r d
o f n o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( in e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n ) t o w a r d g a y s . S h e a d d e d ,
h o w e v e r , t h a t [ r ] u m o r s ( u s u a l l y f r o m t h e n e w s ) d o s h o w t h e e x i s t e n c e
o f s o m e s u c h p r o b l e m s i n ' c l o s e d u n i t s ' ( [ w ] h e r e o n e l i v e s o n b a s e ) . ' ^
W a l z e r u n c o v e r e d t w o c a s e s o f h a r a s s m e n t of h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s
i n t h e I D F . I n o n e , a f e m a l e f o r m e r s o l d i e r r e c o u n t e d i n 1 9 9 7 h o w t h e
m a l e o f f i c e rs o n h e r b a s e t r i e d t o s l e e p w i t h f e m a l e s o l d i e r s : T h e t h i n g
w a s t h a t a n y g i r l w h o r e f u s e d g o t a r e p u t a t i o n a s a l e s b i a n . A n d t h e w a y
i t w a s p o r t r a y e d w a s v e r y d i r t y . I t ' s t r u e t h a t n o n e o f t h e m w e r e l e s b i a n s ,
b u t t h e r e s p o n s e to t h e m w a s s o h a r s h t h a t I d i d n ' t d a r e s a y a n y t h i n g .
E v e n t h o u g h h e r c o m m a n d e r e v e n t u a l l y d e a l t w i t h t h e p r o b l e m , t h e
h u m i l i a t i n g t r e a t m e n t c o n v i n c e d h e r t o k e e p si l e n t a b o u t h e r o w n s e x u a l
o r i e n t a t i o n . W h e n t o l d o f t h e t w o e x a m p l e s o f h a r a s s m e n t . B r i g a d i e r -
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 7/25
Belkin and Levitt 547
General Shoham replied that if they were the only cases that had come
to light, the military's policy could be considered quite successful. In
light of his research, Walzer believes that vicious harassment of sexual
minorities in the IDF is rare.
The IDF does not conduct any special education or sensitivity
training related to sexual orientation issues. In contrast, the Israeli
military provides training on sexual abuse of women and harassment of
new immigrants and Mizrachim, Israelis of North African or Middle
Eastern origin.^ One board mem ber of Agudaht Zechuyot Ha-ezrach ,
Israel's primary gay-rights group, expressed overall approval of the
military's policies toward sexual minorities but other scholars and
representatives of gay rights groups have declared that the IDF could do
more to address the concerns of sexual mino rities in the military and that
many soldiers are not aware of official policy.^'
The findings that emerged from our interview s and literature searches
are consistent w ith brief reports on the IDF prepared by the
U.S.
General
Accounting Office (GAO) and the RAND corporation in the immediate
aftermath of Israel's 1993 decision to abolish restrictions on gay and
lesbian soldiers.^^ In interviews with embassy and IDF officials, active
and reserve military personnel, scholars, a member of the Knesset, and
personnel from the leading homosexual rights and civil rights groups in
Israel, RAND and GAO researchers found that Israel's long-standing
informal inclusion of homosexuals in the military had neither created
internal problems nor jeopa rdized combat units. Officials interviewed
for the GAO report stated that homosexual soldiers performed as well
as heterosexual soldiers. Based on the officials' expe rience, hom o-
sexual soldiers had not adversely affected unit readiness, effective-
ness,
cohesion, or morale. ^^ Security personnel noted that hom osexual
soldiers were able to hold security clearances without posing an unnec-
essary security risk. Ga l, the director of the Israeli Institute for M ilitary
Studies, affirmed the findings of
th
GAO and RAND studies: Accord-
ing to military reports, [homosexuals'] presence, whether openly or
clandestinely, has not impaired the morale, cohesion, readiness, or
security of any unit. Perhaps the best indication of this overall perspec-
tive is the relative smoothness with which the most recent June 1993
repeal of the rema ining restrictions on homosexuals w as received within
the IDF and in Israeli society as a whole. ^ *
In the context of a country continuously at war, lack of service is
considered suspect. Unrestricted participation in the military by sexual
minorities therefore serves to bolster the core Israeli value of common
defense of
th
nation rather than to threaten m ilitary cohesion or m orale.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 8/25
548 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
When asked if he had heard any suggestion by military officials that
known homosexuals affected operational effectiveness, combat readi-
ness, or unit cohesion, a board m ember of the hom osexual-rights groups
Agudaht Zechuyot Ha-ezrach responded: No , I have never heard any
such nonsense.
Relevance to the Am erican Case
The issue of gays in the military has been hotly contested in the
United States in recent years. When President Bill Clinton attempted to
force the Pentagon to allow known gays and lesbians to serve in the
military at the beginning of his administration. Congress reacted by
including new statutory guidelines for homosexual service members in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. Accord-
ing to the comprom ise referred to as D on 't Ask, D on 't Te ll that was
embodied in Congressional law as well as Pentagon implementing
regulations, known homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the U.S.
armed forces. The unit cohesion rationale, the official justification for
the new policy, is that if known gays and lesbians w ere allowed to serve ,
unit cohesion, performance, readiness, and morale would decline.^*
During Congressional hearings that culminated in the passage of
D on 't Ask, D on 't Tell, and on numerous occasions since that time,
scholars and experts debated whe ther the experiences of foreign militar-
ies might confirm or falsify the plausibility of the unit cohesion ratio-
na le . Experts who advocate allowing known gays and lesbians in the
U.S. armed forces often claim that foreign military experiences prove
that performance does not decline after the lifting of a gay ban. Critics
often respond that foreign experiences are irrelevant to the American
case and that they do not show that the U.S. military would remain
effective if the gay ban were lifted.
As for Israel, experts (mostly U.S.) have raised three arguments to
bolster their claim that the evidence from the IDF is irrelevant for
determining wh ether the U.S. military w ould remain effective if the gay
ban were lifted. First, they have argued that even though Israel lifted all
restrictions on homosexuals in 1993, no known gay and lesbian soldiers
have served in combat or intelligence units of the
IDF.
Second , they say
that large organizational and cultural differences distinguish the Am eri-
can and Israeli cases. Third, they claim that gay and lesbian soldiers
receive special treatment in the
IDF.
