The debate over women in combat is no longer about whether some women can serve effectively. Clearly, some can. The deeper question is whether every military role must be opened in the name of equality, regardless of operational consequences.
A Kantian principle offers a useful test: if a rule cannot function when universally applied, it should not be treated as an absolute moral law. If complete interchangeability between men and women cannot sustain the army, the family and society, then it cannot become the organizing principle of national defense.
Consider reserve duty. If mothers and fathers are both sent to the front, who remains with the children? The theoretical answer is that either parent can. The social and biological reality is more complicated, especially during pregnancy and early parenthood.
The battlefield is not an arena for personal fulfillment or ideological experimentation. It exists to defeat the enemy. Israel’s adversaries will not respect its theories of equality; they will exploit every weakness those theories create.
Women make essential contributions to the IDF. But equal dignity does not require identical deployment, identical standards or the abolition of every distinction between the sexes.
The prime minister and defense minister must explain whether combat integration is based on military evidence or political pressure. Their silence allows ideology to replace strategy.
The test should be simple: Does the policy make Israel more capable of winning?