We agree or partially agree with all
of these argum ents. Our interpretation of the findings, however, differs
from those of experts who claim that foreign military experiences are
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 9/25
Belkin and Levitt 549
irrelevant. While no single case study can show decisively what would
happen if the
U.S.
changed its policy, lessons from the Israeli experience
seem to us to be relevant for determ ining what w ould happen if the U .S.
Congress and Pentagon lifted the American gay ban. In particular, we
believe that the Israeli experience lends some weight to the claim that
Am erican military effectiveness would not decline if known homosexu-
als were allowed to serve.
Know n Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in Com bat and Intelligence Units of
the IDF
According to Professor Charles Moskos, one of the principal archi-
tects of D on 't Ask, D on 't Te ll, there are no known gay and lesbian
soldiers in combat or intelligence units of the IDF. During testimony
before the Senate Armed S ervices Committee in 1993 , M oskos stated
that known gay so ldiers were not assigned to elite combat units, did not
work for intelligence units, and did not hold comm and positions in any
branch.^* In later work, M oskos reaffirmed that gays are excluded
from elite combat units, and most sleep at their own homes rather than
in barrac ks. ^' During two recent appearances on National Public
Radio
Moskos said that there are no known gay soldiers in combat or
intelligence units of the IDF.^
Our findings indicate that he is partially correct. As is true with
many m ilitaries, a distinction m ust be made between official IDF policy
concerning sexual minorities and the realities of informal IDF practices
and culture. Like the rest of Israeli society, the IDF was until recently
an environment in which sexual minorities were largely invisible. Prior
to the lifting of the ban in 1993, the vast majority of gay and lesbian
soldiers kept their sexual orientation priv ate, due to fears of both official
sanc tions and ostracism from fellow soldiers.- Lesb ian and gay sol-
diers often preferred to wait until reserve service to be more open about
their sexual identity, since the atmosphere was less restrictive and more
conducive to a separate personal life. Rafi Niv,
journalist who writes
on gay issues, confirmed in 1993 that M ost gay soldiers I know are in
the closet. ^^
Even before Israel lifted its gay ban in 1993, how ever, some known
gay and lesbian soldiers did serve in the IDF and some were promoted
through the ranks and served in positions requiring top security clear-
ances. In 1993, for example, an Israeli military attache assigned to the
embassy in Washington, D C, declared that Israel did not have a blanket
ban on hom osexua ls for top-secret positions.^' Gal reported in 1994 that
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 10/25
550 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
prior to the lifting of the ban, much latitude normally was given when
a seasoned soldier was suddenly discovered to be a hom osexual. He said
that homosexual soldiers did in fact serve openly in units with top
security clearances and that soldiers who excelled were unlikely to be
removed once their sexual orientation was revealed. According to Gal,
Com manding officers, even in highly classified intelligence units, who
had homosexual soldiers who performed satisfactorily under their
command refrained from enforcing [the ban on homosexuals in sensi-
tive units]. ' ' '
All available evidence suggests that the IDF continues to be a place
where many homosexual soldiers choose not to disclose their sexual
orientation. As more gay Israelis have grown comfortable about ex-
pressing their orientation in recent years, however, greater open ness has
been found in the military as well.^' A woman w ho decided to bring her
partner to one of her ba se 's social events in 1997 explains that the
decision was preceded by consultations with my professional
commander....He recommended to me quite warmly not to hide my
sexual orientation and promised to support me professionally if there
were any problems following my revelation. ^* A June 2000 Israeli
television broadcast that was sanctioned by the IDF featured homo-
sexual active-duty and reserve soldiers discussing their experiences of
being gay in the m ilit ary. W alzer found that military personnel
generally reported positive responses to their coming out and in 1997 he
spotted a soldier in uniform at a gay pride march. When asked if
appearing in uniform could cause problems with military officials, the
soldier replied: No , not at all. I can come here in uniform. The m ilitary
command is accepting of [gay and lesbian soldiers]. ^* An officer
interviewed for this report had no problems rising through the ranks as
an open lesbian. When asked how overall attitudes had changed since
the 1993 policy change, the major replied: I have felt a change for the
better, mainly in the attitude of security o fficers, but not as big a change
(because not as big a change was needed) as it seems by the change in
army regulations. ^' While no official statistics exist on the number of
known gay and lesbian soldiers in the IDF today , these and other sources
indicate growing openness.
Even though we agree that most homosexuals in IDF combat and
intelligence units do not acknowledge their sexual orientation to peers,
it is also true that some known gays do serve in such un its. Indeed, some
IDF combat and intelligence units have developed a reputation as
particularly welcoming to gay and lesbian soldiers; some have even
developed a gay culture. Ro'ei, a tank corps soldier, reported in 1999
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 11/25
Belk in and Levit t
5 5
that I have not had any problems being gay. On the contrary, in my base
we had a large gay contingent. You would come to the base, and you
know one other gay person, who knows another gay person,
etc...
.In my
basic training, people knew that I was gay and it was enough that there
was one homophobe in my unit....A fter that, I had nothing to be afraid
of. People come out of the closet while they are civilians, why could I
not do it during the army? Sometimes, it's even easier because you are
protected from society. You don't have friends from the same town so
you can be more open in the army.' *
Kaplan and Ben-Ari conducted in-depth interviews with 21 self
identified gay IDF combat soldiers and found that five of them (23.8%)
were known to be homosexual by at least one other member in their
combat unit.*' If we estimate conserva tively that two percent of Isra el's
130,000 active duty land forces are gay, and if we extrapolate based on
K ap lan 's finding that 23.8 percent of gay combat soldiers are known by
at least one peer to be homosexual, then we can estimate that 2,600
active duty IDF foot soldiers are gay and that 619 of them are known by
at least one member of their unit to be homosexual.''•^ Even if this
informal estimate is wildly exaggerated, recall that opponents of lifting
the ban claim that no known gays serve in combat and intelligence units
in Israel. Even in combat and intelligence units with known gay soldiers,
however, we found
o
evidence of a deterioration in cohesion, perfor-
mance, readiness, or morale. Generals, ministry officials, scholars, and
NGO observers all have claimed that their presence has not eroded
cohesion, performance, readiness, or morale.
Those who believe that low disclosure rates underscore the irrel-
evance of foreign military experiences assume that if the American ban
were lifted, many gays and lesbians would reveal their sexual orienta-
tion. This assumption seems highly questionable.
considerable am ount
of evidence suggests that gay and lesbian soldiers in the U.S. and in
Israel are driven by the same factor: they reveal their sexual orientation
only when safe to do so. With regard to Israel, Fink confirmed the
impression of numerous experts who we interviewed: .. . I think it
really depends on the unit and on the commanders in the specific unit.
In some units it will be really
a
piece of cake to come out and people [will
f ind] it something that makes their unit more diverse, more
interesting....There are other units in which especially a commander
can be a conserva tive or homophobic and not help the gay soldier to be
part of the unit....' *'
The same calculus motivates Americans. For example, a study of
American police departments that allow open homosexuals to serve
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 12/25
552 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
identified seven known gays in the Chicago Police Department and
approximately 100 in the New York Police Department. Several differ-
ent factors may account for the variation in disclosure rates but scholars
who have compared organizations believe that much if not most of the
variance reflects the fact that safety is the primary determinant of Am eri-
cans' decisions to reveal sexual orientation. Since safety varies from
organization to organization depending on w hether leaders express clear
messages in support of integration, disclosure rates vary as well. Koegel
claims that Perhaps one of the most salient factors that influences
whether homosexual police officers or firefighters make their sexual
orientation known to their departments is their perception of the
climate...[T]he more hostile the environment, the less likely it was that
people publicly acknowledged their hom osexuality. ''' Similar variance
can be found in the U.S. military, and a recent study found that while 21.2
percent of naval officers know a gay sailor, only 4.1 percent of Marine
officers know a gay Marine. *^ It seems likely to us that this difference
results from the fact that it is safer to reveal one 's ho mosexuality in the
U.S. Navy than in the M arines. Indeed, at least one study has found the
U.S. Navy to be more tolerant toward hom osexua ls than the Marines. *'
To summ arize our response to the first argument, known hom osexu-
als do not undermine cohesion and performance in Israeli combat and
intelligence un its. And, the fact that many gay Israeli soldiers choose not
to reveal their orientation does not indicate that the Israeli experience is
irrelevant for determining what would happen if the U.S. lifted its gay
ban. On the contrary, the evidence shows that both Israelis and Ameri-
cans come out of the closet only when it is safe to do so. Scholars who
believe that many American gays and lesbians would reveal their sexual
orientation if the ban were lifted need to answer two questions . First, if
American culture or the American gay rights movement are primary
determinants of disclosure rates, then why have so few homosexuals
revealed their sexual orientation in some U.S. police and fire depart-
ments that allow known gays to serve? And second, why do the majority
of gay Israeli soldiers decline to reveal their sexual orientation despite
the recent emergence of an Israeli gay rights movement that includes
widely-attended pride parades and civic and human rights organiza-
tions? Even the Pentagon's own studies have found that gay and lesbian
soldiers are as committed to national security, patriotism, and military
effectiveness as their heterosexual peers. To suggest that they would
reveal their sexual orientation when doing so would undermine their
personal safety or the effectiveness of their units seems to contradict the
available evidence.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 13/25
B e l k in a n d L e v itt
553
pecial Treatment
Experts who claim that foreign experiences are irrelevant for deter-
mining if lifting the gay ban would undermine American military
performance argue that although many nations allow homosexuals to
serve in their armed forces, gay soldiers receive special treatment in
these cases. Even if the decision to allow known homosexuals to serve
does not harm the military, the special treatment that gays and lesbians
receive can undermine cohesion, performance, readiness, and morale.
In the case of Israel, for example, M oskos has noted that while it is true
that gays are expected to fulfill their military o bligation , it is also true
that they receive, de facto, special treatment. For example, gay soldiers
are assigned to open bases, allowing them to commute to and from
home and to sleep at their own homes rather than in barracks. '
Similar to the argument about the absence of known gays and
lesbians in combat and intelligence units, we have found that Moskos's
claim about special treatment is partially correct. Some evidence sug-
gests that prior to the 1993 decision, the IDF treated homosexual and
heterosexual soldiers equally in many cases. For example. Gal noted
that aside from a few exception s, hom osexua lity has almost no
bearing on an individual's m ilitary career. ™ Colonel Ron Levy, a
former head of t h e IDF mental health system, insisted that homosexuals
were not discriminated against by the military as a group.^'
How ever, other data confirm that treatmen t of gays and lesbians was
not always equitable before the
1 9 9 3
regulatory changes. Gal Uchovsky,
a journa list who analyzed IDF treatment of gays and lesbians, stated that
It' s a question of who you are and where you serve. ^^ An openly gay
reservist for an intelligence unit who had access to top-secret material
told one journalist that everyone knew that he and several other of the
un it's members were gay. It' s not an issue, he said. But he added after
a pause, in my un it. Ilan Sheinfeld, a reserve tank crew mem ber,
reported that security officers reduced his security ranking and alleg-
edly bugged his phone , although they did let up after he was transferred
to another j o b Sheinfeld declared that On e hand do esn 't know what the
other is doing.'
No quantitative data are available on whether sexual minorities
continue to face increased scrutiny for promotions and sensitive posi-
tions. Publicly, the IDF insists that homosexual soldiers are screened for
positions according to the same standards as heterosexual soldiers. For
exam ple, Brigadier-General Shoham, the judg e advocate gen eral, stated
in 1998 that the IDF accords equal rights and duties to gay and lesbian
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 14/25
5 54 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
soldiers. The comm ander in charge of draftees also reported in 1999 that
we are not interested in the sexual orien tation of the soldiers. ^^ In
support of these claims, a board member of Israel's primary gay rights
organization who was interviewed for this report knew of no cases in
which a soldier had been denied benefits, promotions, or assignments
because of his or her sexual orientation.'^ A review of newspaper
articles and web sites related to lesbian and gay issues in Israel also
uncovered no stories of soldiers who were denied promotions because
of their sexual orientation.
Even though available information suggests that official treatment
of sexual minorities has become more equitable since the 1993 removal
of homosexual restrictions, however, it seems clear that sexual minori-
ties do not always enjoy equal rights and that they con tinue to be viewed
with an increased level of scrutiny by some commanders. Official
differentiation still ex ists, if perhaps in a more muted form. For exam ple,
the IDF negotiated the first settlement providing survivor benefits to a
same-sex partner in 1997. How ever, the same-sex survivor received less
than the full monetary compensation usually given to war widows and
widow ers. While there are no rules against promoting gays and lesbians,
a clinical psychiatrist stated that soldiers in her care still suspec t that
if they come out, they won 't get a good position. ^^ Kaplan and B en-Ari
conclude that The new policy has only partly percolated into prac tice.
Similar to what has been found among other nations of NATO, full
integration has tended to lag behind policy changes. ^*
Despite the lack of perfectly equal treatment in all cases, several
important qualifications should be noted. To begin, we found that
unequal treatment is rare and that most Israeli gay and lesbian soldiers
are treated like their heterosexual peers m ost of the time.^' Gay soldiers
are assigned to open as well as closed bases and most cases of unequal
treatment that we found consisted of local attempts to resolve problems
flexibly rather than systematic extensions of special rights. For ex-
ample, some heterosexu l soldiers are allowed to live off-base or to
change units if they are having trouble with their group. And, some
comm anders allow
heterosexu l
so ldiers to shower privately . When gay
soldiers encounter hostility from others in their units, the issue tends to
be handled as a discrete situation rather than the symptom of a systemic
problem. Most importantly, we have not found any evidence to show
that differential treatment has undermined performance, cohesion , readi-
ness,
or mo rale. Indeed, most of the experts who confirmed that Israe l's
decision to lift its gay ban did not undermine performance, cohesion,
readiness, or morale also confirmed that the treatment of gays and
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 15/25
Belkin and Levitt 555
lesbians has not been perfectly equitable in all cases. Despite their
awareness that this is true, all experts agreed that lifting the gay ban did
not undermine military effectiveness.
Organizational and Cultural Differences
third argument that experts have invoked to show that foreign
military experiences are irrelevant for determining whether lifting the
gay ban would underm ine Am erican military performance is that impor-
tant organizational and cultural differences distinguish the United
States from other countries that allow known homosexuals to serve.
More specifically, they argue that the U.S. military is a unique institu-
tion that cannot be equated with foreign armed forces. In addition,
unlike most other countries, the United States is home to powerful gay
rights groups as well as large and highly organized conservative orga-
nizations.
In the case of Israel, this argumen t is correct. We believe that several
important organizationa l and cultural differences distinguish the Israeli
and American cases. To begin, many American citizens do not regard
service in the armed forces as a necessary rite of passage . In Israel, on
the other hand, the prevalence of security issues and the system of nea r-
universal conscription have made participation in the IDF the primary
rite of passage into Israeli citizenship and a necessary precondition for
consideration as a full member of society. Although the military's
prestige has declined somew hat in recent years, full participation in the
armed forces by gays and lesbians still is seen by many as the fulfillment
of a shared responsibility to defend the nation rather than as a threat to
military stability. According to W alzer, the IDF has been a unifying,
uniform experience for Israeli Jews; those who escape service, namely
the ultra-Orthodox, are highly resented by most Israeli Jews. That gays
and lesbians seek to contribute to their country through m ilitary service
is an affirmation of what the IDF tries to represen t itself
as:
an institution
that brings the diverse strata of Israeli society together. * Because
almost all Israelis serve in the armed forces, unit counselors who
confront problems involving adjustment to military life and interper-
sonal relations emphasize flexibility and mutual accommodation. In the
Am erican armed forces, by contrast, the system of voluntary enlistmen t
forces the military to compete with private sector em ployers who might
offer more promising career options to potential recruits.
Another distinction betw een the two cases is that Israeli society does
not have a longstanding tradition of anti-gay violence or hatred of
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 16/25
556 Armed Forces & Society/Summer 2001
h o m o s e x u a l s , a l t h o u g h o b s e r v e r s h a v e s p o k e n o f a s t r o n g h e t e r o s e x i s t
o u t l o o k , i n w h i c h o n e i s p r e s u m e d t o b e s t r a i g h t . * ' I n t h e m i l i t a r y
c o n t e x t , I D F c o m m a n d e r s d o n o t u s e n e g a t i v e i m a g e s o f h o m o s e x u a l i t y
a s a m o t i v a t o r i n b a s i c t r a i n i n g a n d t h e y d o n o t u s e t h e H e b r e w
e q u i v a l e n t o f f a g g o t t o h u m i l i a t e s o l d i e r s w h o p e r f o r m p o o r l y . W h i l e
t h e t e r m h o m o g e t s u s e d , it i s p r i m a r i l y e m p l o y e d b y s o l d i e r s t e a s i n g
each o ther .*^
F i n a l l y , u n l i k e s e x u a l m i n o r i t i e s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , h o m o s e x u -
a l s i n I s r a e l d i d n o t b e g i n to d e v e l o p a s e m i - a u t o n o m o u s c u l t u r e o r
o r g a n i z e d p o l i t i c a l m o v e m e n t u n t i l t h e l a t e 1 9 8 0 s a n d e a r l y 1 9 9 0 s .
W a l z e r s a y s t h a t u n t i l r e c e n t l y , t h e I s r a e l i g a y a n d l e s b i a n c o m m u n i t y
w a s n o t m o b i l i z e d to d e m a n d i ts r i g h t s a n d t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e v i c t o r i e s
s u c h a s t h e r e p e a l o f t h e s o d o m y l a w r e s u l t e d f ro m t o p - d o w n e l i t e
a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n g r a s s r o o t s p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e . C o n v e r s e l y , a n t i - g a y
f o r c e s a r e n o t o r g a n i z e d i n t o s o c ia l m o v e m e n t s in I s r a e l . F o r e x a m p l e ,
in t h e e a r l y 1 9 9 0 s G A O r e s e a r c h e r s w h o a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t o r g a n i -
z a t i o n s th a t o p p o s e h o m o s e x u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e m i l i ta r y w e r e t o l d
t h a t n o n e e x i s t . * ^
D e s p i t e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , w e d o n o t b e l i e v e
t h a t t h e I s r a e l i e x p e r i e n c e i s i r r e l e v a n t fo r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r A m e r i -
c a n m i l i ta r y e f f e c t i v e n e s s w o u l d s u ff e r if k n o w n h o m o s e x u a l s w e r e
a l l o w e d t o s e r v e i n t h e U . S . a r m e d f o r c e s . F o r e x a m p l e , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
s t r u c t u r e d o e s n o t s e e m t o p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r
t h e l if ti n g o f a g a y b a n u n d e r m i n e s m i l i ta r y p e r f o r m a n c e . N o t w o
m i l i t a r ie s a r e e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a n d t h e t w e n t y - t h r e e a r m e d f o r c e s t h a t
h a v e l i ft e d t h e i r g a y b a n s i n c l u d e d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f i g u r a -
t i o n s . *
S o m e m i l i t a r i e s , s u c h a s t h e C a n a d i a n F o r c e s , a r e v o l u n t e e r
o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t c e n t r a l t o n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y w h i l e o t h e r s s u c h
a s t h e I s r a e l D e f e n s e F o r c e s a r e c o n s c r i p t m i l i t a r i e s t h a t p l a y a m o r e
p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n t h e n a t i o n ' s c o n s c i o u s n e s s . I n t h e 2 7 y e a r s s i n c e t h e
D u t c h m i l i t a r y b e c a m e t h e f i r s t t o l i f t i t s b a n i n 1 9 7 4 , n o c o u n t r i e s t h a t
h a v e d e c i d e d t o a l l o w k n o w n h o m o s e x u a l s t o s e r v e h a v e r e p o r t e d a
d e c r e a s e i n m i l i ta r y p e r f o r m a n c e . G i v e n t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t ic u -
l a r i t i e s d o n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e l i ft i n g o f a g a y b a n u n d e r m i n e s t h e
a r m e d f o r c e s , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h t h e I s r a e l i
a n d A m e r i c a n m i l i t a r i e s d o n o t s u p p o r t t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t I D F e x p e r i -
e n c e s a r e i r r e l e v a n t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n i f t h e U . S .
a l l o w e d k n o w n h o m o s e x u a l s t o s e r v e .
W i t h r e s p e c t t o c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e I s r a e l i p u b l i c i s n o t c o m -
p l e t e l y a c c e p t i n g of h o m o s e x u a l i t y a n d A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y i s n o t c o m -
p l e t e l y i n t o l e r a n t . U n d e r t r a d i t i o n a l J e w i s h l a w , s e x b e t w e e n t w o m e n
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 17/25
Belk in and Levit t 7
is considered unclean, and a 1983 study found Israelis to be consider-
ably less toleran t of hom osexuality than Americans.*^ Although Israeli
culture has becom e more tolerant since 1983, religious parties con tinue
to oppose gay rights and gay and lesbian soldiers in the IDF continue to
serve in the context of a macho organizational culture that promotes a
masculinity oriented to heterosexuality and bonding through jokes
about women and homosexuals. While Israeli commanders do not use
the Hebrew equivalent of the word faggot, poor combat performance
often is equated with childishness and femininity and ...im ag es of
combat soldiers as masculine, tough and team oriented are often con-
trasted with stereotypes of homosexuality as characterized by effemi-
nacy, mental illness, promiscuity, lon eliness and insecurity. *^ A study
by Sion and Ben-Ari of the humor used in two elite combat units found
that jocu larity about sexuality was explicitly heterosexual and included
jokes and stories about homosexuals.*^ D iscussions of women and sex
continue to be a uniting factor for unit personnel, even as the strong bond
created in small units permits expressions of affection that would
generally be avoided in all-ma le groups.*' Just as Israeli culture is not
completely tolerant, American culture is not completely intolerant. For
example, a recent Gallup poll shows that 70 percent of Americans
believe that gays should be allowed to serve in the military, and a recent
Harris poll shows that 48 percent of Am ericans believe that nown gays
should be allowed to serve in the military.™
More importantly, tolerant national climates are not necessary for
maintaining cohesion, readiness, morale, and performance after the
integration of a minority group into the military. Among the twenty-
three nations that allow know n gays and lesbians to serve, many include
powerful social and political groups that oppose gay rights.' It would
not be possible for the numerous American police and fire departments
that include known homosexuals to continue to function smoothly if a
fully tolerant national climate were necessary for the maintenance of
organizational effectiveness. W ithout equating the experiences of sexual
and racial minorities, the U.S. military allowed African American
soldiers to serve on an equal basis when 63 percent of the American
public opposed integration.'^ We do not equate the experiences of
sexual and racial minorities but we do believe that the racial example
shows that tolerant cultural climates are not necessary for maintaining
organizational effectiveness when minority groups are integrated into
the military. According to a recent study, if the military services are
eventually ordered to cease excluding homosexuals who engage in
homosexual behavior, they will do so quite effectively and without
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 18/25
558 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
m a j o r i n c i d e n t s , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e l e a d e r s h i p . . . c l e a r l y c o m m u n i c a t e [ s ]
s u p p o r t f o r t h e c h a n g e . ^ ^
Conclusion
In our comprehensive search for published evidence and our inter-
views with all known experts on hom osexuality in the IDF , we were not
able to find any data suggesting that Israel's decision to lift its gay ban
undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion,
or morale. In this security-conscious country, where the military is
considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the
decision to include sexua l minorities has not harmed ID F effectiveness.
In addition, although no official statistics are available for harassment
rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials, and
represen tatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassm ent
is rare. Despite the facts that the majority of gay combat so ldiers do not
disclose their sexual orientation to peers, that some gay sold iers receiv e
special treatment, and that important organizational and cultural
differences distinguish the Israeli and American cases, we believe
that the Israeli experience supports the claim that American military
effectiveness would not decline if known homosexua ls were allowed to
serve.
Professor Laura Miller has argued that although straight soldiers'
reactions to open gays could undermine unit cohesion in the U.S.
military, merely lifting the gay ban would not undermine cohesion,
morale, readiness, or performance.^ M iller, whose conc lusions are
based on interviews she conducted over the past ten years with thou-
sands of American soldiers, reasons that few gays or lesbians would
come out of the closet in units where hostility and homophobia prevail.
Rather, she believes that American gay and lesbian soldiers would
disclose their sexual orientation to peers only when they believed it was
safe to do so. In other w ords, she draws a sharp distinction between the
effect of the decision to lift a gay ban and the effect of the presence of
known gays and lesbians in the military. The Israeli case seems to us to
confirm her distinction.
Notes
AUTHORS' NOTE:
We are grateful to the numerou s
individu ls
who helped us conduct
our research. In particular we offer deepest thanks to the service members officials
scholars and experts who generously allowed us to interview them. And w e are very
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 19/25
Belkin and Levit t 559
grateful to three anonym ous
reviewers
from
Armed Forces & Society,
as well as Stuart
Cohen, Eva
Etzioni-Halevy,
Aeyal Gross, Danny Kaplan, Mary Katzenstein, Ruth Linn,
Laura
Miller
David R. Segal, and Lee W alzer for their helpful
reactions
to earlier drafts
of the
manuscript.
Most
importantly,
we
thank Rhonda
Evans and
Jason McNichol.
1.
The longest case study on the impact of the lifting of a gay ban is Rosemary E. Park,
Opening the Canadian Forces to Gays and Lesbians: An Inevitable But Improbable
Reconfiguration, in
Gays and
Lesbians
in the
Military:
Issues, Concerns, and Con-
trasts, ed s. Wilbur J. Scott an d Sand ra C. Stanley (New York: Aldin e d e Gruyter,
1994), 165-181. Also see the brief case studies in Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe, and
Ralph Carney, eds.. Out in Eorce: Sexual Orientation and the M ilitary (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996); National Defense Research Institute, Sexual
Orientation and U.S . Military Policy: Options and Assessment
(Santa Monica, CA:
RAND, 1993); General Accounting Office, Hom osexuals in the Military: Policies
and Practices of Foreign Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. Gen eral Accounting
Office, 1993); and Frank Pond, A Comparative Survey a nd Ana lysis of Military
Policies with Regard to Service by Gay Persons, in
Policy
Concerning
Homosexu-
ality in the Armed Forces.
Hearing held by Sen ate Armed Services Committee.
103rd Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1993).
For theoretical analysis see W. Darryl Henderson,
Cohesion, the Human
Element in Combat (Washington, DC: National Defense Univ ersity Press, 1 985);
Ronald D. Ray, Military Necessity & Homosexuality, in
Gays: In or Out? The
U.S. Military Homosexuals A Sourcebook (New York: B rasse y's, 1 993); Charles
C. Moskos, From Citize n s' Army to Social L aboratory, Wilson Quarterly 17 (Win-
ter 1 993), 83-94; Elizabeth Kie r, Homosexuals in the U.S. Milit ary: Open In tegra-
tion and Combat Effectiveness, International Security 23 (1998): 5-39; Robert J.
MacCoun, Sexual Orien tation and Military Cohesion: A Critical Rev iew of the
Evidence, in Out in Force, 1 57-176.
2. Reuven Gal, Gays in the Military: Policy and Practice in the Israeli Defense Forces,
in Scott and Stanley, Gays and Lesbians in the Military, 181-189; National Defense
Research Institute, Sexual Orientation and
U.S.
Military Policy, 85-90; Gene ral Ac-
counting Office, Homosexuals in the Military, 38-43; Paul Gade, David Segal, and
Edgar Johnson, The Experien ce of Foreign Milita ries, in O ut in Force, 1 24-125.
3. Israe l's ground , air, and lan d forces includ e approximately 173,500 troops on activ e
duty and 425,000 on reserve. Anthony H. Cordesman,
Middle East
Military
Balance
2000
(Washington, DC: Cen ter for Security a nd Interna tional Studies, 2000).
4. B aruch Kimme rling,
The
Interrupted System (New B runswick, NJ: Tran saction B ooks,
1985); Reuven Gal and Stuart Cohen, Israel: Still Waitin g in the Win gs, in
The
Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War,
ed. Charles C. Moskos,
John Allen Williams, and David Segal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),
224. For recen t chan ges in the IDF's role in Israeli society, see Stuart Cohen, Mili-
tary Service in Israel: From Nation-B ind er to Nation -Divid er? Paper prepared for
B ESA Conference on Armed Forces in Israel and Other Western De mocratic Soci-
eties, Bar-Ilan University, 8-10 June 1998.
5. Israel does not conscript Arabs. Pregna nt and married women , those with seve re
handicaps, and ultra-orthodox Jews also are exempted from service. See Yagil Levy,
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 20/25
560 Arm e d Forc e s & Socie ty/Summer 2001
The Right to Fight: Recru itm ent of Ho m ose xuals in the U.S . and Israe l, Llnpub-
lished manuscript, 2000; Amia Lieblich,
Transition to Adulthood D uring Military
Service: The Israeli Case
(A lbany, NY: State University of New York Pres s, 1 989).
6. Clyde Haberm an, Hom ose xuals in Israeli A rm y: No Official Discrim ination, But
Keep It Secret,
New York Times,
21 February 1993, 14.
7.
Knesset Daily Hearings, Discrim ination and Hindrances of the A cce ptance of Se xual
Minorities in the IDF, 13th Knesset, 2nd Session, 10 February 1993, 3202-3208.
8. Lee Walzer, Between Sodom and Eden: A Gay Journey Through Today s Changing
Israel
(New York: Colum bia University Pre ss, 200 0), 1 17-118; Robert Bloc k, Gay
King David Theory Starts Goliath of a Row,
The Independent
11 February 1993,
11; The ssociated
Press, Defense Official S ays He Was Fired after Com ing Out as
Hom osexual, 2 F ebruary 1993.
9. A m ir Sum akai Fink and Jacob Press,
Independence
Park: The Lives of
Gay
Men in
Israel
(Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 1999), 11 .
10 .
A m endm ents to K-31-11-01 Service of Homosexuals in the IDF, Manpower Division
Standing Orders
(Israel De fense F or ce s, 1993). Fo r the English translation, see Walzer,
Between Sodom and Eden,
118-119. Professor Aeyal Gross of Tel Aviv University
reports in a forthcoming article that the 1993 revisions were canceled quietly in 1998.
11.
Stuart Cohen, Personal com m unication, 10 A pril 20 00 .
12 .
Charles Gibson, anchor, U.S . S truggling with Issu e of Gays in the Military ,
ABC
News, 9 March 2000.
13.
A nonym ous, Personal com m unication, 18 March 20 00 .
14.
A m ir Fink, Personal com m unication, 11 A pril 200 0.
15 .
The following section is based o n Ma'ayan Zigdo n, Com ing out of the Kitbag,
Ba m achne, 22 October 1999, 21 -25.
16.
In one case, for exam ple, two (heterosexual) soldiers m ade a bet to see who would
perform oral sex on whom . Gay so ldiers present at the time were appalled by the
incident. See Walzer,
Between Sodom and Eden.
Approximately three-quarters of
our interview subjects mentioned that vicious harassment is rare, although approxi-
mately two-thirds had heard negative comments about gay and lesbian people during
their military service.
17 .
Walzer,
Between
Sodom and Eden.
18.
A nonym ous, Personal com m unication, 27 March 200 0.
19.
This paragraph is based o n Walzer,
Between Sodom and Eden,
134 and Walzer,
Personal com m unication, 14 A pril 20 00 .
20.
Fo r recent problem s conc erning the sexual harassm ent of fem ale so ldiers in the
m ilitary, see Stacy Feldm an, The Gender Battlefield,
The Jerusalem Report
10 April
2 0 0 0 , 11;
Gayil Hareven, Of Vice and Men,
The Jerusalem Report
10 Apr il 2000 .
2 1 .
Raanan Gabbay, Personal com m unication, 9 A pril 20 00 ; Oren Slozberg, Personal
communication, 9 April 2000; Dan Yakir, Personal communication; 25 March 2000.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 21/25
Belkin and Levit t
561
All three are affiliated with gay rights groups in Israel.
22 . National Defense Research Institute, Sexual O rientation and U.S. M ilitary Policy,
85-90; General Accounting Office, Homosexuals in the Military, 38-43.
2 3.
General Accounting Office, Homosexuals in the
Military,
43.
24. Gal, Gays in the Military, in Gays and Lesbians in the
Military,
188.
25. Gabbay, Personal communication, 9 April 2 000.
26 . Janet Halley, Don't: A Reader's Guide to the Military's Anti-Gay Policy (Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1999); Urvashi Vaid, Virtual
Equality:
The Mainstreaming
of Gay Lesbian Liberation (New York: Anchor Books, 1995).
27 . Policy C oncerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces; The C onnection, National
Public Radio 2 0 December 1999; C harles C . Moskos and Stacey L. Sobel, Should
Gays Serve,
Salon
13 June 2000, available at
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/
2000/06/13/fight_club/index].html
28. Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, 350.
29. C harles C . Moskos, From C itizens' Army to Social Laboratory, in Gays and Lesbi-
ans in
the Military,
6 4.
30. World Affairs C ouncil Weekly Broadcast, National Public Radio 1 May 2000;
The C onnection, National Public Radio 2 0 December 1999.
31.
National Defense Research Institute,
Sexual O rientation and U.S. Military Policy,
85-90; General Accounting Office, Homosexuals in the
Military,
38-43.
32 .
Haberman, Homosexuals in Israeli Army, 14.
33. Pond, A C omparative Survey, in Policy Concerning Homosexuality.
34. Gal, Gays in the Military, in Gays a nd Lesbians in the
Military,
186.
35. Approximately two-thirds of our interview subjects spoke about the openness or
growing openness of the IDF, although not everyone framed the is sue this way .
For example, one respondent said that she had seen no change over time but
that she had always found the IDF to be accepting of gays and lesbians. There
was a general consensus among interviewees that negative attitudes about ho-
mosexuals persist but that the military, like the rest of Israeli society, is becoming
more accepting.
36 .
C ited in Walzer,
etween Sodom and Eden,
133.
37 . Aeyal M. Gross, Between the Homosocial and the Homoerotic: Gays/Military in
C omparative and International Law—A Summary, Unpublished m anuscript, 2000 .
38.
C ited in Walzer, etween Sodom and Eden, 114.
39. Anonymous, Personal communication, 30 March 2 000.
40.
Zigdon, C oming out of the Kitbag, 2 5; 2 2 .
41 .
Danny Kaplan and Eyal Ben-A ri, Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 22/25
562 Armed Forces
Society/Summer 2001
Identity in Combat Units of the Israeli Army,
Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra-
phy 29, 4 (forthcoming); Danny Kaplan, Personal communication, 18 July 2000.
Interviewees reflected a broad range of social backgrounds and served in elite infan-
try brigades, the armored corps, artillery units, combat engineering units, navy attack
ships,
and submarines and pilots' school. Interviewees served 3 to 4 years from 1980
to 1996. While most were sergeants, two were officers
42 . The two percent figure is conservative. Canadian experts, for example, estimate that
3.5 percent of the Canadian armed forces consists of gay and lesbian soldiers. Sur-
veys have found that 7.3 percent of American veterans have had gay sex. See Aaron
Belkin and Jason McNichol, Effects of
the
1992 L ifting of
Restrictions
on Gay and
Lesbian Service in the C anadian Arm ed F orces: Appraising the Evidence
(Santa
Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, 2000),
available at www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu; Lois Shawer,
And the Flag Was Still There:
Straight People, Gay Peo ple and Sexuality in the U.S. Military
(Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press, 1995), 198.
43.
Fink, Personal comm unication, 11 April 2000.
44. Paul Koegel, Lessons Learned from the Experiences of Domestic Police and Fire
Departments, in
Out in Force,
137.
45 .
Koegel, Lessons Learned, in Out in
Force,
138.
46.
John W. Bicknell, Jr.,
Study of Naval O fficers Attitudes Toward Homosexuals in the
Military
(Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School). Master's thesis, 2000, 176.
47 .
Bicknell,
Study of Naval Officers Attitudes.
48 . Theodore R. Sarbin and Kenneth E. Karols, Nonconforming Sexual Orientations
and Military Suitability, in Gay s in Uniform ; The Pentagon s Secret Reports, ed.
Kate Dyer (Boston, MA: Alyson Publications, Inc., 1990), 34-35. This is also known
as the PERSEREC report.
49 .
Moskos, From Citizens' Army to Social Laboratory, in
Gays and L esbians in the
Military,
64.
50 .
Gal, Gays in the Military, in
Gays
and
Lesbians
in the
Military,
187.
51 .
Israeli Army Denies Discriminating Against Homosexual Soldiers,
The ssociated
Press,
7 February 1993.
52 .
Eric Silver, Easier to Be Gay,
Jerusalem
Post, 25 February 1993.
53 .
Haberman, Homosexuals in Israeli Arm y.
54.
Silver, Easier to Be Gay ; Sasha Sadan and Asher Wallfish, IDF Policy on Draft-
ing Gays Won't Change,
Jerusalem Post
8 February 1993.
55.
Zigdon, Coming out of the Kitbag, 24.
56 .
Gabbay, Personal comm unication, 29 March 2000.
57 . Zigdon, Coming out of the Kitbag, 21-25.
58 . Kaplan and Ben-Ari, Brothers and Others in Arm s.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 23/25
Belkin and Levitt 563
59 . Approximateiy three-quarters of our interview subjects said that some discrimination
exists but that in general, sexual orientation is not a major issue with regard to
promotions or equal treatment.
60 .
Walzer, Personal communication, 14 April 2000.
61 . Walzer, etween Sodom and Eden, 16.
62.
Danny Kaplan, The Military as a Second Bar Mitzvah: Combat Service as an
Initiation Rite to Zionist Masculinity,
in Imagined Masculinities: Male Identity and
Culture in the Modern Middle East,
ed. Emma Sinclair-Webb and Mai Ghoussoub
(London: Al-Saqi Books, forthcoming).
63 . Walzer, Between Sodom and Eden, 19. General Accounting Office, Homosexuals in
the Military.
64 .
A list of nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces is available
on the web site of the International Gay Lesbian Association at http://www ilga org/
InformationAegal_survey/Summary%20information/armed_forces.htm
65 . Gade et al., The Experience of Foreign Militaries, in
Ou t in Fo rce.
66 . Gal, Gays in the Military, in Gays
and
Lesbians
in the
Military.
67. Kaplan, The Military as a Second Bar Mitzvah, in Imagined
Ma sculinities,
Kaplan
and Ben-Ari, Brothers and Others in Arm s ; Michael Levertov, Male Preserve,
Ha'aretz Magazine,
4 June 1999; C. W. Anderson and H. R. Smith, Stigma and
Honor: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People in the U.S Military, in Homosexual
Issues in the Workplace,
ed. L . D iamant (W ashington, DC: Taylor and Francis,
1993), 65-89 .
68 .
L. Sion and Eyal Ben-Ari, Hungry, Weary, and Hom y: Humor and Laughter in
Israe l's Military Reserves. Unpublished manuscript.
69 . Danny Kaplan,
rother and Others in Arms: The Making of Love and War in Israeli
Combat Units
(Binghamton, NY, forthcoming).
70. Gallup Polls 2000. Available at h t tp: / /www.gallup.com/poll /Indicators/
indhomosexual.asp; The Harris Poll Election 2000 , (PRNew swire, 15 February
2000).
71. Barry Adam, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Andre Krouwel, eds.. The Global Emer-
gence of Gay and Lesbian Politics; National Imprints of a Worldwide Movement
(Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1999).
72. Elizabeth Kier, Rights and Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness,
International Security
24,
1 (Summer 1999): 196.
73. Gade et al., The Experience of Foreign Militaries, in O ut in Force, 127.
74 . Laura Miller, Are Open Gays a Threat to Cohesion, Lecture presented to the
Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, University of California,
Santa Barbara, 21 April 2000, available at http;//www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/
programs. htm six
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 24/25
564 Armed Forces Society/Summer 2001
Appendix 1
Personal Communications
Anonymous Female). Former Soldier, Israeli Defense Forces. 19 March 2000.
Anonymous Male). Former Captain, Israeli Defense Forces. 22 March 2000.
Anonym ous Female). Major, Military Intelligence, Israeli Defense Forces. 27 March
2000.
Anonymous Male). Former Soldier. 25 February 2000.
Anonym ous Male). Officer, ID F Mental Health Unit. 28 March 2000.
Asher, Arian. Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center of the City University of
New York. 3 March 2000.
Brom, Shlomo. Brigadier-General ret.) and Research Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic
Studies, Tel Aviv University. 6 March 2000.
Cohen, Stuart. Professor of Political Studies and Senior Research Fellow, Center for
Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University. 22 March, 24 March, 2 April, 5 April, 10
April 2000.
Dale,
Andrew. Israeli Citizen. 3 February, 13 April, and 15 April 2000.
D.
Monica. Shatil Organization, New Israel Fund. 16 March 2000.
Demchak, Chris. Professor of Political Science and Public Administration, University of
Arizona. 11 April 2000.
El-Ad, Hagai. U.S. Coordinator for Jerusalem Open House. 7 March 2000.
Drori, Gili. Post-Doctoral Candidate, Center for International Security and Cooperation,
Stanford University. 26 March 2000.
Eskenazi, Jean-Marc. Coordinator, Pa-amayim at UC Berkeley. 27 February 2000.
Fink, Amir. Scholar and Co-Author of
ndependence
Park The Lives of Gay Men in
Israel
11 April 2000.
Gabbay, Raanan. Board Member and Chair of the Overseas Relations Committee of
Agudaht Zechuyot Ha-ezrach. 25 February, 28 March, 9 April 2000.
Gal, Reuven. Director, Israeli Institute for Military Studies. 5 April 2000.
Galili, Shuly. New Israel Fund, San Francisco Office. 19 February 2000.
Giladi, Eival. IDF Lt. General and Research Fellow, Center for International Security and
Cooperation, Stanford University. 29 March 2000.
Gross,
Aeyal. Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University. 4, 28, 29 March 2000.
Ben-Eliyahu, Hadass. Behavioral Scientist, Israeli Defense Forces. 8 April 2000.
7/23/2019 Homsexuality and Israel Defense Forces
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homsexuality-and-israel-defense-forces 25/25
Belkin and Levitt 6
Harel, Alon. Professor of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 21 March and 13
April 2000.
Heller, Mark. Research Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.
27 February 2000.
Kaplan, Daniel. Scholar and Author of David Jonathan and O ther Soldiers. 19 February,
29 March, 18 July 2000.
Lev, Shai. Deputy Director, Israel Department of Defense. 28 March 2000.
Levy, Yagil. Research Fellow, Hubert Humphrey Institute for Social Research, Ben Gurion
University. 4 March and 15 April 2000.
Misrahi, Meytal. Founder, Israel Foreign Lesbos. 20 March 2000.
Molcho, Michal. Former Lieutenant, Organizational Counselor, Israeli Defense Forces. 18
March 2000.
Rimalt, Zvi. Former Soldier, Israeli Defense Forces. 28 February 2000.
Shapir, Yiftah. Research Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.
27 February 2000.
Shachar, Rena. Israeli citizen. 20 March 2000.
Slozberg, Oren. Program Director, LYRIC. 28 February 2000.
Vitemberg, Ilan. Former Soldier, Israeli Citizen. 6 March 2000.
Walzer, Lee I. Author, B etween Sodom to
Eden:
A Gay ourney Through Today s C hang-
ing
Israel. 24 February 2000.
Yakir, Dan. Association for Citizens Rights in Israel. 25 March 2000.